New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[tonyl711]

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 crap 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.

offer up something less to force me in??? a brand new stadium is something less?

 

[The Ripper]

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 crap 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.

The NFL questioned the long term revenues in St Louis after the guarantees ended and they dropped off. The argument of a bad team only goes so far the Rams where still tops in the league for revenues even in 1994.

How is it over? The lease and provisions of it it remain. The only change is that the team lease's expires every year with a team option to renew and no first tier review. The remaining lease is still in force which gives the Rams the right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and to relocate at the end of any lease period.

The Grubman question was directly related to St Louis at the last owners meeting in the lobby with most of the reporters there and asking questions.

I think the league office should join Kroenke on his walk.

 

[The Ripper]

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,

The NFL doesn't want to go back to LA with an expansion team as the lead.

 

[bluecoconuts]

offer up something less to force me in??? a brand new stadium is something less?

Yes, the Riverfront stadium doesn't appear to qualify as a top tier stadium. That doesn't mean it's not good, I love the stadium (other than the video screens) but as far as I can tell it doesn't quality for top tier in all the categories. Therefore that would set the precedence that the city can not live up to that clause and then offer a stadium that while good, is less than what they would get if the original lease was followed. A few reporters have already written the NFL wont be happy about doing that.

 

[RamFan503]

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

This is about the most factual thing said in the last month.

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.

I think Ripper is saying that a take it or leave it as you are coming with isn't going to cut it either. Y

ou can say that all of these proposals are better or as good as and that SDs and OAKs are worse but when you start looking at them, there are a lot of numbers used in various ways that make them apples to oranges. Personally, I think the NFL likes it that way as it keeps ambiguity in the air.

I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that I thought the end game all along would be for the Rams to stay in St Louis. But I think it would not serve people well to assume that just because the task force comes up with a plan that is doable on their end and can be sold politically in the local market that it is going to automatically put them over the top of the other two markets.

Also, what other owners have done in their situations is totally different and difficult to compare. And the ATL numbers offered by @iced are not remotely apples to apples. If you have time, read through them and I think you will see that. All these proposals seem to vary by what is considered owner contribution and what is considered public money and what would normally go to an owner, etc.... It's all pretty convoluted. Even calling Levi field a privately funded venture is pretty rich really.

 

[tonyl711]

Yes, the Riverfront stadium doesn't appear to qualify as a top tier stadium. That doesn't mean it's not good, I love the stadium (other than the video screens) but as far as I can tell it doesn't quality for top tier in all the categories. Therefore that would set the precedence that the city can not live up to that clause and then offer a stadium that while good, is less than what they would get if the original lease was followed. A few reporters have already written the NFL wont be happy about doing that.

that clause went out the window in arbitration, and what are you seeing that isnt top tier? is it Jerry world? no, but it would more than hold its own against any other IMO.

 

[blue4]

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

Since top tier has proved unrealistic, that may very be what has to happen. Unless the NFL wants the Toronto Bengals, the Hartford Jaguars, the Poughkeepsie So and Sos, and so on.

AND I've set up St Louis for another team who needs to get something done and might look to relocate"

At what point do we stop looking for ways to make Stan look like a benevolent good guy forced in to a bad situation? Why not claim he did this all to renovate downtown while we're at it.

Demoff is the only person who at least come off as sincere in his work.

I'll tell that to my friend at work, who still has a few untruths from Demoff saved on his phone from emails, social media. I'll step out right after so I don't have to listen to another rant.

the city is trying to sue to remove the pointman..

What does that mean? 14 years is 14 years. Suing to remove the newest point man is PR, a hail Mary.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

Gotta figure that would be dead on balls accurate.

 

[tonyl711]

The NFL doesn't want to go back to LA with an expansion team as the lead.

IMO that would make the most sense, i know those of you on here would rather have the Rams, and i dont blame you, but as in any business it is geared towards youth, and the youth in LA havent grown up rooting for any home team, so 2 expansion teams should go over well with them.

 

[The Ripper]

IMO that would make the most sense, i know those of you on here would rather have the Rams, and i dont blame you, but as in any business it is geared towards youth, and the youth in LA havent grown up rooting for any home team, so 2 expansion teams should go over well with them.

The issue is not so much the fan support but how long it would take for an expansion to team to get up and running. It would most likely be 2020 before a team would be ready. That time frame fits for the tv contracts and the new owner would only be out 2 years of shared revenue. The NFL might be working on that for a 2nd team in LA or an expansion team for one or two of the home markets. The same way they did it in Cleveland. They had the stadium proposal ready but the revenues were greater in Baltimore so the team was allowed to move and the NFL guaranteed the owners contribution for the stadium that was paid back from an increase in the expansion fee.

The NFL is too far along for there not to be a team in LA in 2016.

 

[blue4]

But I think it would not serve people well to assume that just because the task force comes up with a plan that is doable on their end and can be sold politically in the local market that it is going to automatically put them over the top of the other two markets.

But I'm not assuming anything. I've been pretty clear as well that I think there's a good chance the Rams may leave. I'm responding to assumptions. Statements along the lines of "the NFL WILL do this this, the NFL WILL see it like that." I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that the NFL is predisposed to see things Stan's way, or to view SD's cries about Fabino as justified after 14 years. It kind of amazes me a little that SD gets so much sympathy on this website despite 14 years of gameplay between them and Spanos.

 

[RamFan503]

that clause went out the window in arbitration, and what are you seeing that isnt top tier? is it Jerry world? no, but it would more than hold its own against any other IMO.

The clause was part of the agreement that would send it to arbitration - so no - I can't see how it is out the window.

And though the proposed new stadium is cool and new, I haven't seen where many consider it and its capabilities as top tier - as dumbass as the whole top tier issue is.

 

[Rmfnlt]

as dumbass as the whole top tier issue is.

Is there a definition for "top tier"?

 

[iced]

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.

Vikings threatened to move to LA also... so yea, I'd say that alone makes it similar.

Unless of course we're now gonna start pretending LA hasn't been used for leverage over the past 20 years?

 

[bluecoconuts]

that clause went out the window in arbitration, and what are you seeing that isnt top tier? is it Jerry world? no, but it would more than hold its own against any other IMO.

Disagree, the new stadium may not need to meet those top tier requirements in the future, but the NFL will most likely take it into account when looking over everything. It is a very important aspect in all of this, because it gives the NFL the wiggle room needed to do what they want, including telling St Louis the stadium is good, but not good enough. I would be incredibly shocked if they didn't take it into account.

Since top tier has proved unrealistic, that may very be what has to happen. Unless the NFL wants the Toronto Bengals, the Hartford Jaguars, the Poughkeepsie So and Sos, and so on.

I doubt the NFL will want that to happen. At least not in the first round, they're going to hold off as long as possible. That way if the Bengals, if the Texans DO want to relocate they're not forced into a corner, and if they don't want to relocate then they will happily take the lesser deals. That's the key issues isn't just letting that aspect slide, it's forcing the owner into accepting it.

At what point do we stop looking for ways to make Stan look like a benevolent good guy forced in to a bad situation? Why not claim he did this all to renovate downtown while we're at it.

It's not that, I'm just trying to think of what the argument he is going to make. Obviously he's going to make himself look better, why wouldn't he?

'll tell that to my friend at work, who still has a few untruths from Demoff saved on his phone from emails, social media. I'll step out right after so I don't have to listen to another rant.

Of course he has, everyone has. He's been better than Fabiani though, and since Davis hasn't done anything that's who we have to compare him to if that's what we're doing. I've said for a while though, that Demoff has a job to do so he's going to tell half truths and say what he needs to try to sell tickets.

What does that mean? 14 years is 14 years. Suing to remove the newest point man is PR, a hail Mary.

It's not a PR move trying to sue him, before things weren't ever really getting off the ground, they would try to get something done, the Chargers would say no, they would start over. Sometimes the politics in the city would stop things, sometimes the team. The only thing that changed was that now the Chargers look serious to move, and the city knows they don't have time. So they don't have time to go and start from scratch again, they need to keep momentum up, and they feel that Fabiani isn't just saying no, but he's actively trashing the city which hurts them in the future. They don't like that obviously, it's a very toxic relationship.

Is there a definition for "top tier"?

The NFL does, there's a few categories, size, parking, amenities, suites, etc and they all have to be in the top tier of them to be considered a top tier stadium. They haven't ever released the different requirements though as far as I can tell.

Vikings threatened to move to LA also... so yea, I'd say that alone makes it similar.

The Vikings floated the idea and traveled around LA for a dog and pony show, nobody has done nearly as much as Stan has in order to just attract leverage.

 

[The Ripper]

that clause went out the window in arbitration, and what are you seeing that isnt top tier? is it Jerry world? no, but it would more than hold its own against any other IMO.

Actually, no the lease is still in force. Just no review is out and the requirement to stay till 2025.

 

[RamFan503]

At what point do we stop looking for ways to make Stan look like a benevolent good guy forced in to a bad situation? Why not claim he did this all to renovate downtown while we're at it.

He did? He's dreamy.

I'll tell that to my friend at work, who still has a few untruths from Demoff saved on his phone from emails, social media. I'll step out right after so I don't have to listen to another rant.

My suggestion is either state them or don't bring them up. But then they probably have already been brought up so.... Still, a friend of a friend once told me I shouldn't quote him.

What does that mean? 14 years is 14 years. Suing to remove the newest point man is PR, a hail Mary.

Not really. I am not going to say that people in St Louis have not been paying attention to the SD saga over the years but I have and those 14 years have been pretty much Spanos saying to SD to build him a stadium and he'll put in a little more than the NFL G4 - and BTW - I want it built downtown or Mission... no... only downtown will do... but I am not going to say I will only accept downtown.

It kind of amazes me a little that SD gets so much sympathy on this website despite 14 years of gameplay between them and Spanos.

I'm not sure it's sympathy. I couldn't give a rats ass about Spanos or the SD city government. I kinda like the Chargers as a second or third team but if they were gone from the league tomorrow, I'd pretty much shrug my shoulders and move on.

It is real easy to say that some people are sympathetic toward what the city of San Diego is going through and then decry what Spanos has been going through for all these years. Couldn't that be viewed as sympathetic toward Spanos?

Is there a definition for "top tier"?

Not that I'm aware of. More NFL mumbo jumbo that helps keep the ambiguity flowing. Makes you wonder what the definition was when Shaw insisted on it as part of the deal - no?

 

[The Ripper]

Vikings threatened to move to LA also... so yea, I'd say that alone makes it similar.

Unless of course we're now gonna start pretending LA hasn't been used for leverage over the past 20 years?

A threat needs to be actionable to be real. A threat to move is not the same as offering a deal for a team to relocate to your city with the guarantee of a top tier "facility".

 

[blue4]

It's not a PR move trying to sue him, before things weren't ever really getting off the ground, they would try to get something done, the Chargers would say no, they would start over. Sometimes the politics in the city would stop things, sometimes the team. The only thing that changed was that now the Chargers look serious to move, and the city knows they don't have time. So they don't have time to go and start from scratch again, they need to keep momentum up, and they feel that Fabiani isn't just saying no, but he's actively trashing the city which hurts them in the future. They don't like that obviously, it's a very toxic relationship.

Like I said, after 14 years it's hail mary time. Things get toxic after 14 years, my point is St Louis isn't doing that stuff

Of course he has, everyone has. He's been better than Fabiani though, and since Davis hasn't done anything that's who we have to compare him to if that's what we're doing. I've said for a while though, that Demoff has a job to do so he's going to tell half truths and say what he needs to try to sell tickets.

Not sure why Demoff half truths are viewed as so benevolent. To me it's a half truth. And the Rams don't have a whole lot of ground to bash the city. What are they going to say? They keep calling us during dinner trying to work a deal?

It's not that, I'm just trying to think of what the argument he is going to make. Obviously he's going to make himself look better, why wouldn't he?

I just don't see how the story of helping the city will fly. I don't think he'd even try it.

 

[iced]

The Vikings floated the idea and traveled around LA for a dog and pony show, nobody has done nearly as much as Stan has in order to just attract leverage.

No one has been in the position Stan is either. That piece of land can easily be used for something else. How many other owners are real estate developers like stan?

So no I don't agree that all the threats for LA were just some small smoke screens (Which were clearly effective btw in getting a better deal)