OC--LeftCoast
Agent Provocateur
"I beg to differ sir" it's plenty doable at say...3AM in the morning traveling 80mph
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
"I beg to differ sir" it's plenty doable at say...3AM in the morning traveling 80mph
Kroenke has never said he would move the Rams to LA. Instead, he leaves Rams fans dangling in the wind. Unlike the Chargers and Raiders owners. In fact, I don't think Kroenke has said one word to the Rams fans in 4 years. At least the Charger and Raider owners have been honest with their fans and said they have said they will continue to work locally to get new stadium built in their home cities. We can't get Stan to tell the fans anything. Silence. He certainly has never issued a statement saying he is willing to find a local stadium solution in St. Louis. His ridiculous $700M rebuild of the dome drawings was just a step to get out of the dome lease. No city has every put up $700M of taxpayer money for a stadium. No city could ever get voters to accept that. But St. Louis can take the paths to a new stadium that Minnesota and Indy have taken, where the public contribution is a fraction of the cost, and the rest comes from the NFL, Owner, PSLs, visitors, tax credits, player income taxes, etc. That is where we are going. But that only gets San 1 Billion value, not the 1.5 Billlion he craves in LA.
New NFL rule?: Every stadium in the NFL must be in the upper 25% of all stadiums in the NFL. I don't think that will work. If not, you can move. Kevin Demoff told PSL holders at the PSL lunch last spring at Rams park, that he didn't believe upgrades to the dome was the solution. A new stadium was the solution, he said, and that he preferred an open air stadium of about 60K size. I'm sure today, he would probably say he was giving his personal preference, but in absence of anything form Stan, that was all we had to go by.
New NFL rule?: Every stadium in the NFL must be in the upper 25% of all stadiums in the NFL. I don't think that will work. If not, you can move. Kevin Demoff told PSL holders at the PSL lunch last spring at Rams park, that he didn't believe upgrades to the dome was the solution. A new stadium was the solution, he said, and that he preferred an open air stadium of about 60K size. I'm sure today, he would probably say he was giving his personal preference, but in absence of anything form Stan, that was all we had to go by.
What is Stan Kroenke’s next move? Bernie Miklasz breaks it down on The Fast Lane with Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr.
Listen to Bernie Talk Kroenke
Listen to Bernie Talk Kroenke
mr.stlouis
Legend
The last time Stan spoke he assured he'd do everything he could to keep the team here. He has not broken that promise, he has not committed this team to moving. If he comes through this time next year then he would have still kept his promise and all will be forgiven. we don't know what's going on behind the scenes, we only see the symptoms. But it's looking more and more like the Inglewood project is a dud unless May Butts is right about the Inglewood Project truly being "field of dreams stuff." When asked what team they were looking into putting there, Mayor Butts replied "It really doesn't matter." They just want a stadium first and foremost, the rest will come. That doesn't include the Rams.
Wait a minute, this goes both ways. The CVC made their bid first, correct? If so, they knew what it would take to get the Dome upgraded to the top 25% but they low balled it. This is the tactic just opposite of what Stan did. IMO, they didn't want to be part of the lease anymore either. If they had made a bid that got the Dome into the top 25%, the arbitrator would say it was good enough to meet the guidelines of the lease regardless of what the Rams proposed. It would've kept the Rams locked into the Lease.
Both parties are culpable, not just Stan.
Then it shouldn't be a shock to anyone that Stan doesn't want to play their game. Why would anyone renegotiate a lease if they already had probably the best terms the other side could offer given the building? What exactly does exhausting all options mean? That he should give up what amounts to $450 million ten years before his current lease is supposed to expire? Do you know what went on in negotiations with the CVC and later? Being that the Governor appointed I believe 8 members of the CVC, do you know he didn't have talks with the Governor's people? You can say that the lease with the CVC no longer matters because they opted not to fulfill the 25% clause but that lease is what got them to move in, so I simply disagree. Not asking you to agree. I'm just stating my view as what I would be thinking if faced with something similar.
They are holding the bag that is the dome and a choice of either supposedly being forced to stay in a sub-par building (not my take but that of the NFL) or give up hundreds of millions of dollars for a project and revenue streams they may or may not want.
You don't know that was his intention from the beginning. In fact, I would say that combining all the facets that went into Stan helping bring the team to St Louis in the first place along with trying to get an expansion team there, and his being a Missouri native, I'd say he has always wanted the team to be in St Louis. I'm not even sure he still doesn't and I also don't know what led up to the Inglewood project.
It's funny. I have heard media say these things but every time either Peacock or the Governor or the NFL has been asked about it, they say that they have been in contact with Stan's people throughout the process. If you are expecting Stan to come out with statements to the media or negotiate directly with Peacock or Nixon, I'm just not sure that is how Stan conducts business. By all accounts I've read on the guy, he surrounds himself with people who know how to get a job done and then empowers them to do it. When he bought that humongous ranch in Montana, he supposedly never talked to anyone other than through his team charged with getting the deal done. Does that mean he is not negotiating or hasn't been letting them know what he expects? I dunno.
Has anyone read that he has personally spoken with anyone in Inglewood either? I seem to remember Mayor Butts talking about speaking with Kroenke's people but don't recall if he has said he has had talks with Stan himself.
I live over a thousand miles away from wherever the Rams will call home. What I want is for my Rams to have the most bitchin stadium they can get and have this entire moving cloud removed from my thought process - preferably forever.
For me personally, it is all about the Rams. I could care less where they play as I would be a Rams fan no matter where they played. I can understand though why someone living in St Louis or a surrounding area wouldn't follow them if they left. That is a personal choice and I certainly understand a loyalty to one's city or state. If a team came to Oregon, I would still be a Rams fan first but the Oregon team would instantly become my 2nd favorite and I would watch them any time I could.
Which is when I would leave if I were living in LA and heading down to SD unless I just didn't care and wanted to make a bunch of stops along the way. Either that or I would take the train. Amazingly the train gets from LA to SD in about the same time or less that it takes to drive. People east of here don't understand how amazing that is really. The last two trains I took were 3 times slower than driving. Of course you still have to get to the train station... so never mind. Anyway - I digress."I beg to differ sir" it's plenty doable at say...3AM in the morning traveling 80mph
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-are-trying-to-get-something-done-in-oakland/
Mark Davis says Raiders are trying to get something done in Oakland
Posted by Mike Florio on February 21, 2015
Getty Images
Dogs and cats may not be living together just yet.
A day after the Chargers and Raiders jointly announced a proposal to build and share a stadium in Carson, California, Raiders owner Mark Davis said that he nevertheless hopes to work something out in the city where the team currently plays.
“We’re still trying to get something done in Oakland,” Davis told Scott Bair of CSN Bay Area. “I’ve got options A, B, C and D out there. This is an awesome opportunity to work with the Chargers to try and get something done. . . . Really, it’s just another part of the process. But again, we’re trying to get something done in Oakland.”
Davis is saying that in part because he has to say that, because the NFL’s relocation policy requires teams to use good-faith efforts to resolve stadium issues in their current markets before attempting to move. He’s probably also saying it because he’d still like to work something out in Oakland.
Apart from creating leverage and urgency, the Carson project could help the powers-that-be in Oakland. Presumably, the Raiders will be willing to make the same private contribution to a stadium in Oakland that they’d be willing to make to a stadium in Carson — if, of course, the projected revenue from PSLs and other streams are similar.
Still, there’s no substitute for what the smart kids call economies of scale. It’s cheaper, and thus more profitable, to build one stadium for two teams to use. The 49ers and Raiders should have done it in Oakland. Whatever the outcome of the current game of musical chairs in L.A., it’s safe to say two teams will be playing in one building.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ials-complaining-about-raiders-proposed-move/
San Antonio officials complaining about Raiders proposed move
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 21, 2015
With the Chargers and Raiders looking at a shared facility outside Los Angeles, San Antonio is apparently left at the altar again.
At least they know how to handle it.
Some local officials there are getting grouchy about the Raiders changing directions, after discussions about moving them to San Antonio last year.
The city has been spurned by the Saints and baseball’s Marlins before, so the fact that the Raiders appear to have been just looking for leverage is a tired act to them.
“I may be a little bit too cynical, but they are not truthful with you. They lie.” Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said, via Tom Orsborn of the San Antonio Express-News. “They lie.”
“As you know after my escapades with the Saints and the Marlins, I am very distrustful of all of them. My distrust of the NFL and of Major League Baseball is really high. That’s why I have always thought no mas — unless both the team and the league are at the table.”
Of course, a city looking to poach a team complaining about someone else being more successful at poaching one seems odd. But San Antonio continues to make the effort.
Having a leverage city is crucial for the teams looking to make a move, and the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce said they’re still not giving up hope of luring the Raiders.
“The concerted efforts of San Antonio’s public and private sectors remain focused on a long-term vision to bring the Raiders to the Alamo City,” their statement said.
Of course, if St. Louis loses the Rams to Los Angeles, there will be at least one other city looking for a team, which will add to the competition for San Antonio, and likely keep them on the outside looking in.
Mark Davis says Raiders are trying to get something done in Oakland
Posted by Mike Florio on February 21, 2015
Dogs and cats may not be living together just yet.
A day after the Chargers and Raiders jointly announced a proposal to build and share a stadium in Carson, California, Raiders owner Mark Davis said that he nevertheless hopes to work something out in the city where the team currently plays.
“We’re still trying to get something done in Oakland,” Davis told Scott Bair of CSN Bay Area. “I’ve got options A, B, C and D out there. This is an awesome opportunity to work with the Chargers to try and get something done. . . . Really, it’s just another part of the process. But again, we’re trying to get something done in Oakland.”
Davis is saying that in part because he has to say that, because the NFL’s relocation policy requires teams to use good-faith efforts to resolve stadium issues in their current markets before attempting to move. He’s probably also saying it because he’d still like to work something out in Oakland.
Apart from creating leverage and urgency, the Carson project could help the powers-that-be in Oakland. Presumably, the Raiders will be willing to make the same private contribution to a stadium in Oakland that they’d be willing to make to a stadium in Carson — if, of course, the projected revenue from PSLs and other streams are similar.
Still, there’s no substitute for what the smart kids call economies of scale. It’s cheaper, and thus more profitable, to build one stadium for two teams to use. The 49ers and Raiders should have done it in Oakland. Whatever the outcome of the current game of musical chairs in L.A., it’s safe to say two teams will be playing in one building.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...ials-complaining-about-raiders-proposed-move/
San Antonio officials complaining about Raiders proposed move
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 21, 2015
With the Chargers and Raiders looking at a shared facility outside Los Angeles, San Antonio is apparently left at the altar again.
At least they know how to handle it.
Some local officials there are getting grouchy about the Raiders changing directions, after discussions about moving them to San Antonio last year.
The city has been spurned by the Saints and baseball’s Marlins before, so the fact that the Raiders appear to have been just looking for leverage is a tired act to them.
“I may be a little bit too cynical, but they are not truthful with you. They lie.” Bexar County Judge Nelson Wolff said, via Tom Orsborn of the San Antonio Express-News. “They lie.”
“As you know after my escapades with the Saints and the Marlins, I am very distrustful of all of them. My distrust of the NFL and of Major League Baseball is really high. That’s why I have always thought no mas — unless both the team and the league are at the table.”
Of course, a city looking to poach a team complaining about someone else being more successful at poaching one seems odd. But San Antonio continues to make the effort.
Having a leverage city is crucial for the teams looking to make a move, and the San Antonio Chamber of Commerce said they’re still not giving up hope of luring the Raiders.
“The concerted efforts of San Antonio’s public and private sectors remain focused on a long-term vision to bring the Raiders to the Alamo City,” their statement said.
Of course, if St. Louis loses the Rams to Los Angeles, there will be at least one other city looking for a team, which will add to the competition for San Antonio, and likely keep them on the outside looking in.
Was looking at a map the other day. Compton is right in the middle of Inglewood and Carson. Is it still as bad as the early 90s or as it's reputation?
Personally I think L.A. and it's suburbs are kinda ghetto. I think San Diego and even SF are better cities.
12intheBox
Legend
Take a stroll around the Edward Jones Dome at night sometime. All cities have their ghetto.
Not really interesting, as everyone should know that the city of St. Louis as a whole ranks pretty high in crime, but we're talking about the area around the proposed stadium site. There will most likely not be a high exposure to crime over there just like there isn't at Ballpark Village and Busch Stadium.Interesting to compare these:
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Compton-California.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-St.-Louis-Missouri.html
[Me: Here's an older Bay Area editorial.]
http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/owner-davis-plays-ace-raiders-la-saga
Owner Davis plays ace in Raiders-to-LA saga
February 19, 2015, 8:00 pm
The end game for the Oakland Raiders has finally rolled its first die, so let’s play our game.
According to the redoubtable Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, the Raiders and San Diego Chargers “are moving forward together on a plan to build a $1.7-billion NFL stadium in Carson that they will share.”
If this is so, and not a 558th false start in the dog-and-pony show that has been the Race To Tinseltown, Mark Davis has all but made his choice, and it is to have the East Bay in his rearview mirror within three years, and maybe sooner.
According to Farmer, “the Chargers and Raiders will continue to seek public subsidies for new stadiums in their home markets, but they are developing a detailed proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles venue in the event they can't get deals done in San Diego and Oakland by the end of this year, according to the teams."
In a statement given to The Times on Thursday, the Chargers and Raiders said, "We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.”
If you need this to be a narrative about the NFL’s power to keep its franchises from going rogue, fine. That’s a procedural question that will be handled in the time-honored NFL way – with bribes, backdoor deals, and wink-and-nod arrangements familiar, though not unique, to owners at this level of wealth.
But closer to home, Davis has apparently played his ace with a loud slapping flourish, telling Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, the town’s political structure and tax base and a largely mistreated fan base that he is done waiting for the Bay Area to hurl millions at him free and clear for a stadium closer to his ancestral home in the Piedmont hills.
Again, this could be one last cheap, yet elaborate, bluff to try and spur action in San Diego and Oakland. The Chargers played their angry threat card earlier this week, saying they were ready and more willing than ever to leave the town they have inhabited for 53 years. Now they are tripling down with the Raiders, who have always been the odd-kid out in this fun-filled game of billion-dollar chicken, saying the Rams can have Hollywood Park to themselves if they want, but that they are ready to make Los Angeles a three-team market.
Again, Farmer, with elucidation:
“This latest high-stakes move was precipitated by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who announced in December his plan to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the land that used to be Hollywood Park. That put pressure on the Chargers, who say 25% of their fan base is in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Raiders, among the most financially strapped NFL teams, joined forces with the Chargers because they don't have the money build a stadium on their own.”
Can’t put it more nakedly than that.
Los Angeles has three teams ready to move back to homes they once inhabited (the Rams moved from Cleveland in 1946, the Chargers began their American Football League life in L.A. in 1961, while the Raiders moved there in 1982), but better yet for the land of glorious excess, it also has four stadium proposals, including the Farmers Field concept downtown and developer Ed Roski's plan in the City of Industry.
All three teams have year-to-year leases in older stadiums, and prospects for new venues in San Diego and Oakland are bleaker than the already-bleak hopes in St. Louis. There is no particular political appetite to commit public money to build a stadium, which is why the two franchises are planning a privately-financed plan as backup.
The Carson proposal calls for the teams to be equal, as opposed to one's acting as landlord to the other. They bought the Carson land from Starwood Capital Group with an eye toward being partners rather than landlord-and-tenant.
Kroenke and his partners in the Hollywood Park deal have expansive plans for retail space, housing and a 6,000-seat theater along with the stadium, the Carson concept calls only for a football stadium.
Nothing is imminent, since the NFL has taken time from its busy schedule bungling crisis after crisis to rule out any teams' relocating this season, and is strongly opposed to a franchise's enduring more than one lame-duck season in an abandoned market. A team or teams moving to L.A. would play for at least two seasons in a temporary home — the Coliseum, Rose Bowl or possibly Dodger Stadium.
But that’s all logistics, which are tedious reads and a waste of time until shovel meets dirt. The important thing is the dung-throwing show has finally begun in earnest, and Los Angeles may find itself with almost 10 percent of the league’s teams within two years, and three more cities will have to learn to love other things.
Like baseball, or hating billionaires, the two national pastimes for people who don't have football.
http://www.csnbayarea.com/raiders/owner-davis-plays-ace-raiders-la-saga
Owner Davis plays ace in Raiders-to-LA saga
February 19, 2015, 8:00 pm
The end game for the Oakland Raiders has finally rolled its first die, so let’s play our game.
According to the redoubtable Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, the Raiders and San Diego Chargers “are moving forward together on a plan to build a $1.7-billion NFL stadium in Carson that they will share.”
If this is so, and not a 558th false start in the dog-and-pony show that has been the Race To Tinseltown, Mark Davis has all but made his choice, and it is to have the East Bay in his rearview mirror within three years, and maybe sooner.
According to Farmer, “the Chargers and Raiders will continue to seek public subsidies for new stadiums in their home markets, but they are developing a detailed proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles venue in the event they can't get deals done in San Diego and Oakland by the end of this year, according to the teams."
In a statement given to The Times on Thursday, the Chargers and Raiders said, "We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.”
If you need this to be a narrative about the NFL’s power to keep its franchises from going rogue, fine. That’s a procedural question that will be handled in the time-honored NFL way – with bribes, backdoor deals, and wink-and-nod arrangements familiar, though not unique, to owners at this level of wealth.
But closer to home, Davis has apparently played his ace with a loud slapping flourish, telling Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf, the town’s political structure and tax base and a largely mistreated fan base that he is done waiting for the Bay Area to hurl millions at him free and clear for a stadium closer to his ancestral home in the Piedmont hills.
Again, this could be one last cheap, yet elaborate, bluff to try and spur action in San Diego and Oakland. The Chargers played their angry threat card earlier this week, saying they were ready and more willing than ever to leave the town they have inhabited for 53 years. Now they are tripling down with the Raiders, who have always been the odd-kid out in this fun-filled game of billion-dollar chicken, saying the Rams can have Hollywood Park to themselves if they want, but that they are ready to make Los Angeles a three-team market.
Again, Farmer, with elucidation:
“This latest high-stakes move was precipitated by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who announced in December his plan to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the land that used to be Hollywood Park. That put pressure on the Chargers, who say 25% of their fan base is in Los Angeles and Orange counties. The Raiders, among the most financially strapped NFL teams, joined forces with the Chargers because they don't have the money build a stadium on their own.”
Can’t put it more nakedly than that.
Los Angeles has three teams ready to move back to homes they once inhabited (the Rams moved from Cleveland in 1946, the Chargers began their American Football League life in L.A. in 1961, while the Raiders moved there in 1982), but better yet for the land of glorious excess, it also has four stadium proposals, including the Farmers Field concept downtown and developer Ed Roski's plan in the City of Industry.
All three teams have year-to-year leases in older stadiums, and prospects for new venues in San Diego and Oakland are bleaker than the already-bleak hopes in St. Louis. There is no particular political appetite to commit public money to build a stadium, which is why the two franchises are planning a privately-financed plan as backup.
The Carson proposal calls for the teams to be equal, as opposed to one's acting as landlord to the other. They bought the Carson land from Starwood Capital Group with an eye toward being partners rather than landlord-and-tenant.
Kroenke and his partners in the Hollywood Park deal have expansive plans for retail space, housing and a 6,000-seat theater along with the stadium, the Carson concept calls only for a football stadium.
Nothing is imminent, since the NFL has taken time from its busy schedule bungling crisis after crisis to rule out any teams' relocating this season, and is strongly opposed to a franchise's enduring more than one lame-duck season in an abandoned market. A team or teams moving to L.A. would play for at least two seasons in a temporary home — the Coliseum, Rose Bowl or possibly Dodger Stadium.
But that’s all logistics, which are tedious reads and a waste of time until shovel meets dirt. The important thing is the dung-throwing show has finally begun in earnest, and Los Angeles may find itself with almost 10 percent of the league’s teams within two years, and three more cities will have to learn to love other things.
Like baseball, or hating billionaires, the two national pastimes for people who don't have football.
Higher than Compton.
You may be talking about the area around the proposed stadium site, but the poster stated a belief that L.A. and it's suburbs are kinda ghetto. w/e
It's funny, because outside of Rams fans on forums or the LA Times poll that was done during a time when the Inglewood stadium was introduced with no other options surfacing, the general thought is that people in LA either don't have an alliance with a team or the Raiders still have a decent following. And I draw that from multiple different surveys I've seen as well as quotes, tweets, radio interviews and first hand conversations I've had with people from LA that are work colleagues.
And I'm not trying to be dismissive of any of the LA folks here...other than the idiots on the PD I seriously have no ill feelings toward any LA fan. I just find this entire situation fascinating...I think I'd be as fascinated even if it wasn't an issue for my team.
Was a delivery driver for three years and one of my routes was Oakland. My first time at a Rams game in St. Louis I took a drive through the neighborhoods around the stadium. Oakland and St. Louis are very similar when it comes to dangerous areas around their stadiums.
I used to go to concerts at the Fillmore West in SF during the late sixties. That was the absolute worst as far as fearing for your life goes. Bad stuff can happen anywhere. As someone mentioned earlier - go to the game, go back to your car afterwards, and then drive home. Chances are you'll be fine whatever city you're in.
I have actually. But Compton has a rep (warranted or not) as opposed to St. Louis. Not trying to start anything, just IMO.
12intheBox
Legend
I didn't take your comment as starting anything - and yeah, Compton has the rep (mostly thanks to NWA) but St. Louis has developed a nice little reputation for itself along the way.
12intheBox
Legend
Interesting to compare these:
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Compton-California.html
http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-St.-Louis-Missouri.html
Woah.
- Status