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.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Did I miss the Inglewood citizens being forced to pay for a stadium?

Yeah, it doesn't really compare. One it wasn't just one man, it was a city council who voted, and it was after they heard from the citizens in the meeting. Also it's just the people in the city of Inglewood, not the entire state of California... I'm pretty sure CA requires the 2/3rds vote for these types of things when it comes to the public having to pitch in, which is part of the issue with San Diego. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain it's not just a San Diego measure, it's a California one.

Obviously that would be if the tax payers were paying, which they're not. That bullshit "oh well they're paying after, not before!" doesn't really compare, because it only comes out of profits and only after the city gets a certain amount. Meaning if the city doesn't get that much then it doesn't go back to the developers.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,849
Name
Stu
In 1993 the Missouri Legislature was asked to approve bonds for a St. Louis football stadium which included a provision that allowed the Governor of Missouri power to extend the bonds unilaterally. The Missouri Legislature said yes.
Interesting. So now this guy doesn't like it because he sees some political hay to be made? Am I following this right? Do I really need to esplain why I got out of politics? Republicans or Democrats - they are almost all just a bunch of self serving wind bags.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Interesting. So now this guy doesn't like it because he sees some political hay to be made? Am I following this right? Do I really need to esplain why I got out of politics? Republicans or Democrats - they are almost all just a bunch of self serving wind bags.

That's why I got out of it, the more I learned the more pissed I would get. When one group is in power the other yells the entire time about what they're doing is so bad, then when they get in power they do the same exact thing, and then repeat. So I decided I'd go into science so I can dance around and beg these assholes for money that they don't want to give me.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
STL has positive momentum, sure but if anyone thinks it's a slam dunk because of Nixon and Peacock is mistaken.
Nothing is a slam dunk but I'm confident they will get it done. Btw, your L.A. bias reeks. Jk, lol. Not really

In 1993 the Missouri Legislature was asked to approve bonds for a St. Louis football stadium which included a provision that allowed the Governor of Missouri power to extend the bonds unilaterally. The Missouri Legislature said yes.
BOOM
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
NFL offering help for those who didn't receive stadium survey
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_09599ae7-a891-557b-987f-e04f466bad4e.html

For one reason or another, some Rams fans haven’t received NFL surveys on the proposed new stadium. The NFL is trying to make sure their voices get heard.

In response to a query in Tuesday’s Rams chat on Stltoday.com, dozens of current and former season-ticket holders made it known that they have not received one of the surveys sent out by the league.

NFL vice president Brian McCarthy says all of the surveys should’ve been sent out by now via email and that the league wants to hear from as many fans as possible.

“We want the feedback,” McCarthy said Wednesday. “We want information from the fans who may be interested, plus you want to take a look at the reaction to different questions. It helps gauge interest, in particular to amenities that are important to fans.”

Season-ticket holders and Rams fans in general wanting a survey are being asked to make a request via email to: brian.lafemina@nfl.com.

A total of 185,000 surveys have been sent out to Rams fans. That seems like a huge number, but McCarthy said the league is trying to cast a wide net.

“You’re not gonna receive info back from every single person,” McCarthy said. “So cast a wide net and gather as much info as possible.”

McCarthy, by the way, said initial reports that only 2,000 or 2,500 similar surveys were sent to potential NFL fans in Los Angeles was incorrect. “I think it was like 250,000,” he said.

Rams executive vice president of football operations Kevin Demoff said the team made its entire database available for the survey, which would include past and current season-ticket holders.

Almost a dozen respondents to the Rams chat query stated that they were charter PSL holders for the Rams’ inaugural (1995) season in St. Louis and had held their tickets through all 20 seasons here. Yet they had not received a survey.

On the other side of the spectrum, a Rams fan in Dallas said he went to his first ever Rams game — the Oct. 19 upset of Seattle — using tickets purchased from a season-ticket holder on the secondary market. He received a survey.

A couple of respondents said they believe the survey ended up in their spam folders; one said he accidentally deleted it, thinking it was a solicitation. (Apparently, the survey arrives without the NFL logo or brand on it.)

Yet another respondent said he received the survey but was afraid to answer it; he didn’t want to answer in a way that could be construed as not wanting the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

Demoff pointed out that PSL orders frequently include multiple ticket buyers but only one email address, so there was no contact info on the others to be sent a survey. He also said that some contact information may have changed from past season-ticket holders.

So the NFL is trying to gather up all strays by asking interested fans to contact them through the Brian LaFemina email address.

Charlie Schlafly of University City isn’t a season-ticket holder but attends the vast majority of Rams games. He sent an email to LaFemina on Wednesday, got a response within a half-hour, and by early evening was notified he had been added to the database and was provided a link to fill out the survey.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,849
Name
Stu
NFL offering help for those who didn't receive stadium survey
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_09599ae7-a891-557b-987f-e04f466bad4e.html

For one reason or another, some Rams fans haven’t received NFL surveys on the proposed new stadium. The NFL is trying to make sure their voices get heard.

In response to a query in Tuesday’s Rams chat on Stltoday.com, dozens of current and former season-ticket holders made it known that they have not received one of the surveys sent out by the league.

NFL vice president Brian McCarthy says all of the surveys should’ve been sent out by now via email and that the league wants to hear from as many fans as possible.

“We want the feedback,” McCarthy said Wednesday. “We want information from the fans who may be interested, plus you want to take a look at the reaction to different questions. It helps gauge interest, in particular to amenities that are important to fans.”

Season-ticket holders and Rams fans in general wanting a survey are being asked to make a request via email to: brian.lafemina@nfl.com.

A total of 185,000 surveys have been sent out to Rams fans. That seems like a huge number, but McCarthy said the league is trying to cast a wide net.

“You’re not gonna receive info back from every single person,” McCarthy said. “So cast a wide net and gather as much info as possible.”

McCarthy, by the way, said initial reports that only 2,000 or 2,500 similar surveys were sent to potential NFL fans in Los Angeles was incorrect. “I think it was like 250,000,” he said.

Rams executive vice president of football operations Kevin Demoff said the team made its entire database available for the survey, which would include past and current season-ticket holders.

Almost a dozen respondents to the Rams chat query stated that they were charter PSL holders for the Rams’ inaugural (1995) season in St. Louis and had held their tickets through all 20 seasons here. Yet they had not received a survey.

On the other side of the spectrum, a Rams fan in Dallas said he went to his first ever Rams game — the Oct. 19 upset of Seattle — using tickets purchased from a season-ticket holder on the secondary market. He received a survey.

A couple of respondents said they believe the survey ended up in their spam folders; one said he accidentally deleted it, thinking it was a solicitation. (Apparently, the survey arrives without the NFL logo or brand on it.)

Yet another respondent said he received the survey but was afraid to answer it; he didn’t want to answer in a way that could be construed as not wanting the Rams to stay in St. Louis.

Demoff pointed out that PSL orders frequently include multiple ticket buyers but only one email address, so there was no contact info on the others to be sent a survey. He also said that some contact information may have changed from past season-ticket holders.

So the NFL is trying to gather up all strays by asking interested fans to contact them through the Brian LaFemina email address.

Charlie Schlafly of University City isn’t a season-ticket holder but attends the vast majority of Rams games. He sent an email to LaFemina on Wednesday, got a response within a half-hour, and by early evening was notified he had been added to the database and was provided a link to fill out the survey.

I didn't receive one. Can I get some money?
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Backers of Carson NFL stadium file ballot initiative as first step - LA Times
Last summer, representatives of the San Diego Chargers approached the Starwood Capital Group to learn more about the 168-acre site of a former landfill in Carson.

By late January, the team had a binding deal to buy it.

In mid-February, the day before the Chargers announced plans to build a privately financed $1.7-billion stadium on the property, the team finalized an agreement with the Oakland Raiders to share it.

On Wednesday, as stadium backers filed a ballot initiative in Carson to clear the way for the project, more details emerged about the proposal that could bring two NFL teams to the Los Angeles area.

The Chargers are locked in to buying the Carson site with the deal scheduled to close at the end of this month. Still, both teams say they are continuing to pursue stadium options in their home cities.

"There are no contingencies, there is no option," said Mark Fabiani, the point man on stadium issues for the Chargers. "We have to buy it. Starwood has to sell it."

Signature-gathering is expected to start next week in Carson for the ballot initiative that would change zoning to move forward with a 70,000-seat stadium near the 405 Freeway at Del Amo Boulevard.

The team-financed campaign hopes to collect more than 12,000 signatures by mid-April. After 8,041 signatures are certified, the ballot measure will go to Carson's City Council. Its members could approve the plan themselves or schedule a public vote, likely this summer.

"The next period of weeks will be really important to determine community support," Fabiani said.

The Chargers are using the same playbook as St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Last week, the Inglewood City Council unanimously approved Kroenke's plan to build a stadium on the site of the Hollywood Park racetrack, less than two months after the plan's public unveiling. Kroenke's group collected 22,183 signatures supporting its initiative in less than three weeks.

If Carson's effort is as successful, the L.A. area would have two approved stadium plans backed by NFL owners competing to return teams after a two-decade absence.

The plans use different approaches, though. Kroenke wants a covered stadium as part of a sprawling entertainment and real estate development, while the Chargers and Raiders envision an open-air facility ringed largely by parking lots, with a 350-room hotel and, perhaps, an NFL-themed museum or entertainment venue. Developers plan to buy nearby land for more parking.

The economics are different too. A Carson stadium would be publicly owned, but its developers pledge no tax money would be spent on its construction, operations or the street work around the project. Kroenke and his partners would own their stadium and will seek to recoup tens of millions of dollars in street, sewer and public service costs.

"Period. End of discussion. Not one penny [of city money] will go into the project," said George Mihlsten, an attorney representing the joint venture between the Chargers and Raiders. In previous years, he worked with the NFL and billionaire Ed Roski on L.A. stadium projects.

The initiative, which took project backers about two months to assemble, would create a public authority in Carson to own the stadium and lease it back to the teams. The arrangement is similar to how the San Francisco 49ers paid for the $1.2-billion Levi's Stadium in Santa Clara. An investment group led by Goldman Sachs lent $850 million to that public authority and a team subsidiary to finance construction, to be paid back by revenue from the stadium.

Goldman Sachs is lining up financing for the Carson project, as well.

The Carson stadium carries a $1.7-billion price tag, with the Inglewood stadium projected to cost $1.86 billion.

No NFL team has filed for relocation, but the league has formed a committee of owners to study its options in L.A. Backers of Inglewood stadium say they will begin construction in December, with or without a tenant, the Carson initiative says work can only start once a team has signed a 20-year lease to play at the venue.

Project officials say environmental remediation measures at the site are about 70% complete and should be finished within a year.

Carson officials have said they support the stadium project, though they hadn't had time to read the fine print of the initiative Wednesday afternoon.

"We're very excited about the prospect," Carson City Atty. Sunny Soltani said.

Follow Nathan Fenno on Twitter @nathanfenno

Follow Tim Logan on Twitter @bytimlogan

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
"No NFL team has filed for relocation, but the league has formed a committee of owners to study its options in L.A. Backers of Inglewood stadium say they will begin construction in December, with or without a tenant, the Carson initiative says work can only start once a team has signed a 20-year lease to play at thevenue."
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Interesting. So now this guy doesn't like it because he sees some political hay to be made? Am I following this right? Do I really need to esplain why I got out of politics? Republicans or Democrats - they are almost all just a bunch of self serving wind bags.

Yep, you're reading it right.
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
Yeah, it doesn't really compare. One it wasn't just one man, it was a city council who voted, and it was after they heard from the citizens in the meeting. Also it's just the people in the city of Inglewood, not the entire state of California... I'm pretty sure CA requires the 2/3rds vote for these types of things when it comes to the public having to pitch in, which is part of the issue with San Diego. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain it's not just a San Diego measure, it's a California one.

Obviously that would be if the tax payers were paying, which they're not. That bullcrap "oh well they're paying after, not before!" doesn't really compare, because it only comes out of profits and only after the city gets a certain amount. Meaning if the city doesn't get that much then it doesn't go back to the developers.

Oh boy.

The developers carefully crafted the Initiative so that they could say no taxpayer money would be used "on the stadium."

But according to the Initiative, do you know what taxpayer money goes to? Infrastructure costs for the rest of the project as a "reimbursement" to the developers for up to $100M per year!

Clever huh?

You didn't think this was just a free stadium for Inglewood, did ya?
 

ZigZagRam

Pro Bowler
Joined
May 12, 2014
Messages
1,846
STL has positive momentum, sure but if anyone thinks it's a slam dunk because of Nixon and Peacock is mistaken.

What does this have to do with me asking you why you didn't have the same concerns for Inglewood citizens not getting a chance to vote?
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,002
Name
Dennis
"We're very excited about the prospect," Carson City Atty. Sunny Soltani said.

IDK about anyone else, but an Attorney by the name of "Sunny Soltani?" It has so many things wrong with it. First off, he goes by "Sunny" and not "Sonny" now I understand it's the Golden State, but seriously? I have a feeling Sunny is going to be looking for five jobs: Three no-works and Two no-shows!
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,002
Name
Dennis
San Diego Stadium

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2015/mar/04/chargers-stadium-optimism-mission-valley-acee/

The tide is ... slowly … ever-so-subtly … turning.

Talk to people on all sides, those intimately involved and others pulling strings and offering support from a distance, and it is easily sensed. In fact, some are quietly allowing that it is real.

There is actual momentum toward getting a stadium built in San Diego.

CHARGERS STADIUM: LATEST HEADLINES
“I think there is an energy developing that we can do this,” one of the region's power players said Tuesday. “This city has some difficulty convincing itself it can do things.”

Most of those who spoke to the U-T this week about this topic did not want to do so publicly at this point. That’s understandable. There remain many unknowns, and everyone involved is aware there are numerous obstacles to navigate over a long road to possible success.

A few people also cautioned that there is lingering distrust between all factions. A characterization that popped up numerous times was that each side is being “strategic” in its dealings. Two highly placed sources said they consider the chances of a stadium getting built are “50/50.” People in city government are mindful, too, because they are hearing from them, that there is a large constituency that is vehemently opposed to public financing for stadium construction.

Related
Q is right retro fit if Chargers bolt back

San Diego may have to cover 65% of stadium cost

But for the first time, maybe in months, the past few days have seen a shedding of pessimism and outlooks that could aptly be called sunny.

“I’ve been optimistic since the very beginning,” Mayor Kevin Faulconer said Wednesday. “But, yeah, you can feel it out there.”

There is another significant factor emerging: Chargers president Dean Spanos, according to multiple sources, is believed to have accepted that the downtown site is a non-starter. He and others believe hoteliers will never give up their opposition to the JMI Realty proposal for a convention center annex, which the Chargers hoped to join with a multi-purpose stadium.

Spanos’ recognition that building on the current Qualcomm Stadium site as the path of least resistance and his willingness to possibly embrace it as a viable site is good news, because that is where the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group is largely focused. The task force is still doing its due diligence on a possible downtown stadium, but most of its conversations center on Mission Valley. It is believed the group will make that announcement within two weeks.

“We’re going to come up with a plan that makes sense,” Faulconer said.

The task force’s final proposal could come within 60 days.

Civic and business leaders are offering help. Meetings between the principles are being set up. Spanos and Faulconer are communicating regularly. Former Chargers players are poised to become involved in the cause, including LaDainian Tomlinson, who is scheduled to meet with Faulconer on Thursday.

The mayor and others are buoyed by the increased involvement of San Diego State, which owns property and has the financial resources to contribute toward the stadium, and the county’s willingness to become a financial stakeholder.

“It’s cobbling together a number of things, which is the San Diego way,” one business leader said. “You put a lot of entities together … eventually they get enough money.”

Still, this will take cooperation from the Chargers, a willingness by the team to accept creative solutions. It is still considered a near certainty by some that the Chargers will find problems with whatever plan the task force presents. Downtown would still be the team's preference. And the team is pressing forward in Carson. A petition drive, funded by the Chargers and Raiders, to clear the way for building of a proposed stadium, is set to begin in Carson as early as next week.

But, given the contentious nature of the dealings as recently as two weeks ago and the continued maneuvers by the Chargers in Los Angeles, cautious optimism at this point is akin to jubilation.
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
Yeah, it doesn't really compare. One it wasn't just one man, it was a city council who voted, and it was after they heard from the citizens in the meeting. Also it's just the people in the city of Inglewood, not the entire state of California... I'm pretty sure CA requires the 2/3rds vote for these types of things when it comes to the public having to pitch in, which is part of the issue with San Diego. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm pretty certain it's not just a San Diego measure, it's a California one.

Obviously that would be if the tax payers were paying, which they're not. That bullcrap "oh well they're paying after, not before!" doesn't really compare, because it only comes out of profits and only after the city gets a certain amount. Meaning if the city doesn't get that much then it doesn't go back to the developers.
they heard from the citizens at the meeting? what all 100 of them? so I guess if we round up 100 rams fans and ask them that's all we need?
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Morning Ram-blings: St. Louis stadium update
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16744/morning-ram-blings-st-louis-stadium-update

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- The St. Louis stadium project offered yet another update this week, including some new renderings which were said to include more input from the St. Louis Rams.

Along with that, Dave Peacock, the former president of Anheuser-Busch and leader of the St. Louis stadium task force, has been making the media rounds. That includes a number of visits on local radio.

So it is that 101sports.com, home of 101 ESPN radio in St. Louis, provides the audio from Peacock's visit with The Fast Lane from Tuesday afternoon.

Much like the new renderings and the announcement of the addition of five new consultants for the project, there's not much Earth-shattering here but I found Peacock's answer when asked about the financing somewhat interesting.

Peacock told the show that his faith in the public financing coming through is a five or six on a scale of 10 but that people around him have ensured him that it's much more likely.

And really, while it's good for St. Louis that all of the work that's being done now is getting done, none of it matters much unless or until the money is in place. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has said he'd like to have that settled by the fall. But there's no doubt if this stadium is to become a reality, the sooner that could happen the better.

For those wondering what's going on with the St. Louis stadium proposal, it's worth a listen just to get the latest from the St. Louis side.

In addition, here's a story from Fox 2's Andy Banker that cites a source saying the Rams are actually selling tickets at a better rate than a year ago at this time.

I.C.Y.M.I.

A roundup of Wednesday's Rams stories appearing on ESPN.com. ... The Ram-blings started the day with a free-agent primer. ... This week's Buzz video discussed the addition of Chris Weinke as quarterbacks coach and what it could mean for the Rams' search for help at the position. ... The Rams expressed some interest in former Arizona Cardinals defensive lineman Darnell Dockett. ... The latest in the free-agent preview series examined the Rams' needs at defensive end.

Elsewhere:

On ESPN Insider, we offered a free-agent guide to the Rams.

Our 32 NFL Nation reporters name one free agent the team they cover needs to retain.

At 101sports.com, Randy Karraker sends a letter to a Missouri politician on the importance of extending bonds for the St. Louis stadium proposal.

At stltoday.com, Jim Thomas writes of yet another ridiculous study commissioned by AEG to denigrate the Inglewood stadium project.

Thomas also writes of Weinke's unusual path to the Rams.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,002
Name
Dennis
then wait for a vote in Inglewood

They already voted the city council approved it 5-0 so it does not have to go up for vote in the city. That's why Inglewood is so far ahead of everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.