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.

12intheBox

Legend
Joined
Sep 12, 2013
Messages
10,173
Name
Wil Fay
There will most likely not be a high exposure to crime over there just like there isn't at Ballpark Village and Busch Stadium.

I would guess that is more a factor of saturated police patrol. The Po Po protects the $$ - true in LA, true in STL, true for Ballpark Village, and will be true for wherever the Rams are playing in 2016. Makes sense for the Police to approach it that way, of course, because without saturated patrol - any of those areas would be a giant target.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
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.

Honestly its not that bad anymore, I mean its not great either, but most neighborhoods in LA are pretty safe, and even the "bad" ones, as long as you're not stupid about things you should be fine, I've never had any issues, and most people don't. LA has made a huge turn around since the 90's. Statistically St Louis is actually worse (ranked 2nd behind Detroit) in terms of violent crimes, no part of LA is in the top 10.

It has a reputation for sure though, and I wouldn't run around looking for trouble. St Louis has a reputation among federal officers, especially for drugs (Missouri in general, the meth problem is really bad, capital of the world last I heard), but the general population doesn't think of it as bad. Get a few rappers singing about it though and maybe that'll change. :LOL:


Like any city, as you get out to the suburbs its all really nice, lots more money, beautiful houses, and very little crime.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
Honestly its not that bad anymore, I mean its not great either, but most neighborhoods in LA are pretty safe, and even the "bad" ones, as long as you're not stupid about things you should be fine, I've never had any issues, and most people don't. LA has made a huge turn around since the 90's. Statistically St Louis is actually worse (ranked 2nd behind Detroit) in terms of violent crimes, no part of LA is in the top 10.

It has a reputation for sure though, and I wouldn't run around looking for trouble. St Louis has a reputation among federal officers, especially for drugs (Missouri in general, the meth problem is really bad, capital of the world last I heard), but the general population doesn't think of it as bad. Get a few rappers singing about it though and maybe that'll change. :LOL:


Like any city, as you get out to the suburbs its all really nice, lots more money, beautiful houses, and very little crime.

The statistics that have St. Louis at the top are greatly skewed because of the separation of city and county. Pair that with the Ferguson fiasco and the perception is there.

I feel perfectly safe in St. Louis...as I'm sure I would in LA too. I think any major city you have to pay attention to the neighborhoods you're in and be smart. Other than that, random bad things happen and that's just the reality of it.
 

Big Unit

UDFA
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
96
Problem is we're comparing apples and oranges:

LA metro area has a population of almost 13 million
San Diego metro population just over 3 million
St. Louis metro population - including metro east - 2.8 million
Oakland doesn't even have its own metro area - it's part of San Francisco/Oakland; total about 4.5 million. If you add San Jose and silicon valley (where the Niners' Levi Stadium is located) - a little over 8 million.

There are four major sports - football, baseball, basketball and hockey. St. Louis is the 19th largest metro market in the US; generally only the ten largest can support all four professional leagues in their markets. St. Louis should be in the second tier - able to support three, which is what they have now.

In my mind, the problem is with distribution of teams in California. There are 3 CA teams, but one in a 3 million market 120 miles from LA; and two in the Bay Area; while LA has none. It's weird - LA has two MLB teams; two NBA teams; two NHL teams; and ZERO NFL teams? Realistically, there should be one team in the Bay Area; and either one in LA, one in San Diego; OR two in LA.

I think the desire of the NFL to have two teams in LA relates in part to the fact LA is a media center, and the growing role of television in NFL games. Apart from tailgating and the "shared experience" of going to a game, the NFL is perfect for TV. (Especially with Red Zone coverage.)
 

Big Unit

UDFA
Joined
Mar 23, 2013
Messages
96
The statistics that have St. Louis at the top are greatly skewed because of the separation of city and county. Pair that with the Ferguson fiasco and the perception is there.

I feel perfectly safe in St. Louis...as I'm sure I would in LA too. I think any major city you have to pay attention to the neighborhoods you're in and be smart. Other than that, random bad things happen and that's just the reality of it.
I agree. Crime statistics are based on the population of the city - about 320,000 - while the metro population is 2.8 million. The rate would be far lower if the population of the metro area were considered, instead of just the population of the city.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2013
Messages
5,808
The statistics that have St. Louis at the top are greatly skewed because of the separation of city and county. Pair that with the Ferguson fiasco and the perception is there.

I feel perfectly safe in St. Louis...as I'm sure I would in LA too. I think any major city you have to pay attention to the neighborhoods you're in and be smart. Other than that, random bad things happen and that's just the reality of it.

Agreed, I've lived in some of the worst areas of major cities in the UK over the last 10 years. I think if you go looking for trouble you can easily find it, but if you're sensible 99% of the time you'll be fine.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Problem is we're comparing apples and oranges:

LA metro area has a population of almost 13 million
San Diego metro population just over 3 million
St. Louis metro population - including metro east - 2.8 million
Oakland doesn't even have its own metro area - it's part of San Francisco/Oakland; total about 4.5 million. If you add San Jose and silicon valley (where the Niners' Levi Stadium is located) - a little over 8 million.

There are four major sports - football, baseball, basketball and hockey. St. Louis is the 19th largest metro market in the US; generally only the ten largest can support all four professional leagues in their markets. St. Louis should be in the second tier - able to support three, which is what they have now.

In my mind, the problem is with distribution of teams in California. There are 3 CA teams, but one in a 3 million market 120 miles from LA; and two in the Bay Area; while LA has none. It's weird - LA has two MLB teams; two NBA teams; two NHL teams; and ZERO NFL teams? Realistically, there should be one team in the Bay Area; and either one in LA, one in San Diego; OR two in LA.

I think the desire of the NFL to have two teams in LA relates in part to the fact LA is a media center, and the growing role of television in NFL games. Apart from tailgating and the "shared experience" of going to a game, the NFL is perfect for TV. (Especially with Red Zone coverage.)

The NFl wants the right team in LA. That's why they wrote that part into the G-4 resolution in 1995.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The statistics that have St. Louis at the top are greatly skewed because of the separation of city and county. Pair that with the Ferguson fiasco and the perception is there.

I feel perfectly safe in St. Louis...as I'm sure I would in LA too. I think any major city you have to pay attention to the neighborhoods you're in and be smart. Other than that, random bad things happen and that's just the reality of it.

Essentially, yeah, I felt perfectly safe in St Louis too, hell I was in Dublin when there were IRA bomb threats, I never felt worried, neither did my parents. We had old friends who lived up north and they imagined Dublin as some really dangerous place. Matter of perception really, I haven't ever really felt unsafe walking around anywhere. Hell in the Middle East I never even felt unsafe walking around, but then again I thought was the baddest mother fucker around.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,973
Name
Stu
Yeah - I dunno. You start traveling down the 110 south of the Santa Monica Freeway and I'm not wanting to exit much of anywhere and head east until I reach Hwy 1. Building a new stadium would likely change some of those areas but YEESH!
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,973
Name
Stu
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.
It's odd. I'll give you that. But I'm not sure how else to describe it except that Raiduh fan when they were there was more of a rabid type fan while Rams fans were always a but more sane. I knew way more Rams fans in CA in general than I did Raiduh fan. As a general rule, the Rams gear was always shall we say, less soiled than the Raiduhs gear. Regardless, from my experience, there are far more Rams fans than Raiduhs fans.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
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.

NWA? I was talking about this...

 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
NFL says this time it's more serious about stadium
By Sam Farmer

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-obstacles-20150222-story.html

For two decades, billionaires, business leaders, Hollywood celebrities and high-powered politicians have taken turns trying to coax the NFL back to Los Angeles. Their efforts have been futile.

Football fans in the region, fatigued by broken promises and dead-end deals, have been largely skeptical. They've revealed their feelings in letters and online posts that can best be summarized: Don't call us until you start pouring cement.

Now, in the last few weeks, NFL owners have muscled their way onto the stage, throwing in their own money and making their stadium plans very public. For the first time since 1994, the NFL's return to Los Angeles might be more than a dream.

"People are actually investing dollars into getting something done," said Pittsburgh Steelers owner Art Rooney II, chairman of the league committee looking into the L.A. market. "People can take that as maybe we're more serious than we've been over the last decade or so."

The owner of the St. Louis Rams announced last month that he intends to build a football stadium at Hollywood Park in Inglewood, and Thursday the owners of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders unveiled a plan to share a venue in Carson. Neither proposal requires public money.

"There's a big difference between the league making something out of a market, and an owner doing that," said Eric Grubman, an NFL senior vice president and point man on L.A.

"Now that there are multiple clubs in it, the passion is building, and the commitment to get something done on the part of those clubs is very public. That changes the dynamics, and it does increase the complexity."

No one has yet committed to move a team to L.A. But the owners have made it clear that they are ready to relocate if they are unable to negotiate a new publicly subsidized stadium in their home cities. The stakes are high as they jostle for position in the nation's second-largest market, where the Dodgers and Clippers each sold for $2 billion or more.

The pressure now is on the NFL to make it work.

"There are some in the league office who would prefer a much more orderly process," said Amy Trask, former chief executive of the Raiders. "And I also believe that there are others who believe this sort of competition is essential to achieve the sort of resolution that the league wants."
Proposed stadium in Carson

The proposed site of the new NFL stadium near Del Amo Boulevard and South Main Street in Carson. Officials say cleanup efforts have made the site nearly shovel-ready for construction.

In the end, the decision on L.A. could drive wedges into a historically cohesive group whose 32-team enterprise generates almost $10 billion in annual revenue. It's extremely unlikely that two stadiums will be built.

It's a delicate situation for a league coming off the most turbulent year in its history, when Commissioner Roger Goodell was under intense scrutiny for his handling of star players who found trouble off the field.

The Chargers and Raiders formed an unlikely pairing when their hand was forced by Rams owner Stan Kroenke, who set off the competition when he formed a partnership to develop a stadium on the former Hollywood Park property. The Raiders and Chargers, AFC West rivals on the field, say they are pursuing Carson as a fallback, in case they cannot get sufficient stadium subsidies in Oakland and San Diego.

St. Louis is scrambling to hang onto the Rams, and has proposed a new riverfront stadium that would be about 40% publicly funded. Workers have committed to round-the-clock construction in order to complete the project in two years.

"It's fluid because there are multiple sites and multiple clubs," Grubman said. "The home markets have not yet fully responded to the possibility that their teams might leave."

If any of the teams make a deal to stay in its current city, it would take the pressure off the remaining teams to make an immediate move to seize a share of the L.A. market.

The Chargers and Raiders said they expect to know by the end of this year whether they have workable deals in their home cities.

There has been speculation that Kroenke, the league's second-richest owner, might decide to move without league approval. Al Davis did it with the Raiders and Robert Irsay with the Baltimore Colts in the early 1980s.

Rooney predicts all three owners would adhere to league rules stipulating that any major decision such as a relocation requires a three-quarters vote of the 32 owners.

"I don't sense that any owners are taking the position of, 'I'm going whether you like it or not,'" he said. "We've been in contact with all of them. They all are working with our committee."

Since World War II, every city that has lost an NFL team eventually landed another one — except Los Angeles, which lost the Rams and Raiders after the 1994 season.

There are various reasons given as to why L.A. has gone so long without a franchise. One is the league depends on using the L.A. vacancy as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities. Since 1995, 27 of the 32 teams have either gotten new stadiums or had at least $400 million in renovations on their existing ones.

Another reason is that while every other city talks about what it will do to either lure an NFL team or keep the one it has, L.A. talks about what it will not do — namely it will not help finance a venue with taxpayer money. Both the Hollywood Park and Carson plans call for privately financed stadiums.

Then there are those who say the league has just been too choosy.

"There's no one site that's perfect," Trask said. "One thing I've noted over the years is that the league may have gotten too focused on looking for the perfect site that they passed up the terrific one."
 

dhaab

Rookie
Joined
Oct 29, 2012
Messages
158
Takes me a hour and 30 mins to drive 25 miles to work, one way, 3 or more hours a day driving to and from work alone. Its like im driving to vegas everyday one way. I used to have to drive on the 405 when I worked in HB, crap was horrible. I mainly use the 10 and the 605 now.
thats some real crap you're sayin there.

I'm starting to understand why some of these LA people are so cranky. ;-)
 

CodeMonkey

Possibly the OH but cannot self-identify
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
3,449
Agree with the comments about perception v reality and the wonky way St Louis isn't in a county so the stats are skewed.

... I never felt unsafe walking around, but then again I thought was the baddest mother freaker around.

As the book of Bob says: "Yea, though I walk through the valley in the shadow of death I will fear no evil for I am the baddest son of a bitch in the valley"
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
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
I understand that, St. Louis is notorious for being in the top 10 for crime in the country, though I'm not sure where the city sits today. I was basically saying that the fact that St. Louis' stats are higher than Compton's stats is not surprising at all.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
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.
Oh yes, St. Louis has indeed developed a reputation. Compton's bad rep stems from the 80's and 90's. St. Louis is way more violent. Hell, some of the suburbs in the area are pretty bad too.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
I would guess that is more a factor of saturated police patrol. The Po Po protects the $$ - true in LA, true in STL, true for Ballpark Village, and will be true for wherever the Rams are playing in 2016. Makes sense for the Police to approach it that way, of course, because without saturated patrol - any of those areas would be a giant target.
Indeed, but the EJD is surrounded by residences (some low income) and other businesses that people frequent so there is much more foot traffic around it. There will be saturation in police patrol around the new stadium site, but there will be no residences surrounding it thus not as much loitering and such from people looking to cause trouble.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Me: If you ever wanted to know how we got into the situation we are in and why certain members of the Mayor's staff *cough Jeff Rainford cough* are no longer a part of the Mayor's staff this is a great explanation.

5 QUESTIONS WITH ANDY BANKER


By Patrick Stewart (@stewartfzn)

Andy Banker (@andybankertv) is a news anchor/reporter for Fox 2 news in St. Louis and the stadium announcer at the Edward Jones Dome for the St. Louis Rams. If you follow him on Twitter you will find him to be closely following the stadium situation and willing to discuss it with fans. He was kind enough to answer five questions for me, but did ask that I put in the following disclaimer before we started:

Andy: My answers in this interview are solely my opinions and are in no way reflective of the views of my employers at Fox 2 or the St. Louis Rams.

Patrick: Dave Peacock has been one of the key figures in putting St. Louis in a position to compete with the LA market in keeping the Rams. How has he, along with a few others, been able to get so much accomplished in so little time?

Andy: Dave Peacock certainly has the connections and "know-how" to make him the perfect person for heading the stadium task force. But after speaking with him and getting to know him a bit, I'm most impressed by his passion. You'll meet politicians who claim to love St. Louis and want what's best for our town...so long as whatever they're advocating is in their political interest. Dave loves St. Louis for St. Louis's sake. He's a fan first, a St. Louis fan, a Rams fan. That's contagious. Governor Nixon and Mayor Slay have been won over. He's also very smart; understanding the economics and most importantly, I think, the politics of it all.

He's disposed with the ineffective (actually destructive) "Kroenke, the billionaire enemy of the fans" garbage. All Stan Kroenke has ever done for St. Louis in terms of football is step up to cement the deal to bring a team here when no one else would.

I personally know this to be true: political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary. The CVC's proposal for dome upgrades reflected as much.

The Rams counter proposal was far more realistic. They won arbitration. Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision. Instead of engaging the Rams in meaningful negotiations, StL leadership kept with the short-sided "leverage" strategy, even heading into this season. They believed there was still nowhere for the Rams to go and they had "leverage" over Kroenke. The "leverage" game is Kroenke's strength.

Peacock recognizes that and is undoing the damage. Prior to his involvement, political leadership here was flailing and failing. He woke them up.

Don't discount Governor Nixon's leadership. StL dumped this in his lap. He wisely hitched the wagon to Peacock.

Patrick: Financing the new stadium has been the biggest question among both fans and local and national media members. How do you think this issue will be handled?

Andy: The showdown is coming. Peacock and company are formulating the winning rationale by putting together a complete deal, so "doable", that it's lunacy to pass it up. He understands how the numbers have to work and how to package this as a political plus.

Here's the pitch:

Question: How often does someone present a project for a billion dollar investment in

St. Louis?

Answer: Never.

Question: How about such an investment that results in an economic gain on a public investment?

Answer: Never, ever!

Question: How about a BILLION DOLLAR deal on derelict property at our city's doorstep between the Arch and our beautiful new bridge that extends downtown and turns an eyesore you hoped no one would ever see -- into something that will beat back the image of St. Louis being a dying city?

Answer: Wow -- that's doable?!

I think it'll be a close vote -- but ultimately this deal will get through the legislature.

Patrick: It’s been said that Kevin Demoff has been at the negotiating table with Peacock, Nixon, and Slay. Do you think this is for show or do you think the Rams are taking a real interest in the design of the new stadium?

Andy: The Rams are very much invested in St. Louis and interested in keeping it that way. What do they gain by being at the table "for show" if they truly want to move at all costs? Under Demoff's leadership, the Rams have done more in terms of community outreach than perhaps any of our teams in StL.

I want everyone every fan to ask themselves: without the threat of moving, how far along do you really think this new stadium plan would be? If Kroenke said, "I love St. Louis...I'll never move this team," do you think we have this stadium proposal? The answers are obvious.

Patrick: Have you heard anything regarding the Rams leaving St. Louis early to stake a claim to the Los Angeles market in 2015?

Andy: I've heard nothing in that regard. From ownership on down, you've never heard anyone say, "We want out of St. Louis" and certainly not in 2015.

Patrick: Finally, do you feel better now than a month ago about the Rams staying here long term? How do you think this will all end?

Andy: I feel far better about the Rams staying than at any time since the arbitration. I'm not a sports talk regular, so my opinion has been muted. But I've feared this showdown for years. Everyone knew the "year to year" lease loophole was approaching. I always felt it would be the driving force and a potential move would materialize quickly. Yet, even during Rams training camp this past summer pundits were saying there was no LA option and wouldn't be for years; that St. Louis had "leverage". Political leadership believed it.

Thanks to Dave Peacock we're recovering quickly from that flawed strategy. Thanks to Stan Kroenke, St. Louis has the Rams. I'm not being naive and I don't think this is just about "leverage" from his standpoint. But he's never said he wants to move the team. If there's a new stadium, I don't think he ever will.

Buy tickets. Pack the dome.

I want to thank Andy for being so open and honest in this interview. He says things that maybe local fans don’t want to hear, but need to understand. Like Andy, I’m hopeful that together we can show the Rams and the league that St. Louis is an NFL city. It’s going to take all of us, from Dave Peacock at the negotiating table to fans like you and me buying tickets and packing the dome. Let’s do this St. Louis! #STLNFL #KeepTheRamsInStl”

http://thehorn.sportsblog.com/posts/1860956/5_questions_with_andy_banker.html
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
NFL will 'sweeten the pot' to keep the Rams in St. Louis
by Vinnie Criscenzo

Stan Kroenke may not be too crazy about the idea, but it seems the NFL will try it’s best to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

St. Louis Rams on Stan Kroenke has been lobbying for a new stadium and a possible move of the team back to Los Angeles. The NFL would like to have an NFL franchise back in Los Angeles, but the Rams are not the team they want to relocate to Los Angeles.

The San Diego Chargers and theOakland Raiders are two other teams that are in desperate needs of new stadiums and have expressed interest in relocating the team to the Los Angeles area. The NFL has come up with the idea of the Carson project.

The Carson project is an idea for a $1.7 billion stadium to be built in Carson, California that will by jointly used by the Chargers and the Raiders. Both teams would have to relocate, but they wouldn’t have to move well across the country. Also, it will give two NFL franchises the new stadium they so desperately need. Thursday night, the Carson project was agreed upon by both the Chargers and Raiders.

The Raiders are still playing on a field with a baseball diamond, they need a new stadium badly.

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is mostly likely disappointed about the plan. He never came out and actually said he wants to relocate the team to Los Angeles, but everyone knows that is ultimately what he wants. However, it’s not all bad news for Kroenke.

Jason La Canfora @JasonLaCanfora
Kroenke wouldn't love it, but he would get a good deal on new STL stadium and NFL could find ways to sweeten the pot more. Crazy times ahead


The Carson plan in California could mean some good things for Kroenke as well. To keep Kroenke happy, the NFL approved a plan on Thursday to expedite the building of a new stadium for the Rams, as well as give Kroenke a better deal money wise.

It makes the most sense to work out this way. The Chargers and Raiders are already based in California, so it will give both teams stadium relief while not having to move them far away while giving the league an NFL franchise, or two, in the Los Angeles area. The Rams also are the only franchise with a contingency plan in place with their new stadium in St. Louis.

H/T Jason La Confora

http://fansided.com/2015/02/21/nfl-will-sweeten-pot-keep-rams-st-louis/
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,296
"The NFL would like to have an NFL franchise back in Los Angeles, but the Rams are not the team they want to relocate to Los Angeles. "

I would like to know where this information came from, because up to this point the NFL has said that Stan has been doing everything according to procedure in terms of Stadium planning and relocation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.