New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ZigZagRam]

OK... now...

...go back and think about how many times ESPN has erroneously reported things about the Rams.

Basic stuff... like a totally erroneous assessment of a player... or simple stats.

Fact is, as a national network, they are not tuned into the local markets (execpt the ones they are enamored with and we all know who those are).

STL is far off their radar and have been since the GSOT.

So, to believe the ill-informed is to become the ill-informed.

ESPN employs Steven A. Smith and Skip Useless.

'nuff said!!!!

I also saw the video. I saw the same person, Jim Trotter, wrote an article not even a week ago that said an NFL owner told him that the NFL would be able to prevent an owner from doing what Trotter said Stan would do yesterday.

Yesterday Sam Farmer says the Rams are the most likely team to move to California. Today he says it's very possible that the Rams stay.

We're watching a swinging pendulum.

There's only one team that I feel very confident will be playing in L.A. in 2016 and that's the Raiders. Davis will need a ride though. Hopefully that's with the Chargers rather than the Rams.

My biggest fear right now is that the Chargers work something out in San Diego, but I've read enough about the San Diego stadium situation to know that there's about a 1% chance of that coming to fruition.

Every scenario I can come up with has a part of it that seems very unlikely to me, which is why I've had a hard time feeling confident about anything.

1. Kroenke picks up and moves the Rams - How could the NFL be content with moving another team to California and leaving the two teams in the worst stadium messes in the league out to dry?

2. Spanos and Davis move to Carson - How big of a fight would Kroenke wage on the NFL?

3. Kroenke and Davis move to Inglewood - I can't see Stan sharing, and I can't see Spanos getting a new stadium in San Diego.

4. Kroenke and Spanos to Inglewood - I can't see Mark Davis moving his team to the midwest and I can't see Spanos going in on a deal with Kroenke.

5. Kroenke stays, Raiders move to Inglewood, Spanos stays - Spanos isn't getting a stadium, Davis probably can't afford to move anywhere by himself

I'm sure there's some scenarios I've forgotten but there's always one piece that doesn't make sense to me.

But I'll tell you what seems least likely to me. Kroenke taking the risk of going rogue or the NFL being content with the Chargers and Raiders stuck in their terrible stadium situations for who knows how long.

 

[tahoe]

You know I've been thinking about all of this and to me the Carson project and the Rams staying in St Louis makes the most sense for the league. Oakland and San Diego will never get new stadiums in those cities and St Louis wants to build a new stadium. The only way the Raiders and Chargers get a new stadium is going in together. What makes more sense for league? Three teams getting new stadiums with two in L.A. or one team getting a new stadium in L.A. with the other two stuck in old stadiums and abandoning the 21st tv market? I just cant see the league allowing option #2. I know we have a long way to go but I just have to hope that the nfl does the right thing.

 

[den-the-coach]

and the Rams staying in St Louis makes the most sense for the league.

How dare you try to make sense of this? My God!

 

[iced]

Thanks. Does anyone else read these rules and come to the conclusion that they are meant to be so vague as to allow the NFL to enforce them as they see fit? I've never seen such ambiguity in bylaws. I don't see anywhere where it expressly prohibits cross ownership.

My guess though is that #4 is the real crux behind the reason. They want the ability to review an owner's ability to afford to operate the NFL franchise above all other sports franchises.

I don't think cross-ownership is like a penalty where you get a fine or something - you're either in compliance or you get there. And it's not like Kroenke can asked to be grand fathered in, nor can he claim that he didn't know - he was given an extension initially when buying the team and another extension (2nd or 3rd one now) to get in compliance with the league...

I do see how everything is written so vague that it pretty much allows the NFL to do what they do want (reminds me of the Military's article 92 - 'the catch all' charge).

The NFL has given him breaks and extensions on that - if the NFL told him Kroenke he couldn't move and if he chose to fight it, I don't think he'd have much leverage, if any.

And for those who are wondering about the NFL's power, look at how they're treating the Bronco's and their ownership for the future of their franchise...Think Pat Bowlen was given 2 years to sort it out or else he'd have to sell the team...

 

[ZigZagRam]

You know ive been thinking about all of this and to me the Carson project and the Rans staying in St Louis makes the most sense for the league. Oakland and San Diego will never get new stadiums in those cities and St Louis wants to build a new stadium. The only way the Raiders and Chargers get a new stadium is going in together. What makes more sense for league? Three teams getting new stadiums with two in L.A. or one team getting a new stadium in L.A. with the other two stuck in old stadiums and abandoning the 21st tv market? I just cant see the league allowing option #2. I know we have a long way to go but I just have to hope that the nfl does the right thing.

Agree 100%. The bold in particular.

Looking at the markets alone, by moving the Rams, you abandon the 21st largest media market but gain L.A. That's a big jump no doubt, but you've got two teams left in antiquated stadiums.

By moving the Raiders, you abandon the 8th largest media market (but the 49ers dominate that market already) and by moving the Chargers, you're abandoning one of the smallest media markets in the NFL. You're upgrading two franchises rather than one by moving from Oakland > Los Angeles and San Diego >>> Los Angeles even if you're splitting the #2 market.

 

[Angry Ram]

Hey guys, is that survey for a St. Louis open air stadium sent from "CSL International"?

I just found that in my junk mail folder. If it's legit I'll fill it out.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't think cross-ownership is like a penalty where you get a fine or something - you're either in compliance or you get there. And it's not like Kroenke can asked to be grand fathered in, nor can he claim that he didn't know - he was given an extension initially when buying the team and another extension (2nd or 3rd one now) to get in compliance with the league...

I do see how everything is written so vague that it pretty much allows the NFL to do what they do want (reminds me of the Military's article 92 - 'the catch all' charge).

The NFL has given him breaks and extensions on that - if the NFL told him Kroenke he couldn't move and if he chose to fight it, I don't think he'd have much leverage, if any.

And for those who are wondering about the NFL's power, look at how they're treating the Bronco's and their ownership for the future of their franchise...Think Pat Bowlen was given 2 years to sort it out or else he'd have to sell the team...

It's just weird. I just have to wonder how much the NFL really relies on their bylaws and how much they relay on being a cohesive group of owners with a common goal. I realize it is a fence they are walking as they don't play by common rules of business law but every time I look at another section of their bylaws I just shake my head at the lack of clarity.

The cross ownership rule could be completely enforceable. Fuck if I know from reading it.

Maybe I'm just kidding myself but I just still lean on the fact that Stan worked very hard to bring the team to his home state and I think, though he hasn't been public about it and the Inglewood project may say otherwise, I think he is still working to keep them there.

Personally, with how I've seen gov'ts work, I'd say it is a good idea to give Stan more control if that is what he seeks. The guy knows how to make money and how to run a project. I suspect he could make himself AND the city more money and you would have a more efficiently run operation.

 

[tahoe]

Hey guys, is that survey for a St. Louis open air stadium sent from "CSL International"?

I just found that in my junk mail folder. If it's legit I'll fill it out.

I filled mine out! Its a long survey but its worth it to try to keep the rams in St Louis.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Just watched Mike Florio's interview with Eric Grubman from this morning.

http://stream.nbcsports.com/pft/?pi...otballtalk.nbcsports.com/radio/?nid=16016_718

MF: What's happened in St. Louis to maybe change the NFL's view that St. Louis is intent on keeping an NFL team there?

EG: Well St. Louis stopped talking about the Dome a couple of years ago when the Rams essentially won the arbitration process and they stopped talking aspirationally about what they would like to do. And they started getting down to brass tacks and they put a very able executive together with a team, Dave Peacock is leading a team of people there, to look at what's possible and then to begin the 'blocking and tackling,' if you will, to assemble all of the pieces: the land, the approvals, the design, some elements of the financing, and that process is taking shape. There's real progress. We've been spending a lot of time with them, and so have the Rams by the way. There's a lot of good work and good progress so far in the St. Louis market. No solution yet, but good progress.

MF: There's been some speculation that the solution could involve the Rams moving to L.A. and another team moving to St. Louis. Is that a possibility?

EG: Look, it's not for me to say that anything is a possibility or to rule anything out, but I've been fairly up front with the St. Louis leadership, political and business and others, just saying you should focus on the team that you have, not some hypothetical team that you could have. The Rams are the St. Louis Rams and until there's a vote saying otherwise, they're the St. Louis Rams and St. Louis ought to focus on the Rams.

My take:
- I thought it was notable that he made a point to say the Rams were at the negotiating table and that good progress is being made.
- Multiple times Grubman has thrown water on the idea that the Rams would go elsewhere and another team would come to St. Louis.
- Unfortunately, what I also took from the words is 'You need to focus on keeping the Rams and somehow convincing Kroenke to stay, otherwise there's nothing that can be done for St. Louis if he convinces the other owners to approve a move.

 

[Angry Ram]

I filled mine out! Its a long survey but its worth it to try to keep the rams in St Louis.

Yeah, I just did it myself. Damn near 150 questions!

 

[bluecoconuts]

You know I've been thinking about all of this and to me the Carson project and the Rams staying in St Louis makes the most sense for the league. Oakland and San Diego will never get new stadiums in those cities and St Louis wants to build a new stadium. The only way the Raiders and Chargers get a new stadium is going in together. What makes more sense for league? Three teams getting new stadiums with two in L.A. or one team getting a new stadium in L.A. with the other two stuck in old stadiums and abandoning the 21st tv market? I just cant see the league allowing option #2. I know we have a long way to go but I just have to hope that the nfl does the right thing.

The only problem here is that it assumes only the Rams move to LA, and everyone else stays put. The Rams can move to LA, Chargers can join them, Radiers to St Louis.

Or Rams to LA, Chargers to St Louis, Raiders to LA.

Rams to LA, one of Raiders/Chargers get new stadiums in Oakland/San Diego, the other to St Louis.

There are a few different ways it can play out.

 

[den-the-coach]

My take:
- I thought it was notable that he made a point to say the Rams were at the negotiating table and that good progress is being made.
- Multiple times Grubman has thrown water on the idea that the Rams would go elsewhere and another team would come to St. Louis.
- Unfortunately, what I also took from the words is 'You need to focus on keeping the Rams and somehow convincing Kroenke to stay, otherwise there's nothing that can be done for St. Louis if he convinces the other owners to approve a move.

Right on point @ZigZagRam that would be my interpretation as well sir.

 

[iced]

Maybe I'm just kidding myself but I just still lean on the fact that Stan worked very hard to bring the team to his home state and I think, though he hasn't been public about it and the Inglewood project may say otherwise, I think he is still working to keep them there.

I agree - and I'll even add to that with something that is NOT being talked about despite all this rampant speculation: Out of all 3 owners, Kroenke hasn't even discussed moving the team to LA as an option, or any kind of intent. Spanos and Davis have made their intent to LA clear - Kroenke has only been widely speculated upon. Notice Kroenke hasn't made any statements or given timelines to St.Louis to have a plan ready, unlike the Raiders and Chargers.

I don't think Stan intends on moving the Rams from St.Louis, and nor do I think it'll happen.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Right on point @ZigZagRam that would be my interpretation as well sir.

Well then we have to be right, right?

Also of note, I didn't transpose this part, but in a question about the Raiders being the least likely of the teams to find a stadium solution, Grubman said something along the lines ofL I'm not in position to rank them right now, but St. Louis's plans have gone from aspiration to actionable, and that the other two cities (Oakland and San Diego) have taken notice.

To me that suggests he sees us as ahead of the curve.

It also struck me as incredibly odd that he continues to mention a third site (presumably Farmer's Field as a possibility). Most sources I've seen have said this project is dead, but if that were the case, I can't imagine Grubman continuing to talk about it as a real possibility. The Carson project was a pretty shocking development, but I still think there's going to be another development as I have a hard time seeing Anschutz just fading away.

 

[tahoe]

The only problem here is that it assumes only the Rams move to LA, and everyone else stays put. The Rams can move to LA, Chargers can join them, Radiers to St Louis.

Or Rams to LA, Chargers to St Louis, Raiders to LA.

Rams to LA, one of Raiders/Chargers get new stadiums in Oakland/San Diego, the other to St Louis.

There are a few different ways it can play out.

I find it harder to believe that the nfl will move a team from the Midwest to California and a California team to the Midwest than just moving two teams already in California to LA. Both teams would be able to keep their original fan bases for the most part as the move isn't as far. When you move teams half way across the country its harder to keep those fan bases. There are just fewer moving parts with Chargers/Raiders to LA and Rams staying put. Also what does it tell other cities if St Louis is very willing to build a new stadium and the nfl just lets the Rams leave anyways? Good luck getting cities to pony up in the future.
Keep the Rams in St Louis

 

[tahoe]

Also this would show other cities that you will be rewarded for building a new stadium (with the Rams staying in St Louis) and you can lose your team if you don't build a new stadium (with Raiders and Chargers leaving for LA). It just makes too much business sense for the future of the nfl.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I find it harder to believe that the nfl will move a team from the Midwest to California and a California team to the Midwest than just moving two teams already in California to LA. Both teams would be able to keep their original fan bases for the most part as the move isn't as far. When you move teams half way across the country its harder to keep those fan bases. There are just fewer moving parts with Chargers/Raiders to LA and Rams staying put. Also what does it tell other cities if St Louis is very willing to build a new stadium and the nfl just lets the Rams leave anyways? Good luck getting cities to pony up in the future.
Keep the Rams in St Louis

Personally I dont think the NFL cares that much. Ultimately they care about making as much money as possible, in that sense having new fans for a team, means more jersey sales. There are fewer moving parts, yes, but how much do they care about that?

Plus in terms of costly signaling, it can go either way. Do you signal that if an owner wants to move just don't bother? Do you signal that if you make any offer, even if the owner doesn't agree to it, they'll force the team to stay there? San Diego has made offers to the chargers, similar to St Louis, but they haven't started building without go ahead from Spanos, so if the NFL let's them leave, that sends the same message as the Rams leaving.

If the Rams leave and St Louis builds a stadium, then the NFL directs a team there, it can signal that they'll help out as best they can if you work with them.

There's a ton of different ways, its really not black and white. There are going to be pluses and minuses to both options, which is why the NFL will need to weigh them. With tons of different options, they likely go to the option that projects to them the most money, no matter how complicated it is. If Kroenke is willing to write some big checks, it could be a deciding issue. If Spanos and Davis are able to figure out how the financing can work (right now estimates indicate it doesn't, even with them splitting) that can help too.

 

[RamBill]

What happens if St. Louis presents a stadium plan to Stan Kroenke and Rams?
by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...ents-a-stadium-plan-to-stan-kroenke-and-rams/

Amid all the jubilation Tuesday in Inglewood after the city council approved a plan to build a football stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track, it was easy to overlook the fact that adopting the plan doesn’t necessarily mean the NFL will end up in Inglewood.

It’s one of two stadium plans in play in the Los Angeles, with the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers recently announcing a plan to build a new home they’ll share in Carson.

It’s well known the Inglewood stadium is the brainchild of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, presumably to be the new home for his Rams, who are free to leave St. Louis at the end of the 2015 season.

Unless, of course, St. Louis and Missouri leaders come up a plan to finance a new stadium for the Rams.

Which raises an interesting question.

What happens if Missouri approves a stadium before Kroenke files for relocation after next season?

NFL Vice President Eric Grubman, the league’s point man tasked with getting the NFL back to Los Angeles – told me that would present a difficult situation, but that he’s confident the NFL could navigate to a solution that it could be proud of, one that would uphold the values and principals of the NFL and be good for fans.

It leads you to wonder if a deal is being developed in which the Rams are allowed to move to Los Angeles and another team – say the Raiders – are directed to St. Louis?

That’s one of the scenarios my esteemed colleague in St. Louis, Bernie Miklasz, forwarded a few days ago.

It’s absolutely possible, but the word I get within the NFL is that St. Louis is being told to focus all its efforts on the Rams rather than look too far ahead.

For the moment, anyway, the league does not seem inclined to speculate about any sort of back filling, or directing another team to St. Louis should the Rams leave.

Kroenke’s involvement in Inglewood – he owns 60 acres of land on the site the stadium will be erected – and his flexibility to move at the end of next season suggests it’s only a matter of time before the Rams are back in Los Angeles, the region they once called home for 48 years.

And that may very well happen.

But it might not be a bad thing to pump the brakes on things a bit, because there is still a lot that has to break L.A.’s way for the Rams to return.

Missouri leaders are working feverishly to fund and build a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis, and I can assure you the NFL is pushing the process a long.

The morning after Inglewood approved Kroenke’s Hollywood Park plan, Grubman – the man in charge with getting pro football back to Los Angeles while also retaining current teams in their current cities – was on a plane to St. Louis for a previously planned visit.

It’s one of many trips Grubman has made to St. Louis, where he is working closely with the two-man stadium task force of Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz to get a proposal on the table.

The question is, will a new stadium in St. Louis be home to the Rams or someone else?

 

[ZigZagRam]

I just heard Randy Karraker on the radio say that there is a local moneyman who is ready to purchase the Rams if the offer presents itself.

Wouldn't that be swell.

It makes you think. You know how Kroenke can kill the Carson project and make sure he's the only team in Los Angeles? Buy the Raiders. Sell the Rams. Spanos can't move to L.A. on his own.

 

[tahoe]

Personally I dont think the NFL cares that much. Ultimately they care about making as much money as possible, in that sense having new fans for a team, means more jersey sales. There are fewer moving parts, yes, but how much do they care about that?

Plus in terms of costly signaling, it can go either way. Do you signal that if an owner wants to move just don't bother? Do you signal that if you make any offer, even if the owner doesn't agree to it, they'll force the team to stay there? San Diego has made offers to the chargers, similar to St Louis, but they haven't started building without go ahead from Spanos, so if the NFL let's them leave, that sends the same message as the Rams leaving.

If the Rams leave and St Louis builds a stadium, then the NFL directs a team there, it can signal that they'll help out as best they can if you work with them.

There's a ton of different ways, its really not black and white. There are going to be pluses and minuses to both options, which is why the NFL will need to weigh them. With tons of different options, they likely go to the option that projects to them the most money, no matter how complicated it is. If Kroenke is willing to write some big checks, it could be a deciding issue. If Spanos and Davis are able to figure out how the financing can work (right now estimates indicate it doesn't, even with them splitting) that can help too.

Your LA bias shows itself just like my St Louis bias surely shows