New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,932
Name
Stu
Stan will probably build out Inglewood as a retail / entertainment complex. It's what he does.

I'm of the opinion that once the time comes when Stan sits down with STL about the stadium, he will either make a sweetheart deal with a long term lease and control or just buy it out.

I will bet he won't even ask to move come the deadline IF STL is over all hurdles and under construction.
This is where I have been for quite some time. Maybe I'm just stubborn but I think Stan actually would still prefer to keep his team in MO provided he can make a deal that gives him elite status among the other owners. I don't see him settling.

Oh well... as the world turns....
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Falcons owner is pitching in over a billion on his stadium;Vikings have covered $529 million for their stadium, including the $52 million in latest additional costs.

The deal is not bad or unrealistic at all from that stand point, and seems to be on par with other stadium deals around the league

There's is no comparison. Atlanta and Minnesota are both owner driven and that neither one entered into a relocation agreement to bring the teams to the cities. The only comparison is Indy because of the similar situation.
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,427
Name
Wes
Same guy that owns the Sabers bought the Bills. He's from Pennsylvania I guess he lives in Buffalo now not certain though.
Yup. Terry Pegula. The dude practically owns buffalo now. He is probably the most loved owner in the league. Because he actually says words and whatnot.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
There's is no comparison. Atlanta and Minnesota are both owner driven and that neither one entered into a relocation agreement to bring the teams to the cities. The only comparison is Indy because of the similar situation.

Actually, in terms of money, there is a comparison. I don't think the mindset of the owners is going to matter in any vote or selection process, because obviously all three want to move. Does the reason really matter, since none of the three teams are actually losing money? What iced is saying, I think, is that Stan can't say it's an awful deal no one would accept. Or that the NFL will rule it unacceptable. Because, clearly two others at least have accepted similar.
 

tahoe

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 19, 2014
Messages
1,664
It all seems to be shaping up to get all three teams new stadiums. At this point Id bet on the rams not even filing for relocation. I just don't see how the NFL can turn its back on a ready to go stadium proposal. All of the LA reporters have bought in so hard on the "Stan is dieing to get to LA" that is all they can see. I may be in the minority but I believe Kroenke never had Englewood as his primary option but rather his back up plan if St Louis didn't get anything done. He has played the game flawlessly so far.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,115
He has played the game flawlessly so far.
I tend to agee, although my belief has always been that if Carson tanks, Kroenke goes to LA. And if Carson stays together, he takes the hero walk in St Louis for getting a new stadium built
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Is A Public Vote Over Riverfront Stadium Still Possible?--KPLR

St. Louis Circuit Judge Thomas Frawley threw out an ordinance, Monday, requiring voter approval on a new riverfront home for the St. Louis Rams. There still could be a public vote. Even though the city legally no longer has a stadium ordinance, it has a Board of Aldermen. Aldermen still have to approve any spending. They can still force a vote of the people with or without the ordinance.

Watch KPLR Stadium Vote Story
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Actually, in terms of money, there is a comparison. I don't think the mindset of the owners is going to matter in any vote or selection process, because obviously all three want to move. Does the reason really matter, since none of the three teams are actually losing money? What iced is saying, I think, is that Stan can't say it's an awful deal no one would accept. Or that the NFL will rule it unacceptable. Because, clearly two others at least have accepted similar.

Completely different. The owners initiated the proposals and the cities didn't have a contractual obligation to the teams. Peacock has stated that the Riverfront proposal has lower percentage of public participation than the average for the other NFL cities. Currently the public side is less than 40% without shortfalls and the average is close to 60% from the other cities over the last 20 years.

It's not the dollar amount but the percentage of participation.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
L.A.-area venues showing little interest in being temporary NFL hosts
By Nathan Fenno and Sam Farmer

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-la-coliseum-20150804-story.html


The NFL might be the country's No. 1 sport, but Los Angeles-area venues aren't scrambling to position themselves as temporary homes if one or more of the league's teams relocate.

With a key date approaching Wednesday, only the Coliseum has publicly expressed interest in hosting a team. When it contacted five area venues in June, the NFL asked that proposal requests be submitted by Aug. 5.
See the most-read stories in Sports this hour >>

As the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders pursue a shared stadium concept in Carson and the St. Louis Rams focus on a plan in Inglewood, the NFL has had various difficulties lining up potential temporary venues.

"We've really just begun," said Eric Grubman, the NFL senior vice president who is the league's point man on the L.A. market. "Aug. 5 was a date that helped us know what venues might be available in a traditional sense and I think that has sorted itself out. … Other, more complex opportunities could very well present themselves as the picture becomes clearer."

Two stadiums have already publicly pulled out of the competition.

On Monday, Anschutz Entertainment Group confirmed to The Times that it will not submit a bid to host a team at the 27,000-seat StubHub Center.

That comes on the heels of the Rose Bowl Operating Co. surprising the league last month by opting not to respond to the NFL's request. Despite years of previous efforts to lure a franchise, then spending the money and time on the necessary entitlements to position the stadium as a temporary site, the RBOC voted unanimously to pursue an annual music festival.

An aerial view of a new rendering of the proposed $1.7-billion, open-air stadium in Carson that could be the home field for both the Chargers and Raiders.

"The position of the board remains the same," RBOC President and Pasadena City Councilman Victor Gordo said Monday. "The RBOC is focused on bringing a world-class music and arts festival to Pasadena."

The NFL's request for proposals noted that the league's initial review of submissions would be completed by Wednesday, with the expectation of finalizing any agreements in the fall.

The two other options aren't as straightforward.

An individual with knowledge of the situation said that the area's two baseball stadiums are continuing a dialogue with the NFL but won't participate in the traditional proposal request process.

One reason for that could be scheduling issues, as early-season NFL games in August and September would be problematic with baseball schedules. How many years a stadium would be needed as a temporary venue might be an issue, as well.

An Angels spokesman said Monday that nothing had changed for the organization since last month when it said that being the temporary host of an NFL team would be "very difficult" because of scheduling conflicts.

A Dodgers spokesman declined to comment.

Grubman isn't concerned by the response to the NFL requests.

"In any event," he said, "I think this works itself out by the end of this year."
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Completely different. The owners initiated the proposals and the cities didn't have a contractual obligation to the teams. Peacock has stated that the Riverfront proposal has lower percentage of public participation than the average for the other NFL cities. Currently the public side is less than 40% without shortfalls and the average is close to 60% from the other cities over the last 20 years.

It's not the dollar amount but the percentage of participation.


Owners initiating=doesn't matter. In fact it helps St Louis for other owners to initiate stadiums instead of jumping for the money.

City have contractual commitment? Been covered to death already. Widely accepted common knowledge from just about every source now that both sides wanted out of the dome contract. Arbitration over, no more commitments, doesn't matter anymore as it pertains to this stadium.

Monetary output from Stan similar to other owners. Doesn't have to be exact proportion to be acceptable to the NFL. Stan doesn't have to love the proposal in order to lose the vote to move. He's welcome to sell the team if he's that put out.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Owners initiating=doesn't matter. In fact it helps St Louis for other owners to initiate stadiums instead of jumping for the money.

City have contractual commitment? Been covered to death already. Widely accepted common knowledge from just about every source now that both sides wanted out of the dome contract. Arbitration over, no more commitments, doesn't matter anymore as it pertains to this stadium.

Monetary output from Stan similar to other owners. Doesn't have to be exact proportion to be acceptable to the NFL. Stan doesn't have to love the proposal in order to lose the vote to move. He's welcome to sell the team if he's that put out.

It doesn't matter that both wanted out of the dome. The relocation agreement was a contractual commitment which was the basis for the Rams move and for the NFL to approve the relocation. The Rams will stay if it makes the most financial sense and if the the long term revenues are certain, if they're not then as Grubman said it would be unlikely for the other owners to vote to approve the proposal from the home market even with approved stadium financing.

Saying he can sell is just like saying he's going rouge, neither are likely.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
It doesn't matter that both wanted out of the dome. The relocation agreement was a contractual commitment which was the basis for the Rams move and for the NFL to approve the relocation. The Rams will stay if it makes the most financial sense and if the the long term revenues are certain, if they're not then as Grubman said it would be unlikely for the other owners to vote to approve the proposal from the home market even with approved stadium financing.

Saying he can sell is just like saying he's going rouge, neither are likely.

They've made money for 20 years without winning a damned thing so I think the long term revenues are fine. That strikes me as a copout statement. That's basically the NFL leaving room to do what it wants, not a logical statement.

"The long term outlook is cloudy, despite realms of info showing that it's not. 20 years is just not enough time to make a decision."

Grubman says shit all day, and it changes depending on which side of the fence the reporter asking the question is on.

The relocation agreement's contractual commitment is over by essentially mutual decision. It has ended. Whatever happened with the dome is over. It's finished. Kaput. Every time we clear another hurdle in the path to a new stadium, it's another hole in Stan's "poor me I don't have a choice" argument. At a certain point it may not work in his favor that he refused to sit down and really work before jumping into LA, especially if it comes down to a competitive vote between Carson and Inglewood.

When I said he could sell, that was not a statement to be taken literally. It was more a "if he don't like it, I welcome him to take a long walk off a short pier" kind of a thing.
 

ramfaninsd

UDFA
Joined
Apr 23, 2015
Messages
43
It all seems to be shaping up to get all three teams new stadiums. At this point Id bet on the rams not even filing for relocation. I just don't see how the NFL can turn its back on a ready to go stadium proposal. All of the LA reporters have bought in so hard on the "Stan is dieing to get to LA" that is all they can see. I may be in the minority but I believe Kroenke never had Englewood as his primary option but rather his back up plan if St Louis didn't get anything done. He has played the game flawlessly so far.

san diego's proposal is ready to go also, but it seems it is ok for spanos to reject it, but stan must accept st louis's offer.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
san diego's proposal is ready to go also, but it seems it is ok for spanos to reject it, but stan must accept st louis's offer.

If Spanos is getting a similar deal from SD, I don't think it's ok to reject that either. Although he's much, much better shape to claim too little too late. Right now, IMO the Raiders, who have been basically told to go play with themselves, have the only real cause for relocation.

The Rams didn't have cause the first time.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
san diego's proposal is ready to go also, but it seems it is ok for spanos to reject it, but stan must accept st louis's offer.
Been there, done that many times over this subject in this thread. I will say that as long as the Rams stay in St. Louis, I couldn't care less about what happens in SD and I'm sure their fans feel the same way about us.
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The relocation agreement's contractual commitment is over by essentially mutual decision. It has ended. Whatever happened with the dome is over. It's finished. Kaput. Every time we clear another hurdle in the path to a new stadium, it's another hole in Stan's "poor me I don't have a choice" argument. At a certain point it may not work in his favor that he refused to sit down and really work before jumping into LA, especially if it comes down to a competitive vote between Carson and Inglewood.

Did any of the owners? Davis just said "Well we want to but we can't afford it, figure it out." Spanos said "We're open to anything!" and then shit all over literally everything that was put forward, to the point they're putting out fake letters from the NFL and the city is trying to sue to remove the pointman.. Kroenke said "Okay, well I'm leaving then"

I don't see how any of the others really sat down and worked... In fact if that's what we're going off, I'd say that Demoff is the only person who at least come off as sincere in his work. Sure Davis is probably the only owner who really wants to stay, but he hasn't really done anything (because frankly he can't)...

I don't think Stan's argument is going to rely more on "I don't have a choice" and is probably more along the lines of:

"So they can just ignore a part of the lease and then offer up something less to force me in? What happens when you guys who have these top tier agreements come up to this point, can your cities do the same? I have the money and the ability to maximize LA, my project is better and in a better place, it's a project that doesn't have any potential issues, it's there quicker, it's a grand slam out of the park, and I'm willing to go in with either Spanos or Davis (assuming he changes his tune, which I think he has to in order to get LA) as well, and help the other person out, AND I've set up St Louis for another team who needs to get something done and might look to relocate"



That's just a guess, but it would likely be a much stronger argument than he doesn't have a choice. There's still a lot of time for things to change in all this.
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
san diego's proposal is ready to go also, but it seems it is ok for spanos to reject it, but stan must accept st louis's offer.
SDs proposal is not as far along as St Louis is. and i think you would he hard pressed to find anyone on here who think the Chargers shouldnt be made to stay in SD if a NFL approved plan was put in place. me personally i feel for all three fan bases. unless a team is losing money, or playing in an outdated stadium that they cant get their city to help replace they should not be able to move.
honestly what i think should have happened is expansion, add an NFC and an AFC team to LA next year, they had people lining up to build a stadium for this. then i would add another NFC/AFC team in 2018,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.