New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RAMbler]

First, welcome to the board.

Second, they can't force Stan to pay for a new stadium here, but they can force him to stay. At that point he'd either play in the Dome, sell, or try to figure out some London pipe dream.

As far as the shortest distance, the shortest distance scenario alienates two California franchises with the worst stadium situations in the league. I doubt that's in the league's best interest, especially when those two franchises reportedly have the interest to solve their problems, together, in L.A.

Thanks for the welcome ZigZag...

I respectfully disagree. I just don't see any way that they could force Stan to play in a dome he has already rejected, and won arbitration on. Or force him into paying nearly half a Billion for a venue he 'may' not have any interest in.... and will not belong to him. If they try to force him, IMO he sues with both guns blazing.... It may be debatable if he'd win, but I'm convinced it's a fight the NFL absolutely does not want.

My bottom line is that he is either leaving... point blank..., virtually a done deal..., or he is going to pull something out of his hat at the 11th hour. Which he has been known to do.

A bumpy ride doesn't begin to describe what the fans are in for.....

 

[ZigZagRam]

Again, I go back to what I said earlier.

Faulconer is trying to save face after putzing around for 11 months. What do you expect him to say? "Yeah, we're going to try but everyone knows we're not going to get public financing approved. We should just give up."

If he was serious, he wouldn't have put the one man on the task force that the Chargers refused to work with. That was the same man that prevented their best two shots of getting a stadium built there.

 

[iced]

If you're wanting the Rams back in L.A. I'd be hoping Kroenke goes rogue because there's little to no chance of anything getting done in San Diego.

don't think that route will bear much fruit either...

*the fall out of letting a team leave while the city is trying to build a stadium (owners wouldn't like this)
*rooney thinks they can legally block a team from moving if it fails a vote
*NFL options for retaliation....Penalties for violating the relocation rules...they also gave a break on cross ownership..

Just me but I don't see it ending well for Kroenke in any form or fashion if he tries to take on the NFL.

 

[RhodyRams]

As I have said before, I really have no horse in this race. Granted it would be cheaper to fly to STL for a game than to LA, but I could also go to away games in other cities as well.

But I would like to say thanks to all those participating in this thread .

First, thanks for posting alot of information dealing with the local politics involved and also the various articles by numerous writers , each offering a different view point.

Secondly I want to thank everyone for keeping this a civil and polite conversation. I have seen firsthand how these threads can very quickly deteriorate into an unreadable flame war between the two groups, which ultimately leads to a locked thread.


We are all Rams brethren who bleed Blue and Gold or Blue and White or Blue and Yellow, but we all love the horns, and I raise my glass to thee :cheers:

 

[ZigZagRam]

don't think that route will bear much fruit either...

*the fall out of letting a team leave while the city is trying to build a stadium (owners wouldn't like this)
*rooney thinks they can legally block a team from moving if it fails a vote
*NFL options for retaliation....Penalties for violating the relocation rules...they also gave a break on cross ownership..

Just me but I don't see it ending well for Kroenke in any form or fashion if he tries to take on the NFL.

Exactly. I don't see Kroenke taking the risk. That's not the way he does things.

Just like this whole situation, he doesn't set himself up for the risk of failure. No matter what happens here, he wins.

Lose in court to the NFL. That's a huge loss.

 

[tonyl711]

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.

your last take is what im posting about. I wouldn't expect him to say anything else but to focus on the Rams, if he said hey if the Rams move we will bring another team there, he would create nervous fans in a few fan bases.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

don't think that route will bear much fruit either...

*the fall out of letting a team leave while the city is trying to build a stadium (owners wouldn't like this)
*rooney thinks they can legally block a team from moving if it fails a vote
*NFL options for retaliation....Penalties for violating the relocation rules...they also gave a break on cross ownership..

Just me but I don't see it ending well for Kroenke in any form or fashion if he tries to take on the NFL.

Ya I agree I don't think he will go rouge but IF San Diego gets a new stadium then he won't have too. I think this is all about San Diego now, they're the ones that could ultimately decide on who plays in LA. Anyways will know in about 3 months

 

[RamFan503]

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.

Great points Iced. 116 pages and I don't think anyone has brought up that glaring missing link.

 

[MrMotes]

Great points Iced. 116 pages and I don't think anyone has brought up that glaring missing link.

You can go by words or you can go by actions.

Kroenke is the only NFL owner who has bought land and is currently building a stadium in Los Angeles. And i think you can make a pretty good case that Kroenke is the only one who's not talking because he's the only one who's not bluffing.

But only time will tell. We shall see...

 

[tonyl711]

Well I for one do not believe that Stan's actions in Inglewood is a bluff or leverage. I also do not believe he is going to help build a $2B stadium there so that someone else can move in. And just because he hasn't said he IS moving the team means nothing. He also hasn't said he is keeping them in St. Louis. How can such a powerful dude remain so damn silent??

IMHO, he has his sites set directly on the L.A. market. And he has the team, the money, the land, and the blessing from the folks in Inglewood to make it happen.

What I'd like to know is..... even IF the NFL wanted to block his move to California.... how exactly do they 'force' him to pay upwards of $450M for a stadium he may not want, and will not own, in St. Louis?

As I understand it, the G4 'loan' program is to be paid back..... by the team owner. And then there's that legislative thing brought up by that Mo. senator the other day..... ?

There just seems to be a lot of twists & turns being talked about by those who are hoping to keep the team in St. Louis, when everything Stan is doing as well as the powers that be in Inglewood, points 'straight' to the L.A. market.

The shortest distance between point A & point B is a..... straight line..... just sayin'.

ever heard of leverage? wasn't the Vikings headed to LA not long ago?

 

[iced]

You can go by words or you can go by actions.

Kroenke is the only NFL owner who has bought land and is currently building a stadium in Los Angeles. And i think you can make a pretty good case that Kroenke is the only one who's not talking because he's the only one who's not bluffing.

But only time will tell. We shall see...

so what was Raiders and chargers giving 30 and 90 day notices to their cities?

Not to mention they've had this plan for over a year via back channels

seems to me the most serious is san dieg and oakland

 

[tonyl711]

They could kinda do the same thing like what STL is doing and bypass public vote. Even tough it's not certain Nixon has the power to bypass public vote. Other then stadium renderings and a deal in place to move some rail road tracks , STL is not as far ahead of San Diego to build a stadium. Local STL media might disagree though.

how can you say were not too far ahead of SD in planning a stadium? we have a task force who have been working on it for about 2 years now, have been clearing hurdles at a very fast pace, now you tell me how far a SD stadium proposal has come, no answer? ok ill tell you, nowhere, they don't have a stadium proposal on the table, so please explain to me how they are as far along as we are.

 

[tonyl711]

Ok fine screw PSLs and the relocation money. 1.1 is still enough to build a stadium. Ok fine the public will give 400 mill not 500 mill. The stadium would then cost 1 bill. Just like the river front stadium.

where is this nonexistent stadium proposal in SD coming from? they have no proposal on the table.

 

[tonyl711]

They could create new bonds in SD can't they? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't know.

Here's the Fabiano interview. Spanos and friends - Italian mafia

http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/ex...f_id/27336881/entry_id/0_4nrmdcn5/embed/auto?

the St Louis bonds don't need voters approval, they are an extension of the bonds used to build the EJ DOME, SD doesn't have that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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

I want the Rams to stay in St Louis though.

I'm moving there (albeit only for about a year) when I finish school so my girlfriend can be close to her family before we leave for whatever job I get, which looks to be in either Switzerland or Hawaii.... So Rams in LA does nothing for me, but Rams in St Louis does, since I'll have time to see them there.

I'm not however super optimistic about the NFL stopping Kroenke though, I think he has the lead by a wide margin, and currently has the only viable option (the Carson project has legs, but there's big financial issues with it) for LA, plus money talks. I think that riverfront stadium doesn't get done until Kroenke or another owner says they're putting up the other half, so there's only so far it can go before it stalls. Essentially the same as Farmers field, and all the other LA plans that failed. Meanwhile the Inglewood plan can start building whenever ready. I place it at about 60% chance Rams move right now.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

how can you say were not too far ahead of SD in planning a stadium? we have a task force who have been working on it for about 2 years now, have been clearing hurdles at a very fast pace, now you tell me how far a SD stadium proposal has come, no answer? ok ill tell you, nowhere, they don't have a stadium proposal on the table, so please explain to me how they are as far along as we are.

Ya no doubt STL is making it happen. But can you tell me what hurdles they've jumped?

 

[ChrisW]

What I want is for Stan to put up half as much as he would in LA, with the Taxpayer money in STL to get a retractable roof stadium built in the Lou. How great would it be if we had an owner that wanted to invest in the history and future of the franchise.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

County could help finance new Chargers stadium
Posted: Feb 26, 2015 9:49 AM PSTUpdated: Feb 26, 2015 9:49 AM PST

• Related
  
• Three's a crowd: Navigating the NFL in Los Angeles
  
  
• If we lose the Chargers, what happens to Qualcomm Stadium?
  
  
• Mayor Faulconer fast-tracks stadium plan after Spanos meeting
  
  
  

Links

• Chargers on CBS 8

SAN DIEGO (CBS 8) - The County Board of Supervisors is offering to help the City of San Diego pay for a new stadium for the Chargers.

Supervisor Ron Roberts said if the city needs a bridge loan to help finance a new venue, county money could be made available without a public vote.

Roberts also said land development and leases could create huge property tax revenues for the city and county.

Roberts explained that he would support building a stadium downtown, but thinks Mission Valley makes more sense.

 

[bluecoconuts]

where is this nonexistent stadium proposal in SD coming from? they have no proposal on the table.

All of the SD proposals have been shot down before getting off the board by the Chargers. They have stated they want at least 60% publically financed, in a certain location (unless it's 100% publically financed), and north of a billion dollars, among other things (naming rights, etc).

If Stan shot down the riverfront proposal and demanded those things, then there would be no stadium deal on the table in St Louis either. Kroenke's silence, vs Spanos shitting on anything that isn't amazing for him, is helping St Louis getting things moving. However once it gets down to "we need it financed and support from an owner" it'll be sitting in limbo with all the other stadium proposals. The lack of proposals on the table by SD isn't due to lack of trying, but rather from being shot down before they can get anywhere.

 

[RamFan503]

2. An infrastructure district would take years to develop. Spanos doesn't have that luxury.
3. A 55% voter approval is certainly better than the 2/3 needed otherwise, but still unlikely. Spanos also doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a vote if the league is targeting L.A. in 2016.

Do you actually know this about their rules for creating an infrastructure district? I know gov't has shortcuts to many statutes if they choose to employ them. What is it about an infrastructure district that would take the city/county so long to get set up?

As to #3 - I think it is pretty common thought that a 2/3 vote is always very difficult to achieve. They are there so that a project or tax has to be viewed as crucial to the area before the voters will pass it. But a 55% vote? Not quite so difficult. If a plan were put together where a portion of the public monies were handled in other creative ways and the public was asked to carry the remainder, I think a 55% vote would be a slam dunk. Faced with such a plan, I think Spanos does what he has wanted all along unless he is just lying - he stays in SD.

that would still have to pass a vote and that wont happen. that is nothing more than a pipe dream

I just don't think you can be this sure about a vote. If they can get creative, the voters are VERY likely to approve say 1/3 of the cost of a new stadium in order to keep the Chargers. You think the Padres are more important to them?

the public will never ever approve the 500 million, end of story. San Diego and Oakland will never build new stadiums

No. Not end of story. First of all, they likely couldn't get a 2/3 vote for that much but there are a lot more moving parts here than you are giving credit.

Second, where's the public money coming from and how do you plan on getting it to pass a vote when nearly everybody says it would be dead in the water?

I have only heard that getting a 2/3 majority is very unlikely - not a 55% vote. I don't think you would have people talking about reserve funds and districts unless they knew there was a way to get it done. Is it a done deal? Certainly not. Dead in the water? No way. In fact, I would say it is far more credible that the city/county can come up with a proposal to keep the Chargers than the chances of the Carson project getting done.

It costs a lot more to build a stadium in San Diego than St. Louis so you'd have to scale back the riverfront stadium by quite a bit to get it to cost the same. That would be pretty unimpressive and I'm not sure Spanos would be pleased with that.

How so? I believe there are less union requirements in SD and also, if they build the new stadium on the current property, you can remove that from the bill. If you take out property costs, building costs are higher in the metro areas of Oregon than they are in Southern Cal. Are we sure that building costs in St Louis are so much lower? Maybe they are but I'm going to guess that if anything, it is not significant.

Also, where is the $400M in public money coming from, and how do you plan to get voter approval when everyone else seems to say it'll be nearly impossible?

It doesn't appear to me that everyone else IS saying it is nearly impossible. More that politicians need to pull together and get creative. I'd guess that the county has the money in its reserves if it were convinced it could recoup those funds in other ways. Portland, OR reportedly has over a billion dollars in reserves - PORTLAND.

OK - So here's my guess. The Rams stay put. The Chargers stay put. Oakland and another NFC team (or AFC team converted to NFC - Jaguars?) move into Stan's new place after Stan develops the stadium and several other items around it. Stan gets to keep his team in his native state in a new - very cool riverfront stadium where he has worked out a deal to get control of the concessions and parking during the Rams games. Stan makes huge jack on everything that flows through the Inglewood project. In the process, he helps Spanos get his new stadium deal in SD and relieves the Whiners of their red headed step child to the east.