Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101ESPN)

  • 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.

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
Shane Gray provides special Rams commentaries on 101sports.com. Follow him on Twitter @ShaneGmoSTLRams.

Whether it’s because of the flimsy reporting that often occurs regarding the St. Louis Rams’ stadium situation and relocation prospects, a lack of homework by some on the aforementioned issues or a myriad of other potential factors, misunderstandings run all too rampant in regard to a plethora of items concerning the Rams’ long-term future headquarters.

Recently, both the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority officially rejected an arbitration-based dome renovation plan that would have cost the city approximately $700 million to implement while likely creating significant revenue losses during a multi-year construction process. According to Jeff Rainford, chief of staff for Mayor Francis Slay, the concurrent loss of convention business during the remaking of the Edward Jones Dome would have taken $500 million out of the local economy.

When considering a potential total cost of well over a billion dollars and the fact that the dome remodel would have only guaranteed a Rams stay through 2025, the decision to reject binding arbitration was a no-brainer. In the end, the determination was the only one that was economically feasible or otherwise made sense.

As expected, both the delusional and the doom-and-gloom crowds got worked up over the “news”; however, none of those paying attention – including the Rams – remotely expected the CVC to move forward with the proposal.

With the arbitration process having been finalized without a stadium plan in place, the Rams will become franchise free agents in 2015 unless a stadium resolution has been reached by then. If an agreement has not been secured by that time, the club may opt to utilize its current dome lease on a year-to-year basis or pursue moving the franchise to another location – a location like Los Angeles, for example.

As of today, the eventual utilization of the year-to-year option seems almost a certainly, particularly when considering that L.A. isn’t close to being ready for an NFL return and the Rams still retain one of the top two or three team-friendly leases in football.

To some, a Rams return to L.A. is all but inevitable.

(Hope you guys enjoy this. Always appreciate the support.)

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/rams-stadium-and-relocation-prospects-not-as-they-seem/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/ram ... they-seem/</a>
 

albefree69

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 22, 2012
Messages
4,512
Name
Alan
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

That's the best, most comprehensive explanation of the situation that I've ever had the pleasure of reading Shane. I learned some interesting things that I didn't know about before. Great job!

You outdid yourself this time. Most of us here are getting really tired of reading "experts" who don't bother to do even basic research about what they're writing about. This article is the antithesis of what we normally are forced to endure.
:good1: :brava:
 

CoachO

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jan 11, 2013
Messages
3,392
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Nicely done Shane. I echo the above sentiments. One of, if not the best pieces I have read on this subject.

KUDOS!!!!!
 

RhodyRams

well hung member
Rams On Demand Sponsor
SportsBook Bookie
Moderator
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
11,792
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

albefree69 said:
That's the best, most comprehensive explanation of the situation that I've ever had the pleasure of reading Shane. I learned some interesting things that I didn't know about before. Great job!

You outdid yourself this time. Most of us here are getting really tired of reading "experts" who don't bother to do even basic research about what they're writing about. This article is the antithesis of what we normally are forced to endure.
:good1: :brava:


nuff said !!
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Our little Shane is growing up so fast! :balling:
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #6
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

albefree69 said:
That's the best, most comprehensive explanation of the situation that I've ever had the pleasure of reading Shane. I learned some interesting things that I didn't know about before. Great job!

You outdid yourself this time. Most of us here are getting really tired of reading "experts" who don't bother to do even basic research about what they're writing about. This article is the antithesis of what we normally are forced to endure.
:good1: :brava:

Don't know how to give a response that does justice too your far too kind post, but will just simply say thank you. Really means a lot my friend.
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #7
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

CoachO said:
Nicely done Shane. I echo the above sentiments. One of, if not the best pieces I have read on this subject.

KUDOS!!!!!

Thank you, Coach. That's an amazing compliment that I treasure. Hope you are well.
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #8
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

RhodyRams said:
albefree69 said:
That's the best, most comprehensive explanation of the situation that I've ever had the pleasure of reading Shane. I learned some interesting things that I didn't know about before. Great job!

You outdid yourself this time. Most of us here are getting really tired of reading "experts" who don't bother to do even basic research about what they're writing about. This article is the antithesis of what we normally are forced to endure.
:good1: :brava:


nuff said !!

big thank you to you RhodyRams...
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #9
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

X said:
Our little Shane is growing up so fast! :balling:

X, you knocked the heck out of funny bone with that!!! Made my night... hilarious! And thank you as well... the meaning behind the comment means a great, great deal to me coming from you my friend.
 

LesBaker

Mr. Savant
Joined
Aug 23, 2012
Messages
17,460
Name
Les
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Shane you said it yourself when it comes to the info that's out there.....flimsy reporting.

This on the other hand is the most comprehensive piece on the issue and I wish that everyone would read it before opening their mouth about the Rams moving.

I am glad to say I was wrong abut you. Some of the best reads I have had out of STL have come from your keyboard. Thanks.
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

LesBaker said:
Shane you said it yourself when it comes to the info that's out there.....flimsy reporting.

This on the other hand is the most comprehensive piece on the issue and I wish that everyone would read it before opening their mouth about the Rams moving.

I am glad to say I was wrong abut you. Some of the best reads I have had out of STL have come from your keyboard. Thanks.

Wow, thank you Les. Those are some amazing words and I treasure them. Thanks so much for taking the time to share them and I am grateful my research on the stadium topic has been appreciated by others. Thanks again, Les.
 

moklerman

Warner-phile
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
2,185
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Thanks for the effort Shane. It's a nice recap of what's happened so far and possible insight into what Kroenke might do. But that's what this whole situation has boiled down to from the beginning and it sounds like you feel Kroenke's personal interests in Missouri will trump the other options.

Up until he bid on the Dodgers I would have completely agreed but as with everything else he does, I have no idea now. Now that I think of it, your article didn't mention any of the talk the Rams have done about international branding or the multiple London games that they had to back out of. Seems like a good topic of speculation.

While I've long felt that the Rams moving back to LA is highly unlikely, Kroenke's motivation is what will determine that. If he wants to be a power owner in the NFL, having a franchise in LA would be a great opportunity to do so and really the only reason he would move the team IMO.
 

Rabid Ram

Legend
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
7,360
Name
Dustin
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

moklerman said:
Thanks for the effort Shane. It's a nice recap of what's happened so far and possible insight into what Kroenke might do. But that's what this whole situation has boiled down to from the beginning and it sounds like you feel Kroenke's personal interests in Missouri will trump the other options.

Up until he bid on the Dodgers I would have completely agreed but as with everything else he does, I have no idea now. Now that I think of it, your article didn't mention any of the talk the Rams have done about international branding or the multiple London games that they had to back out of. Seems like a good topic of speculation.

While I've long felt that the Rams moving back to LA is highly unlikely, Kroenke's motivation is what will determine that. If he wants to be a power owner in the NFL, having a franchise in LA would be a great opportunity to do so and really the only reason he would move the team IMO.
What i dont understand if LA puts a team/owner in a power position why did the raiders and rams leave to begin with.
 

Tron

Fights for the User
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
7,808
Name
Tron
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Amazing stuff as always Shane!!! Miss your B?R Rams Nuggets at noon. I'm Fitz btw if you remember. Great piece again man.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Mike Sando
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/103751/around-the-nfc-west-case-against-moving" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... nst-moving</a>

The Rams are about to begin their 19th season in St. Louis after moving from Los Angeles. We discussed their stadium situation last week, suggesting the team was unlikely to make a California return even though its lease will become a year-to-year proposition in 2015.

Shane Gray, writing for 101ESPN St. Louis, has put together a compelling case for the team staying for the long term. The account matches what Rams owner Stan Kroenke would surely want the public to think even if Kroenke were scheming to move the team, but the points Gray makes are logical and persuasive, in my view.

Among the points he makes, beyond the obvious stadium issues in Los Angeles:

The NFL would rather use a vacant Los Angeles as leverage for stadium deals in its existing markets;

Expansion is a higher priority than relocation for the fees the NFL could command;

While relocation fees could also be lucrative for the NFL, the moving team would under current bylaws forfeit league-provided stadium funding;

TV revenue sharing diminishes the media allure associated with playing in Los Angeles relative to smaller markets;

Kroenke values his Missouri roots and needs the Rams in St. Louis to maximize his other businesses in the state.

None of this guarantees anything, but if there's a stronger and more comprehensive case to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. Nothing along those lines would happen before 2015 and probably longer.
 

moklerman

Warner-phile
Joined
Oct 8, 2011
Messages
2,185
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Rabid Ram said:
What i dont understand if LA puts a team/owner in a power position why did the raiders and rams leave to begin with.
Georgia and Al aren't really good examples of how things would work hypothetically for someone else. They both did everything they could to piss off the other owners so their standing would not be the same as it would for Kroenke. They seem to like him, he's already the 2nd richest owner and LA is the 2nd largest market.
 

CGI_Ram

Hamburger Connoisseur
Moderator
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
48,170
Name
Burger man
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

I finally got around to reading this piece... Well done. Not because the article favours STL, but because it's filled with logical arguments.

Solid work right there, Shane!
 

Ramaro21

UDFA
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
34
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

X said:
Mike Sando
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/103751/around-the-nfc-west-case-against-moving" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... nst-moving</a>

The Rams are about to begin their 19th season in St. Louis after moving from Los Angeles. We discussed their stadium situation last week, suggesting the team was unlikely to make a California return even though its lease will become a year-to-year proposition in 2015.

Shane Gray, writing for 101ESPN St. Louis, has put together a compelling case for the team staying for the long term. The account matches what Rams owner Stan Kroenke would surely want the public to think even if Kroenke were scheming to move the team, but the points Gray makes are logical and persuasive, in my view.

Among the points he makes, beyond the obvious stadium issues in Los Angeles:

The NFL would rather use a vacant Los Angeles as leverage for stadium deals in its existing markets;

Expansion is a higher priority than relocation for the fees the NFL could command;

While relocation fees could also be lucrative for the NFL, the moving team would under current bylaws forfeit league-provided stadium funding;

TV revenue sharing diminishes the media allure associated with playing in Los Angeles relative to smaller markets;

Kroenke values his Missouri roots and needs the Rams in St. Louis to maximize his other businesses in the state.

None of this guarantees anything, but if there's a stronger and more comprehensive case to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. Nothing along those lines would happen before 2015 and probably longer.

HA! We must be twins. :cool: We both live in Florida, but do you have white hair?

<a class="postlink" href="http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=964393&p=12690199#p12690199" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... #p12690199</a>

I would love to spend more time on this non-troll forum then Ramstalk, but I can't even log in from work still since the beginning. I still get the same error. I guess the Govment doesn't like your forum...but weird that they are cool with Ramstalk. :boing: You must have something in your webscript.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

Ramaro21 said:
X said:
Mike Sando
<a class="postlink" href="http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/id/103751/around-the-nfc-west-case-against-moving" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://espn.go.com/blog/nfcwest/post/_/ ... nst-moving</a>

The Rams are about to begin their 19th season in St. Louis after moving from Los Angeles. We discussed their stadium situation last week, suggesting the team was unlikely to make a California return even though its lease will become a year-to-year proposition in 2015.

Shane Gray, writing for 101ESPN St. Louis, has put together a compelling case for the team staying for the long term. The account matches what Rams owner Stan Kroenke would surely want the public to think even if Kroenke were scheming to move the team, but the points Gray makes are logical and persuasive, in my view.

Among the points he makes, beyond the obvious stadium issues in Los Angeles:

The NFL would rather use a vacant Los Angeles as leverage for stadium deals in its existing markets;

Expansion is a higher priority than relocation for the fees the NFL could command;

While relocation fees could also be lucrative for the NFL, the moving team would under current bylaws forfeit league-provided stadium funding;

TV revenue sharing diminishes the media allure associated with playing in Los Angeles relative to smaller markets;

Kroenke values his Missouri roots and needs the Rams in St. Louis to maximize his other businesses in the state.

None of this guarantees anything, but if there's a stronger and more comprehensive case to the contrary, I'd like to hear it. Nothing along those lines would happen before 2015 and probably longer.

HA! We must be twins. :cool: We both live in Florida, but do you have white hair?

<a class="postlink" href="http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=964393&p=12690199#p12690199" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/vie ... #p12690199</a>

I would love to spend more time on this non-troll forum then Ramstalk, but I can't even log in from work still since the beginning. I still get the same error. I guess the Govment doesn't like your forum...but weird that they are cool with Ramstalk. :boing: You must have something in your webscript.
Yeah that's strange. The PD has about a hundred different ways to track you with ads and cookies and hidden scripts, and we have none of that. Maybe it's just my lengthy criminal history. lol.


.


Sent via Tapatalk2.
 

ShaneG

Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2012
Messages
577
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #20
Re: Rams Stadium/Relocation Prospects Not As They Seem (101E

moklerman said:
Thanks for the effort Shane. It's a nice recap of what's happened so far and possible insight into what Kroenke might do. But that's what this whole situation has boiled down to from the beginning and it sounds like you feel Kroenke's personal interests in Missouri will trump the other options.

Up until he bid on the Dodgers I would have completely agreed but as with everything else he does, I have no idea now. Now that I think of it, your article didn't mention any of the talk the Rams have done about international branding or the multiple London games that they had to back out of. Seems like a good topic of speculation.

While I've long felt that the Rams moving back to LA is highly unlikely, Kroenke's motivation is what will determine that. If he wants to be a power owner in the NFL, having a franchise in LA would be a great opportunity to do so and really the only reason he would move the team IMO.

Thank you and you are most welcome.

As for your comment of Kroenke's interest in Missouri trumping other options, I only believe that is part of the equation but certainly only one slice of the pie. I believe it is also, among other things, the safer and -- by every indication -- the better financial move, as the article details.

Not sure why the Dodgers bid is of concern to you. Happy to hear your thoughts there.

Several teams have played home games in London now. Some said playing in London indicated a move THEN they said pulling out indicated a move. Which is it? I don't see it but some disagree.

As for being a power owner by being in L.A., I don't see that being a necessity whatsoever. There have been several small and mid market owners who were "power owners", as you say. There have been some large market clubs who had owners who didn't seem to carry a ton of influence, too. Kroenke has never been a spotlight guy, if that was part of what that was about. He is quiet, shy, etc. Now, it could be I am misunderstanding what you mean by "power owner" as well.