New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[BuiltRamTough]

Raiders thinking small when it comes to Oakland stadium
By Matthew Artz martz@bayareanewsgroup.com

Saturday, Feb. 28, 2015 - 3:14 p.m.

File: Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis walks on the field before the Oakland Raiders game against the Buffalo Bills for their NFL game at the O.co Coliseum in Oakland, Calif., on Sunday, Dec. 21, 2014. (Nhat V. Meyer)

OAKLAND -- While the Raiders' proposed stadium just outside Los Angeles is a $1.7 billion football palace that looks like an updated version of the 49ers new home, the team's stadium plan for Oakland is apparently much more modest.

The Raiders envision building what would be the smallest stadium in the NFL, according to Floyd Kephart, a San Diego businessman who has contracted with Oakland to work on financing a new stadium for the team at the Coliseum complex.

"Mark Davis wants 55,000 seats," Kephart said. "For him, it's not about, 'can I build a football stadium that's a Taj Mahal.'"

Raiders spokesman Mike Taylor said in an email Saturday that the team's preference is for a smaller stadium.

Davis has assured city officials that he would still prefer to keep the team in Oakland if a stadium deal can be worked out in the next year.

Advertisement

One of the most glaring indicators, however, of the team's stagnation in advancing an Oakland stadium plan has been the lack of consensus as to exactly what type of stadium to build.

Davis, who has not unveiled any rendering of a proposed Oakland stadium, has stated publicly in recent years that his team would be fine with a smaller stadium that had plenty of parking for tailgaters.

But that didn't originally sit well with city officials who have recruited several outside investors with the aim of helping Davis fund a football stadium in Oakland. More than a year ago, the city pushed for a larger domed stadium that would be more expensive to build, but could potentially host more non-football events that city officials thought would help spur the development of shops and offices on the sprawling Coliseum property.

The dome made it into several city planning documents, but Mayor Libby Schaaf said last week that it was no longer under consideration, noting that it didn't make sense to build an enclosed stadium in a city with such a good climate.

Kephart said that Davis wants a smaller stadium because it would be less expensive to build and allow the team to keep ticket prices relatively low.

A city-commissioned report two years ago from the consulting firm AECOM recommended that the Raiders build a 56,500-seat stadium estimated at the time to cost $800 million. The report suggested a smaller stadium not necessarily because it would mean lower ticket prices, but because the Raiders lack the corporate and overall fan support to generate the level of premium seat sales that helped privately fund the 49ers new stadium in Santa Clara.

Even if the cost estimate remains the same, however, it would still leave an estimated $300 million shortfall given that Davis has said previously that the league and team could put up $500 million for a new stadium. Kephart said private financing would be available to close any gap.

While a smaller stadium would be less expensive to build, it raises questions about whether it would be large enough to host a Super Bowl -- a big potential revenue generator -- or whether major events would gravitate toward the 49ers larger facility.

O.co Coliseum, which the Raiders share with the Oakland A's, lacks many amenities that generate revenue for team owners. It also has the smallest capacity of any NFL stadium at a little more than 53,000 ever since the Raiders decided to tarp over nearly 10,000 seats to help ensure that games are sold out.

The next smallest facility is Chicago's Soldier Field, which has a capacity of 61,500. Levi's Stadium seats about 68,500, which is approximately the proposed capacity of the stadium the Raiders and San Diego Chargers are considering building in the city of Carson outside of Los Angeles.

Kephart has so far declined to name any investors who might be behind his New City Development Inc., which is in talks with the city to develop the Coliseum property. Alameda County also owns a share of the site. On Friday, Kephart tweeted that county leaders, as expected, were nearing agreement to begin talks with the city about how to move forward with the property if it is redeveloped.

Contact Matthew Artz at 510-208-6435.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Local business man to help keep Raiders in Oakland
SAN DIEGO (KUSI) - Pressure is mounting as both the Chargers and the Raiders look ahead to the possibility of moving to Carson.
San Diego still does not have a viable plan after 13-years, and Oakland has one, and it is financed by a San Diego businessman.

Floyd Kephart is Chairman of Renaissance Companies which advises hedge funds, private equity firms, and financial institutions from his office in Rancho Santa Fe.

Oakland's plan is a stadium and redevelopment on 200 acres of land jointly owned by the city and the county.

Floyd Kephart was hired to secure the financing which is in place. The only thing holdup up a deal is the politicians reaching agreement on the development part of the deal.

"The city and county's bureaucratic processes of agreeing between the two of them," said Kephart.

A draft agreement was circulated Thursday night, and the city has responded.

"My guess is, we end up with that agreement being done in the next two weeks. When that agreement gets done, then there will be direct negotiations with the Raiders," he said.

By contrast, the Chargers will not even see a plan for another couple of months.

Not only are the Rams well ahead of the Chargers, so are the Raiders.

"The big difference here is that we don't need voter approval. We're not borrowing any money. The Raiders are doing everything in their power to stay in Oakland," he said.

Including significant financial commitments, and a smaller 55,000 seat stadium to protect their fan base by keeping ticket prices down.

"Scale of one-to-ten, we're at an eight on being able to get this done in Oakland, and I really think it's gonna happen," he said.

If the Raiders are close to a deal, why partner with the Chargers in Carson?

Because both teams need an alternative in case any deals collapse.

Both teams have strong ties to their communities, both want to stay, but so far, neither has received the political support they feel they deserve.

It is about leverage which is why the NFL has kept Los Angeles open, to give teams leverage against their cities to get a new stadium under threat of leaving.

"That's what I think, yeah, I don't have any basis for that other than both teams made virtually the same kind of response," said Kephart.

Beyond that, the Raiders have a huge, and national brand they want to protect, and it can only be protected if they stay in Oakland.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Inglewood mayor blasts terrorist risk report of NFL stadium
The mayor of Inglewood, Calif., blasted a report that warned a proposed NFL stadium in Inglewood could be a target for terrorist attack and, as a result, should not be built.

Anschutz Entertainment Group, which secured property in downtown Los Angeles for its own proposed NFL stadium, commissioned a study by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

"What Tom Ridge did for money was contemptible,'' Mayor James T. Butts told USA TODAY Sports via email. "No hijacked plane during 9/11 was crashed into a structure within a flight path. At 600 miles per hour, a jet can reach downtown or Carson (the site of another proposed NFL stadium) in less than one minute.

READ REPORT: Review of possible NFL stadium site

"An airport is a higher value target than a football stadium. Crash into a football stadium, you stop football games in that stadium and they go play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum until the stadium is fixed. Crash a plane into the Central Terminal Area at LAX and you stop air travel in the region for six months or more.''

Between 2006 and 2010, Butts oversaw security for Los Angeles World Airports, which includes Los Angles International Airport (LAX). He previously worked for more than 30 years in law enforcement.

"The authors of the (study) know that I spent years at Los Angeles International Airport in charge of Homeland Security, Public Safety and Emergency Response,'' Butts said. "They have my private cell number at the times and they did not call me. I find that highly disappointing.''

The Los Angeles Times reported that Ridge suggests in the 14-page report that because the Inglewood stadium proposed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke would lie within three to four miles of Los Angeles International Airport and beneath the flight path of airliners, terrorists might try to shoot down a plane or crash one into the stadium, scenarios Ridge described as "a terrorist event 'twofer.' "

Ridge told USA TODAY Sports that when he heard the mayor's comments, "I had chuckle to myself."

"I can appreciate his over-the-top enthusiasm of some major infusion of money and economic development opportunity," he said, at times addressing Butts directly. "I get that, mayor. But I would tell you, if you would have commissioned me to talk a little bit about the threat and the risk regarding this particular location, I would have given you the same report. I hear where you're coming from, all that happy talk about what you're anticipating. That's really exciting, I'd be excited too."

Ridge declined to say how much he was paid and said that was between him and AEG. But he took umbrage to Butts' insinuation that the report's findings were motivated by money.

"I'm not going to respond to him questioning that it's a pay-to-play," Ridge said. "I would have written him the same report."

Focusing on the report, Ridge said there likely are risks associated with any stadium site but that the site in Inglewood is unique because its proximity to the airport.

"There are terrorist threats, operational risks, you can layer them,'' he said, adding that threats associated drones and lasers also should be taken into consideration. "And (the mayor) and the NFL are going to have to decide whether this layering of potential risks is simply worth taking. Life is about risk management. …If the NFL decides the risk is worth taking, 'God bless and enjoy.'"

 

[mr.stlouis]

I have no clue what they agree to, but I know on more than one occasion owners have essentially said "screw your rules" and the NFL has let it go. There have been other times that they have stood strong as well though. However in terms in relocation there isn't a strong track record. You have the Raiders going to LA and then back to Oakland, Rams leaving LA, the entire Colts/Baltimore thing, Cleveland, Houston, etc.. Therefore it would indicate that Kroenke has a better chance of being able to move than the NFL being able to force him to stay. That doesn't necessarily mean that he'll definitely be able to move, but it does give a little indication on his chances of winning.




How much leverage would it give them though? What are they going to say? "Well we let him have time to fix his issues with cross ownership, and he fixed it, but now he owes us a favor and should be forced to listen to us!" If Kroenke has it fixed, then it's a non-issue, I don't see how it would have any relevance at all in any relocation stuff. If the cross ownership issues are fixed then they're fixed. They're not currently fixed, but Stan isn't currently (officially) relocating.



I don't disagree with that, the Stadium is too small. The length of the trip between San Diego and LA isn't what matters though, they're different markets. I understand that in more rural areas such as the mid-west, it doesn't make as much sense, but in densely populated urban areas, the distance isn't what matters. Look at the East cost, most of those cities are within 2-4 hours of each other, some are 20-30 minutes away, but they're very different markets. San Diego is it's own metropolitan area, Los Angeles is very different, at least in their eyes. From my understanding a lot of people in San Diego see rooting for an LA team is unthinkable. Similar to New York refusing to root for a New Jersey team. Their teams play in New Jersey, but if they were called New Jersey, New Yorkers would riot. Madison Square Garden is less than 14 miles away from the Prudential Center (where the New Jersey Devils play), but do you think that matters? No, it's the New Jersey Devils, therefore people from New York hate them.





This I do disagree with on several points. I don't think it's all for leverage, if it is then why isn't Kroenke presenting a counter offer or saying anything? This is a lot of work for leverage, only to go ahead and do nothing. St Louis pushing forward on the riverfront stadium as it, indicates (to me) that Kroenke hasn't told them much behind closed doors either, so then what's the point. It doesn't appear to be working if it's for leverage. I also don't think that Kroenke simply gives up if they vote no, if he has the stadium being built. Until the stadium is actually being erected there's different options, but all indications seem to be that they're going through with it. Once that starts, then what? Mayor Butts refusing to name teams is just politics of not tipping your hand too early. Similar to the Rams not officially saying anything about LA either, you don't tip your hand until you're ready. I wouldn't say that St Louis wants the Rams more than LA did either, I would say that vastly oversimplifies different issues that happened there. I didn't live in the states at the time (nor did I follow American football) but from my understanding it's always been a complicated issue. The "desire" of LA wasn't an issue though it seems, but I'm not familiar with what Georgia's demands were exactly. The riverfront stadium also can't go through without Kroenke's backing.

You made several good points, too many for my desire to take on all of them. So I will jimmy it sparatically....

Point well made on the different markets. And it is silly to me but I don't route for the Chiefs and I live in Chief country.

LA serves multiple purposes I suppose. One is levaerage but the other is a legit plan B. I do believe Stan has no choice but to play by the rules. Carson is also a plan B. Plan A for all three cities is to stay in their own markets of which the Rams are far ahead of the other two. That much is undenyable. And can we agree that "going rogue" (plan C) doesn't exist? SEA tried it and the NFL will sexually assault any owner financially who does it. It won't happen.

I will admit I have no dang clue as to why Stan isn't talking to the club but on can say Demoff representing is the next best thing in these very early stages. It's not like it's really neccessary for him to miss Spongebob reruns or put on pants if his rich tail doesn't have to. My best guess is he's waiting on the green light, or red light, from the NFL on LA via SD and OAK. I do believe he will take what the league gives him whether it's yea or ney on relocating. If the answer is no on LA, he will work something out in STL. But shoot, nobody knows what Stan is gonna do. Nobody. We're just wasting our breath in an attempt to make sense of this whole crappy situation.

 

[TSFH Fan]

Inglewood mayor blasts terrorist risk report of NFL stadium
The mayor of Inglewood, Calif., blasted a report that warned a proposed NFL stadium in Inglewood could be a target for terrorist attack and, as a result, should not be built.

Anschutz Entertainment Group, which secured property in downtown Los Angeles for its own proposed NFL stadium, commissioned a study by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge.

"What Tom Ridge did for money was contemptible,'' Mayor James T. Butts told USA TODAY Sports via email. "No hijacked plane during 9/11 was crashed into a structure within a flight path. At 600 miles per hour, a jet can reach downtown or Carson (the site of another proposed NFL stadium) in less than one minute.

READ REPORT: Review of possible NFL stadium site

"An airport is a higher value target than a football stadium. Crash into a football stadium, you stop football games in that stadium and they go play in the Rose Bowl or Coliseum until the stadium is fixed. Crash a plane into the Central Terminal Area at LAX and you stop air travel in the region for six months or more.''

Between 2006 and 2010, Butts oversaw security for Los Angeles World Airports, which includes Los Angles International Airport (LAX). He previously worked for more than 30 years in law enforcement.

"The authors of the (study) know that I spent years at Los Angeles International Airport in charge of Homeland Security, Public Safety and Emergency Response,'' Butts said. "They have my private cell number at the times and they did not call me. I find that highly disappointing.''

The Los Angeles Times reported that Ridge suggests in the 14-page report that because the Inglewood stadium proposed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke would lie within three to four miles of Los Angeles International Airport and beneath the flight path of airliners, terrorists might try to shoot down a plane or crash one into the stadium, scenarios Ridge described as "a terrorist event 'twofer.' "

Ridge told USA TODAY Sports that when he heard the mayor's comments, "I had chuckle to myself."

"I can appreciate his over-the-top enthusiasm of some major infusion of money and economic development opportunity," he said, at times addressing Butts directly. "I get that, mayor. But I would tell you, if you would have commissioned me to talk a little bit about the threat and the risk regarding this particular location, I would have given you the same report. I hear where you're coming from, all that happy talk about what you're anticipating. That's really exciting, I'd be excited too."

Ridge declined to say how much he was paid and said that was between him and AEG. But he took umbrage to Butts' insinuation that the report's findings were motivated by money.

"I'm not going to respond to him questioning that it's a pay-to-play," Ridge said. "I would have written him the same report."

Focusing on the report, Ridge said there likely are risks associated with any stadium site but that the site in Inglewood is unique because its proximity to the airport.

"There are terrorist threats, operational risks, you can layer them,'' he said, adding that threats associated drones and lasers also should be taken into consideration. "And (the mayor) and the NFL are going to have to decide whether this layering of potential risks is simply worth taking. Life is about risk management. …If the NFL decides the risk is worth taking, 'God bless and enjoy.'"

http://documents.latimes.com/potent...adium-near-los-angeles-international-airport/

Bombs, drones, rockets, lasers, Oh My!
Remember MH370 too. . . .
DOOM!

 

[Prime Time]

Inglewood mayor blasts terrorist risk report of NFL stadium

http://deadspin.com/aeg-invokes-terrorism-in-bid-to-halt-inglewood-stadium-1688667496

AEG Invokes Terrorism In Bid To Halt Rival Inglewood Stadium Project
Kevin Draper

Sports conglomerate AEG has pursued the construction of an NFL stadium in Los Angeles for over a decade, and it has become clear that they'll resort to a hilariously deplorable campaign of dirty tricks to ensure that a competitors stadium doesn't get built.

A week ago the Chargers and Raiders released a statement outlining a plan to jointly build a stadium in Carson (Calif.) if their respective negotiations with the cities of Oakland and San Diego for new stadiums fall through. This spurred theCity Council of Inglewood (Calif.) to approve the construction of a football stadium for the Rams in such a way that fast tracks it by not allowing the public to vote on the proposal.

But AEG—who wants to build Farmers Field next to the Staples Center in downtown LA—isn't going down without a fight. The Los Angeles Times has obtained a December report AEG commissioned former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge to write, and it's a doozy. In the report, Ridge claims that the Inglewood stadium site presents a major terrorist threat, suggesting that its close proximity to LAX gives terrorists a unique target for a "twofer":

Effective risk management is about limiting exposure as much as possible. Placing an NFL stadium in the operational space of another well-known target, layers additional safety and security risks, materially increases the risk of a terrorist event "twofer", and increases the likelihood that an incident involving one facility will adversely impact the other.

As the LA Times notes, the entire report is patently absurd. For one, the Federal Aviation Authority "has twice given its blessing to proposed stadiums in Inglewood" in environmental impact reports. There are also numerous NFL stadiums—like the recently built Levi's Field in Santa Clara (Calif.) and MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford (NJ)—that are very close to major airports, not to mention that downtown LA in general—especially if AEG's proposed Farmers Field was built right next to the Staples Center—is a pretty tempting terrorist target as well.

The 15-page report (which you can review in full right here) is an incredible read, full of scary and baseless predictions from a supposed expert on terrorism without an iota of data to support its conclusions. Paragraph after paragraph of shit is thrown against the wall, with Ridge and AEG hopeful that invoking words like "terror" and "Al-Qaeda" alone will be enough to stop the Inglewood project.

For instance, there is a seemingly random paragraph about the missing Malaysian airliner:

Finally, the yet unresolved disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft on March 8, 2014 with 227 passengers onboard (MH370) has raised questions about possible air crew involvement and is a stark reminder that insider aviation threats must be seriously considered.

Ridge also raises the spectre of "dispersed Libyan arms," the small weapons in Ukraine, and rocket fire into Israel in an attempt to bolster his argument:

These are not just resurrected post-9/11 scenarios. The location of dispersed Libyan arms in the post-2011 revolution timeframe, for example, remains a credible threat to both commercial and military aviation interests around the world. And, the effect of small weapons of this kind has certainly been made clear in the Ukraine this summer.

Rocket fire has been one of the most commonly utilized weapons observed in the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza. With rockets falling as close as one mile to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, on July 22, 2014, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) temporarily cancelled flights by American carriers into Israel. Other countries took similar action.

Ridge's logic is asinine. Airplanes and airports are already considered likely sites of terrorist activity, and federal, state, and local authorities expend a significant amount of resources to protect them. But now, if the Inglewood stadium is built, terrorists are going to try and pick off a flight landing or departing from LAX so that it redirects into it after getting hit, causing even more destruction?

Campaigns for multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects are always waged with a certain amount of unscrupulous activity—Rams owner Stan Kroenke has just so happened to have donated thousands of dollars to the political campaigns of Inglewood officials—but this is a particularly shameful attempt by AEG.

It is even worse behavior by Tom Ridge. This is a man who, in the dark days after September 11th, was entrusted with protecting the country against terrorism. Among a cabal of disgraced former Bush security officials, Ridge was one of the "good" ones—or at least least bad ones—unequivocally stating that waterboarding is torture. Yet apparently he takes terrorism so lightly these days that he'll sell fake threats of terrorism if you pay him enough money to do so.

[Los Angeles Times]

Photo via David McNew/Getty​

 

[BuiltRamTough]

http://deadspin.com/aeg-invokes-terrorism-in-bid-to-halt-inglewood-stadium-1688667496

AEG Invokes Terrorism In Bid To Halt Rival Inglewood Stadium Project
Kevin Draper

Sports conglomerate AEG has pursued the construction of an NFL stadium in Los Angeles for over a decade, and it has become clear that they'll resort to a hilariously deplorable campaign of dirty tricks to ensure that a competitors stadium doesn't get built.

A week ago the Chargers and Raiders released a statement outlining a plan to jointly build a stadium in Carson (Calif.) if their respective negotiations with the cities of Oakland and San Diego for new stadiums fall through. This spurred theCity Council of Inglewood (Calif.) to approve the construction of a football stadium for the Rams in such a way that fast tracks it by not allowing the public to vote on the proposal.

But AEG—who wants to build Farmers Field next to the Staples Center in downtown LA—isn't going down without a fight. The Los Angeles Times has obtained a December report AEG commissioned former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge to write, and it's a doozy. In the report, Ridge claims that the Inglewood stadium site presents a major terrorist threat, suggesting that its close proximity to LAX gives terrorists a unique target for a "twofer":

Effective risk management is about limiting exposure as much as possible. Placing an NFL stadium in the operational space of another well-known target, layers additional safety and security risks, materially increases the risk of a terrorist event "twofer", and increases the likelihood that an incident involving one facility will adversely impact the other.

As the LA Times notes, the entire report is patently absurd. For one, the Federal Aviation Authority "has twice given its blessing to proposed stadiums in Inglewood" in environmental impact reports. There are also numerous NFL stadiums—like the recently built Levi's Field in Santa Clara (Calif.) and MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford (NJ)—that are very close to major airports, not to mention that downtown LA in general—especially if AEG's proposed Farmers Field was built right next to the Staples Center—is a pretty tempting terrorist target as well.

The 15-page report (which you can review in full right here) is an incredible read, full of scary and baseless predictions from a supposed expert on terrorism without an iota of data to support its conclusions. Paragraph after paragraph of crap is thrown against the wall, with Ridge and AEG hopeful that invoking words like "terror" and "Al-Qaeda" alone will be enough to stop the Inglewood project.

For instance, there is a seemingly random paragraph about the missing Malaysian airliner:

Finally, the yet unresolved disappearance of a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 aircraft on March 8, 2014 with 227 passengers onboard (MH370) has raised questions about possible air crew involvement and is a stark reminder that insider aviation threats must be seriously considered.

Ridge also raises the spectre of "dispersed Libyan arms," the small weapons in Ukraine, and rocket fire into Israel in an attempt to bolster his argument:

These are not just resurrected post-9/11 scenarios. The location of dispersed Libyan arms in the post-2011 revolution timeframe, for example, remains a credible threat to both commercial and military aviation interests around the world. And, the effect of small weapons of this kind has certainly been made clear in the Ukraine this summer.

Rocket fire has been one of the most commonly utilized weapons observed in the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict in Gaza. With rockets falling as close as one mile to Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport, on July 22, 2014, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) temporarily cancelled flights by American carriers into Israel. Other countries took similar action.

Ridge's logic is asinine. Airplanes and airports are already considered likely sites of terrorist activity, and federal, state, and local authorities expend a significant amount of resources to protect them. But now, if the Inglewood stadium is built, terrorists are going to try and pick off a flight landing or departing from LAX so that it redirects into it after getting hit, causing even more destruction?

Campaigns for multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects are always waged with a certain amount of unscrupulous activity—Rams owner Stan Kroenke has just so happened to have donated thousands of dollars to the political campaigns of Inglewood officials—but this is a particularly shameful attempt by AEG.

It is even worse behavior by Tom Ridge. This is a man who, in the dark days after September 11th, was entrusted with protecting the country against terrorism. Among a cabal of disgraced former Bush security officials, Ridge was one of the "good" ones—or at least least bad ones—unequivocally stating that waterboarding is torture. Yet apparently he takes terrorism so lightly these days that he'll sell fake threats of terrorism if you pay him enough money to do so.

[Los Angeles Times]

Photo via David McNew/Getty​

What a bunch of balony. F you AEG

 

[den-the-coach]

The first Head Coaches of the Los Angeles & St. Louis Rams...Adam Walsh & Rich Brooks

 

[bluecoconuts]

You made several good points, too many for my desire to take on all of them. So I will jimmy it sparatically....

Point well made on the different markets. And it is silly to me but I don't route for the Chiefs and I live in Chief country.

LA serves multiple purposes I suppose. One is levaerage but the other is a legit plan B. I do believe Stan has no choice but to play by the rules. Carson is also a plan B. Plan A for all three cities is to stay in their own markets of which the Rams are far ahead of the other two. That much is undenyable. And can we agree that "going rogue" (plan C) doesn't exist? SEA tried it and the NFL will sexually assault any owner financially who does it. It won't happen.

I will admit I have no dang clue as to why Stan isn't talking to the club but on can say Demoff representing is the next best thing in these very early stages. It's not like it's really neccessary for him to miss Spongebob reruns or put on pants if his rich tail doesn't have to. My best guess is he's waiting on the green light, or red light, from the NFL on LA via SD and OAK. I do believe he will take what the league gives him whether it's yea or ney on relocating. If the answer is no on LA, he will work something out in STL. But shoot, nobody knows what Stan is gonna do. Nobody. We're just wasting our breath in an attempt to make sense of this whole crappy situation.

I don't blame you for not going for the Chiefs, I wouldn't either haha... I do get how LA can be good leverage, I'm just not convinced that is the case here. If Stan was making counter offers to St Louis, I'd be on board with that stance as well. I also agree that Stan will play by the rules, but I think he will to a certain extent. Once he gets past the point of no return in LA, which is by most accounts when the stadium starts being built, I think that's him signaling he's likely going there with or without their blessings. I never really say things with 100% certainty, I'm a big enough believer in science to know that's not good to do, but if I were a betting man, that would be where I put my money.

Until that point though I don't take anything off the table.

I also think that Demoff representing them is a good sign, and I do really hope they make some sort of counter offer and things move along in St Louis. Until I'm convinced that LA is not the end goal for Kroenke I remain skeptical the Rams will be playing in the riverfront stadium as it was currently presented. If the Rams make a counter offer then I'll get hopeful about them staying put. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic though, but I can't imagine he would build a billion+ dollar stadium and not play there. So in my eyes the NFL/St Louis have until December at the latest to convince him otherwise.

Personally I put the best chance at this (other than St Louis bending themselves over the table again) during the owners meetings. My hope is they sit Kroenke, Davis, and Spanos down and they all work out something. My biggest worry is that they do this, and determine that the Carson project isn't very workable and decide that Kroenke's project is the best route (if that's due to Kroenke's willingness to offer cash or not who knows).

 

[LosAngelesRams]

Ridge declined to say how much he was paid and said that was between him and AEG. But he took umbrage to Butts' insinuation that the report's findings were motivated by money.

Lmao. alm:

 

[mr.stlouis]

I don't blame you for not going for the Chiefs, I wouldn't either haha... I do get how LA can be good leverage, I'm just not convinced that is the case here. If Stan was making counter offers to St Louis, I'd be on board with that stance as well. I also agree that Stan will play by the rules, but I think he will to a certain extent. Once he gets past the point of no return in LA, which is by most accounts when the stadium starts being built, I think that's him signaling he's likely going there with or without their blessings. I never really say things with 100% certainty, I'm a big enough believer in science to know that's not good to do, but if I were a betting man, that would be where I put my money.

Until that point though I don't take anything off the table.

I also think that Demoff representing them is a good sign, and I do really hope they make some sort of counter offer and things move along in St Louis. Until I'm convinced that LA is not the end goal for Kroenke I remain skeptical the Rams will be playing in the riverfront stadium as it was currently presented. If the Rams make a counter offer then I'll get hopeful about them staying put. Perhaps that's just me being pessimistic though, but I can't imagine he would build a billion+ dollar stadium and not play there. So in my eyes the NFL/St Louis have until December at the latest to convince him otherwise.

Personally I put the best chance at this (other than St Louis bending themselves over the table again) during the owners meetings. My hope is they sit Kroenke, Davis, and Spanos down and they all work out something. My biggest worry is that they do this, and determine that the Carson project isn't very workable and decide that Kroenke's project is the best route (if that's due to Kroenke's willingness to offer cash or not who knows).

Naturally I don't agree with everything you said, but you and I aren't far off. I think you underrate the influence of STL stadium plan or willingness to keep this team. Let me just throw this out there....

We all know the Rams will have a darn good team next year if they stay healthy, unlike the last decade of terrible health with the exception of a couple years, maybe. You will see a jammed stadium and tons of support if they put it together. You know what comes after that? Public funding. I'm telling you STL LOVESSS a winner, it's something else. It's a very good fan base, even great, if the product gives them a reason to cheer. The ineptness of the last decade could stifle a two peckered billy goat in a pepper patch.

 

[MrMotes]

Lmao. alm:

Yep.

And i notice that, at least so far, AEG hasn't hired anybody to take shots at the Carson plan...

 

[blue4]

You know there's been a lot of talk about Mark Davis's shortcomings, and I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but it seems to me he's being pretty reasonable to the city of Oakland. 55,000 acceptable? Willing to kick in money and work to stay? If Oakland can't hit that mark.....

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yep.

And i notice that, at least so far, AEG hasn't hired anybody to take shots at the Carson plan...

What are they going to say? I mean it's built on a landfill, so you don't have to worry about the Raider fan smell, and it's adjacent to the largest parking lot in the US, AKA the 405. I don't know how they can fault that?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

You know there's been a lot of talk about Mark Davis's shortcomings, and I have no idea how accurate any of that is, but it seems to me he's being pretty reasonable to the city of Oakland. 55,000 acceptable? Willing to kick in money and work to stay? If Oakland can't hit that mark.....

I guess he really wants to stay in Oakland. If he wants more money then he has to go to LA or San Antonio or even STL. To him I guess a 55,000 seat stadium is okay. I mean it would be brand new and he wouldn't have to share with any other team. It kinda makes sense when you think about it. 800 mill should get it done. The riverfront stadium costs a little under a billion but it's a very nice stadium. I like it. Not every stadium has to be palace. He will customize it to his liking and it would be branded with the Raiders team colors. Imagine all black seats and a lot of other black color thigs inside the stadium. I much rather have that then go anywhere else and share a stadium. Idk that's just my thinking.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I'm gonna try to put this in laments terms. LA will get the team(s) that don't come up with viable stadium solutions by the 2016 owners meeting at the latest. If all three teams magically come up with viable plans, there will be no team relocate in 2016 and LA will eventually get an expansion team or maybe a team like Jacksonville. Nothing is final on any front, but STL is way ahead of the other two at this point.

This is a fair statement.

 

[ZigZagRam]

The problem in Oakland has been getting the city and county to come together. The city is on board as always but it remains to be seen if the county will give the final approval. This was the same type of deal that already fell through at least once.

Even if they reach Mr. Optimistic's timetable, they wouldn't begin negotiations with the Raiders until just before Mark Davis's deadline which was set, not by coincidence, to be the first day of the owner's meetings.

We'll see, I guess, but I would be surprised if something gets done. There's a reason why Davis gave a timetable much shorter than Spanos did and I doubt it's because he expects/wants a quick resolution.

 

[LesBaker]

I just did a little snooping around because I wanted to make my point a bit easier to understand.

These are the last several "franchise fees" paid to the NFL. See how the price has skyrocketed since 1995..........

Houston Texans $700 MIL in 2002
Cleveland Browns $560 MIL in 1999
Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars $140 MIL in 1995
Seattle Seahawks and Tampa Bay Buccaneers $16 MIL in 1976

In 1995 the Rams paid $50 MIL to relocate if I recall correctly, the year the Jaguars and Panthers cost $140 MIL. The Jaguars sold almost 5 years ago for $760 MIL, the price went up that much in 16 years. The Browns were sold for $1 BIL almost three years ago, so that price nearly doubled in 12 years.

(The Panthers are currently valued at $1.25 billion, ten times what they sold for less than 20 years ago.)

In other words relocation fees were about a third of what a franchise fee was. And that's in much smaller and less desirable locations for the NFL than Los Angeles.

What are the top teams worth?

The Cowboys are valued at $3.25 BIL, the Patriots at $2.6 BIL, the Redskins at $2.4 BIL, the Giants $2.1 BIL, the Texans at $1.85 BIL. The Texans are worth almost 1.2 BILLION more than they were in 2002 when they were created/bought. By the end of 2016 they could be worth three times the original cost of $760 million. That would be less than 15 years later.

What will a team be worth in LA? We've heard a lot of numbers. The Clippers, yes the Clippers, just sold for 2 BILLION and they aren't even the most popular basketball team in town. We've heard numbers ranging from 2 BIL up to 2.5 BIL. What will the NFL want for that market in relocation fees based on it's history? The math isn't hard to do.

So again, do you think the NFL is going to let a team move into that market for $150 MIL? That would be like selling a franchise to a new owner for $300 MIL. It'll never happen. IMO there is no way the NFL lets a team move for less than half a billion. And honestly I am of the opinion they would much, much rather see expansion because they could get up to 4 times as much money, and I'd guess they would put a clause in the first contract with a team that they would be allowed to sell a second one into the market area.

 

[blue4]

I agree, these legal issues and relocation fees aren't insurmountable for Stan, but much more formidable than a lot of people are making them out to be.

 

[LesBaker]

I agree, these legal issues and relocation fees aren't insurmountable for Stan, but much more formidable than a lot of people are making them out to be.

As with anything it's put on a balance sheet and studied. IMO while I agree you are correct that it isn't insurmountable it may not make sense long term for SK. The cash flowing out could be way more than the cash in his lifetime flowing in, and that's not how he rolls.

This is some real high stakes poker and in the end I think the Rams have a beautiful new stadium by the river, built, paid for and owned/operated by SK.