Chargers, Rams reach agreement on sharing Inglewood stadium/ Chargers will play in San Diego in 2016

[Roman Snow]

Apparently Pat Haden said they'd consider it. Not sure he has thought it all through though. I didn't really think about the locker rooms being USC's locker rooms either. I wonder how that is going to work. I mean they have to be done up in Maroon and Yellow - right?

I wonder if in that vast space under the seats another locker room or two cold be constructed.

Hey 503, did you ever think that "vast space" under the seats was used to house retired invalid Rams from the 40s and 50s?

What do just want to toss these guys out onto Exposition Blvd? Do you think Chris Long and William Hayes are just going to take these guys in?:argue:

 

[Loyal]

I still havn't heard how the Raiders move to Kronke-World is even possible. Sure, the NFL has told the Raiders they can move to Inglewood if the Chargers turn it down...But this is sorta like the Mayor of Beverly Hills saying to me "You are welcome to buy this 10 million dollar mansion",. Now I may love the mansion and think it would be a great thing to live there, but I have no money to do it. Mark Davis can't pay the $550 million relovation fee, and he surely can't pay half for the Inglewood Palace. WHich means at least he would have to be a tennant in the Rams stadium. Davis said this tenant relationship wasn't going to happen......What am I missing here?

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rgers-rams-impasse-story-is-completely-false/

Kevin Demoff: Chargers-Rams impasse story is “completely false”
Posted by Mike Florio on January 26, 2016

Getty Images

On Monday, Steve Hartman of XTRA Sports 1360 in San Diego stirred up the San Diego relocation story by reporting that an impasse has arisen between the Chargers and Rams regarding the sharing of a stadium in Inglewood.

On Tuesday morning, the Rams went on the record to dispute the report from Hartman, for which he cited an unnamed Rams official.

“The Steve Hartman story is completely false,” Rams COO Kevin Demoff told PFT by email.

It’s unclear whether the Chargers and Rams are making progress toward a deal because the Chargers and Rams have agreed not to publicly discuss the situation. And while there are reasons to wonder whether Rams owner Stan Kroenke would be interested in hoarding the L.A. market by driving too hard of a bargain with the Chargers now and the Raiders later, multiple league sources continue to insist that Kroenke has provided assurances that he’ll cooperate with the Chargers, and that the NFL has power to squeeze Kroenke, by for example not giving him Super Bowls or other stuff, if he ultimately freezes out the Chargers and the Raiders.

So, basically, the Rams say there is no impasse. Whether or not a deal ever gets done remains to be seen.

 

[RamFan503]

Hey 503, did you ever think that "vast space" under the seats was used to house retired invalid Rams from the 40s and 50s?

What do just want to toss these guys out onto Exposition Blvd? Do you think Chris Long and William Hayes are just going to take these guys in?:argue:

Not following you. What am I missing?

 

[The Rammer]

You guys do see what this is leading to right? Just like the rams were moving all along to LA and some of you wouldn't admit it or couldn't see that steps for this was laid down years ago that the Chargers were never meant to come to LA and the Raiders moving to La to share is just a sham for them to get leverage to build a stadium. Please, the NFL isn't stupid, they don't 3 teams in SoCal.

 

[kurtfaulk]

Kevin Demoff: Chargers-Rams impasse story is “completely false”

so going by recent history that means the story is completely true.

.

 

[LesBaker]

Wait... I don't want to be inflammatory. I shouldn't have said it like that. bluecoconuts said it much better.

I'm just starting to get a bit tired of all the bitchin and whining about how bad and heartless Stan is. I feel like he's a great guy. I think it you make a deal, you can't be all butthurt and blame the other side when you didn't hold up your end of the bargain.

How did you feel about Stan when he took the Rams away from LA?

In the end they did hold up their end of the bargain with a 1.1BIL stadium. Kroenke just decided to leave anyway.

@bluecoconuts the stadium in STL would have been top tier.

 

[bluecoconuts]

How did you feel about Stan when he took the Rams away from LA?

In the end they did hold up their end of the bargain with a 1.1BIL stadium. Kroenke just decided to leave anyway.

@bluecoconuts the stadium in STL would have been top tier.

From my understanding it wouldn't have qualified as a top tier, especially in terms of holding Super Bowls, I've actually never read anything that has said it qualifies in the eyes of the NFL. I don't see how it's considered holding up their end of the bargain when they essentially said (in very simplified terms) "Even though we agreed to keep the stadium a top tier one, instead of doing that we're going to offer up this stadium.. We'll pay less money that was required to bring the old stadium up to top tier, and have you pay for the majority of the new stadium... And we're not going to take your initial desires into consideration.. And we're going to shift liability for shortcomings in funding over to you... And it's not going to be top tier... And you wont own it... And you'll have to pay a hefty rent on it..."

The NFL said that the proposal wasn't enough, and there were rumors for months that the proposal wasn't only insufficient to keep the Rams, but to attract another team to the region.. Well before Kroenke blasted the city.

Don't get me wrong, I liked the idea of the stadium, but it wasn't enough in nearly every way, unfortunately the reality is that the NFL wanted something that the city couldn't do without seriously jeopardizing their future... They wasted 16 million dollars, and lost the Rams, but it was probably for the best in terms of the city's financial health. That's not a bad thing either, Los Angeles did the same thing 21 years ago, they had to put personal fandom aside and be responsible.

 

[OldSchool]

How did you feel about Stan when he took the Rams away from LA?

In the end they did hold up their end of the bargain with a 1.1BIL stadium. Kroenke just decided to leave anyway.

@bluecoconuts the stadium in STL would have been top tier.

Peacock himself said it wouldn't be top tier.

 

[FrankenRam]

And you don't think maybe they winked at Stan a time or two when they made him "promise" he'd be willing to work with them?

The extra locker room/offices could remain unoccupied and pay for themselves if the NFL can use them to extract funds from other municipalities that are fighting to keep their teams. This gives them the best of both worlds - the get LA and they still have the threat of LA to get other cities to pay up.

You may think I'm being too cynical, but I don't think so when you look at the way the whole thing went down in the first place.

I don't think you're being too cynical at all. They've been winking at Kroenke ever since he took full ownership of the Rams when it comes to that cross ownership stuff.

And it's pretty clear the NFL 'Relocation Guidelines' are an utter joke. However they are actually written, all they really mean is.....

"We, the ownership group of the National Football League, do hereby declare that we will not allow any individual team owner among us to unilaterally move their team to a city of their choosing..........UNLESS, of course, said owner agrees to pay the rest of us one big honkin' relocation fee. In the case such owner is willing to throw each of us something in the neighborhood of $17-18mill cash money, then said owner is free to do as they please and screw anyone that doesn't like it."

 

[FrankenRam]

So, it's barely 2 weeks since the announcement, and already the rest of the NFL is beginning to find out what it will be like to do business with deleted. Pardon me while I enjoy a sliver of a snicker at that irony.

 

[Pancake]

So, it's barely 2 weeks since the announcement, and already the rest of the NFL is beginning to find out what it will be like to do business with Kranky. Pardon me while I enjoy a sliver of a snicker at that irony.

I don't know but I bet every single one of the other owners would want to get the best return on there 2B+ investment possible just like SK is negotiating for. Except probably none of them would spend their own money to build in the first place. I give SK a little respect for doing that.

 

[kurtfaulk]

I don't know but I bet every single one of the other owners would want to get the best return on there 2B+ investment possible just like SK is negotiating for. Except probably none of them would spend their own money to build in the first place. I give SK a little respect for doing that.

Yeah but this is unlike any other stadium proposal. The stadium is just part of the development. Hopefully it opens the eyes of other owners and shows how it can be done in future proposals.

.

 

[Ramatik]

How did you feel about Stan when he took the Rams away from LA?

In the end they did hold up their end of the bargain with a 1.1BIL stadium. Kroenke just decided to leave anyway.

@bluecoconuts the stadium in STL would have been top tier.

Well, I feel that Georgia took the team away. Stan helped her to get part of the team. At the time, I knew nothing about him and didn't care.

Maybe the stadium would have been top tier. But I think there are still many questions about the financing and the plans they had. And why wait till the last minute before they mobilized? I believe there was a lot of opposition to that and that plan was built mostly with smoke and mirrors. I read many things about people in government that were pissed and there was going to be a fight over the non vote and how the public money was going to be spent. Bottom line is, I think it was a hail mary that fell short.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't think you're being too cynical at all. They've been winking at Kroenke ever since he took full ownership of the Rams when it comes to that cross ownership stuff.

And it's pretty clear the NFL 'Relocation Guidelines' are an utter joke. However they are actually written, all they really mean is.....

"We, the ownership group of the National Football League, do hereby declare that we will not allow any individual team owner among us to unilaterally move their team to a city of their choosing..........UNLESS, of course, said owner agrees to pay the rest of us one big honkin' relocation fee. In the case such owner is willing to throw each of us something in the neighborhood of $17-18mill cash money, then said owner is free to do as they please and screw anyone that doesn't like it."

That's always how it's been and how it'll always be... I don't know why that was a shock to everyone else, it's a club of 32 people, why would anyone expect them to turn their backs on one of their own? All that does it put the other 31 at risk of the same thing happening to them, and none of them were going to risk getting boxed in by their local government if they can't get their way. I read the NFL constitution over and over again and saw nothing to suggest that their relocation guidelines were worth squat, even when people kept insisting that they were strengthened somehow.

They've been playing Calvinball from the beginning.

 

[RamFan503]

How did you feel about Stan when he took the Rams away from LA?

In the end they did hold up their end of the bargain with a 1.1BIL stadium. Kroenke just decided to leave anyway.

@bluecoconuts the stadium in STL would have been top tier.

1st - I don't think many of us knew who Stan was or even did until there was talk of him possibly exercising his right of first refusal. His name was pretty much mentioned in passing up until then.

2nd - I am not sure how you or anyone figures that holding up your side of the bargain means trading out a deal where you would have to pay nothing to maintain a top tier stadium until 2025, for a deal where you would have to pay over $700 million for a stadium on which you would have to pay over double the rent.

3rd - Where have you heard anyone contend that the Riverfront stadium would have qualified as top tier? I thought it was a cool concept and being next to the mighty Mississippi and The Arch would have been cool as well. But the stadium lacked quite a few elements (from my understanding) that would qualify it as top tier. I don't even think the task force ever called it top tier.

It would appear that SK was not willing to give up the top tier requirement as the CVC originally promised. Maybe that is akin to not negotiating in good faith. But I'm not sure how many people - billionaires or not - would offer to pay $700 million for something they would not own but would have to maintain as a demonstration of good faith.

Maybe one could say that because he was not offered ownership as part of his $700 million investment and after reneging on the top tier status not just once but twice - THAT would be considered not negotiating in good faith.

 

[ReddingRam]

Wait... I don't want to be inflammatory. I shouldn't have said it like that. bluecoconuts said it much better.

I'm just starting to get a bit tired of all the bitchin and whining about how bad and heartless Stan is. I feel like he's a great guy. I think it you make a deal, you can't be all butthurt and blame the other side when you didn't hold up your end of the bargain.

Here's the problem ... The owners see all this a s a business ... and it IS. They are not in this to lose money, they are in it to make as much as possible. They didn't become billionaires by being "friendly" or "giving good deals". Many ...or I should say MOST fans don't see it that way. It's not a business to them, it's a passion.

I felt the way St.Louis fans are in '94-95. But I shook it off and realized that the move was to the owner's best interest and i can still follow the team I love (luckily the internet and DirecTv was going by then) and happily did so.

Some will come to realize the reasons and come to grips with it eventually and others never will.

 

[ReddingRam]

That's always how it's been and how it'll always be... I don't know why that was a shock to everyone else, it's a club of 32 people, why would anyone expect them to turn their backs on one of their own? All that does it put the other 31 at risk of the same thing happening to them, and none of them were going to risk getting boxed in by their local government if they can't get their way. I read the NFL constitution over and over again and saw nothing to suggest that their relocation guidelines were worth squat, even when people kept insisting that they were strengthened somehow.

They've been playing Calvinball from the beginning.

They keyword is "guidelines". Guidelines are just that .. .a starting point and reference. They were never "rules" to relocating.

 

[Ballhawk]

If the new river front stadium wouldn't have been "top tier" it would mean that someone was really stupid or very dishonest! The Rams earlier had requested a deal, that they claimed would have made the old dome "top tier", that cost "only" 700 million.
So, who's lying here????

 

[MrMotes]

If the new river front stadium wouldn't have been "top tier" it would mean that someone was really stupid or very dishonest! The Rams earlier had requested a deal, that they claimed would have made the old dome "top tier", that cost "only" 700 million.
So, who's lying here????

It was a mistake for the Task Force to think the Riverfront stadium would pass muster with the NFL or the Rams...