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.

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
How is court the worst thing for Stan?

It won't get to court but if it did the NFL has stated it is much better prepared to fight to keep a team from moving. If Stan moves on his own the penalties are huge. The NFL can withhold TV revenue money, prevent him from hosting a SuperBowl and other NFL events. He would be a pariah among the owners. Stan may have a lot of money but so do the other 31 owners who aren't going to let one owner snub his nose up at what they have created. If the NFL tells the Chargers and the Raiders you can move I guarantee that the NFL would throw every once of weight behind those two clubs and help them be more successful than Stan. Now you are dividing that pie 3 ways. Is there enough for all three? Anyone who thinks that Stan can just sue and get his way is mistaken. It would be a massive fight.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It won't get to court but if it did the NFL has stated it is much better prepared to fight to keep a team from moving. If Stan moves on his own the penalties are huge. The NFL can withhold TV revenue money, prevent him from hosting a SuperBowl and other NFL events. He would be a pariah among the owners. Stan may have a lot of money but so do the other 31 owners who aren't going to let one owner snub his nose up at what they have created. If the NFL tells the Chargers and the Raiders you can move I guarantee that the NFL would throw every once of weight behind those two clubs and help them be more successful than Stan. Now you are dividing that pie 3 ways. Is there enough for all three? Anyone who thinks that Stan can just sue and get his way is mistaken. It would be a massive fight.
The NFL would want to host a super bowl in LA rather then places like Minnesota,Phoenix,Atlanta, where they have new stadiums. One can argue LA is the best place to host a super bowl. If Stan stays in STL it's not like he's for sure going to get a Super Bowl. Besides there are too many new stadiums and super bowl city bids are in rotation. Hosting a super bowl is the last thing on his mind. No one liked Al Davis and it didn't stop him from running his business. You would think someone like Stan has had a cup of coffee with lawyers and has covered all his bases. He's not going into this with his eyes closed. Jerry even said he could move if he wants to.
 
Last edited:

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
The NFL would want to host a super bowl in LA rather then places like Minnesota,Phoenix,Atlanta, where they have new stadiums. One can argue LA is the best place to host a super bowl. If Stan stays in STL it's not like he's for sure going to get a Super Bowl. Besides there are too many new stadiums and super bowl city bids are in rotation. Hosting a super bowl is the last thing on his mind. No one liked Al Davis and it didn't stop him from running his business. You would think someone like Stan has had a cup of coffee with lawyers and has covered all his bases. He's not going into this with his eyes closed. Jerry even said he could move if he wants to.

Jerry is one owner. Rooney says otherwise, yet people still put more weight on Jerry. It'll be a big fight with no guaranteed winner.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
From what I heard, Stan has to prove that St.Louis cannot support a team. He can't just move the team to make more money. If he goes to court I think it will just make him look bad and it will prolong any process. Idk, I'm probably wrong.

Does he? I mean I get he needs to "prove" different things for the owners for the bylaws (assuming they would actually uphold them) but if he were going to court, you'd have to imagine the bylaws wont mean much. I get it'll make him look bad to St Louis peeps, but I'm not sure it would be totally damming. LA fans certainly wouldn't think so, most other fans likely wouldn't care, I don't know how much that'll matter to him.

It won't get to court but if it did the NFL has stated it is much better prepared to fight to keep a team from moving. If Stan moves on his own the penalties are huge. The NFL can withhold TV revenue money, prevent him from hosting a SuperBowl and other NFL events. He would be a pariah among the owners. Stan may have a lot of money but so do the other 31 owners who aren't going to let one owner snub his nose up at what they have created. If the NFL tells the Chargers and the Raiders you can move I guarantee that the NFL would throw every once of weight behind those two clubs and help them be more successful than Stan. Now you are dividing that pie 3 ways. Is there enough for all three? Anyone who thinks that Stan can just sue and get his way is mistaken. It would be a massive fight.

Wait, why wouldn't it get to court? I get the NFL can impose strict penalties, but I don't think they would actually withhold a Super Bowl from LA though, too much potential money.

I also don't know if the NFL can really throw their weight behind the Carson project and then try to stop Kroenke, if there was ever grounds for a lawsuit, that would certainly qualify. Kroenke at this time is the only owner with the capability to move without help from anyone else, so he could certainly just force the issue more than Spanos or Davis could.

My point isn't that he would just win easily (however I do think he would ultimately win), but I'm not sure how it would be the worst thing for him. Assuming he's going to court, the scenario is likely that he's got the stadium being built and the NFL said no to a move, so then court is one the the last options he has left. While it's not ideal, you'd have to imagine it's better than building a 2 billion dollar stadium, and then being forced to not occupy it, and then either be stuck in an outdated dome that he doesn't like in a city he doesn't want to be in, or turn around and write another half a billion dollar check for a stadium that he wouldn't own still in a city he doesn't want to be in. Depending on how much he wants it could determine how far the NFL is willing to go. Combined the NFL can certainly fight him dollar for dollar, but do they want to? If he's willing to stand up and fight them, I'm not sure the NFL really has any desire to fight back.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
The NFL would want to host a super bowl in LA rather then places like Minnesota,Phoenix,Atlanta, where they have new stadiums. One can argue LA is the best place to host a super bowl. If Stan stays in STL it's not like he's for sure going to get a Super Bowl. Besides there are too many new stadiums and super bowl city bids are in rotation. Hosting a super bowl is the last thing on his mind. No one liked Al Davis and it didn't stop him from running his business. You would think someone like Stan has had a cup of coffee with lawyers and has covered all his bases. He's not going into this with his eyes closed. Jerry even said he could move if he wants to.

They have said that if a owner goes rogue one of the penalties to withhold a SB. Why would the NFL reward Stan for going rogue and taking them to court? The NFL has made itself successful by putting the good of the league before an individual owner and any owner that goes against that is not going to be done any favors. The penalties that are in place now were not in place to punish Al. Stan can do whatever he wants but the NFL can also make it very difficult on him to do business. Do you think any owner wants to forfeit their share of the TV money? Considering that more fans stay at home then go to the game that a huge chunk of change. Jerry also talks out of his rear end more than his mouth. Old school owners want things done a certain way and there are more Rooney's in this league than Jones.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Jerry is one owner. Rooney says otherwise, yet people still put more weight on Jerry. It'll be a big fight with no guaranteed winner.
Totally agree. Know one knows what all the other owners are thinking. Actually we do. They're thinking how they could make more money and grow the NFL. London,LA,18 games, expanded playoffs etc. Follow the money. You could never lose if you do. The only way the NFL won't let Stan move is if they feel bad for the people in STL and do follow the rules when it comes to the bylaws. So ask yourself. Do they care?
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Wait, why wouldn't it get to court? I get the NFL can impose strict penalties, but I don't think they would actually withhold a Super Bowl from LA though, too much potential money.

I also don't know if the NFL can really throw their weight behind the Carson project and then try to stop Kroenke, if there was ever grounds for a lawsuit, that would certainly qualify. Kroenke at this time is the only owner with the capability to move without help from anyone else, so he could certainly just force the issue more than Spanos or Davis could.

My point isn't that he would just win easily (however I do think he would ultimately win), but I'm not sure how it would be the worst thing for him. Assuming he's going to court, the scenario is likely that he's got the stadium being built and the NFL said no to a move, so then court is one the the last options he has left. While it's not ideal, you'd have to imagine it's better than building a 2 billion dollar stadium, and then being forced to not occupy it, and then either be stuck in an outdated dome that he doesn't like in a city he doesn't want to be in, or turn around and write another half a billion dollar check for a stadium that he wouldn't own still in a city he doesn't want to be in. Depending on how much he wants it could determine how far the NFL is willing to go. Combined the NFL can certainly fight him dollar for dollar, but do they want to? If he's willing to stand up and fight them, I'm not sure the NFL really has any desire to fight back.

It sounds like instead of wasting time and money in court they will tell Stan here is what the penalties are if you move without approval. I don't think they will make anymore money hosting a SB in LA as they would in SF, ATL, AZ, or any other venue. Stars still fly in to go to the game and ticket prices are still outrageous. So why would 31 owners reward an 1 owner who didn't follow the rules? I guess I just don't understand how that can be just overlooked. Oh well Stan did everything we asked him not to do so we can't hold him to our standards just give him what he wants. That isn't going to happen. On Carson the NFL has stated they control the process and if that is who they approve to move then they don't have to support Stan. Is there enough PSL money for 3 teams? What about the TV schedule for two teams in the NFC. If the Raiders and the Rams are both in the NFC and playing at the same time who is the NFL going to broadcast locally?
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
It sounds like instead of wasting time and money in court they will tell Stan here is what the penalties are if you move without approval. I don't think they will make anymore money hosting a SB in LA as they would in SF, ATL, AZ, or any other venue. Stars still fly in to go to the game and ticket prices are still outrageous. So why would 31 owners reward an 1 owner who didn't follow the rules? I guess I just don't understand how that can be just overlooked. Oh well Stan did everything we asked him not to do so we can't hold him to our standards just give him what he wants. That isn't going to happen. On Carson the NFL has stated they control the process and if that is who they approve to move then they don't have to support Stan. Is there enough PSL money for 3 teams? What about the TV schedule for two teams in the NFC. If the Raiders and the Rams are both in the NFC and playing at the same time who is the NFL going to broadcast locally?

There's a lot of money in LA, and I don't think that the NFL is going to give that up because they're upset that an owner was sick of sitting around and finally went and did something that they've been talking about for years. I do understand the NFL wants to control the process, but when it's come to moving, typically they haven't been able to control that process anyway. If they did then the Rams would still be in LA anyway. The NFL has ultimately been about money, and frankly cutting off the second largest market would be bad for business. To say that LA wouldn't bring any more money than Arizona, San Francisco or Atlanta is just unrealistic, it's the second largest market in the states, and the entertainment capital of the world, the weather is great those all matter and help increase profits.

If Stan were to just up and move, I think they would stop the Carson project, not continue to push it. It would be an incredible pain in the ass, but if Kroenke is willing to fight, then I think he's going to go and do it, no matter what threats they make. Like the video said (which I just watched) if he feels he's right he's willing to go to court. However why would they want to dilute the market if he's determined to move? That just hurts themselves, and it hurts the Raiders and Chargers more than it hurts him. I also think that the NFL would make their case harder if they go through a lot of work to help the Chargers and Raiders, including giving them about half a billion dollars in loans, but then are trying to stop the Rams from moving, gives him extra ammo for a case.


*edit* when it comes to broadcasting, they put local sports on about 3 main channels, and in terms of the Ducks/Kings they've always done the Ducks on Prime Ticket and Kings on Fox Sports West, when there's baseball they also have channel 13 to kick over to.

With the NFL being more difficult because they keep it between 2 channels for "normal" games, I think they would figure out away to make it work. Or the networks would say "Give us _____ they're more popular"

That would be assuming the NFL would actually put 3 teams into a single market, which I don't think happens. So it falls back on my theory that if Stan shows he's willing to fight and move then they just go ahead and tell the Chargers/Raiders to back off.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It sounds like instead of wasting time and money in court they will tell Stan here is what the penalties are if you move without approval. I don't think they will make anymore money hosting a SB in LA as they would in SF, ATL, AZ, or any other venue. Stars still fly in to go to the game and ticket prices are still outrageous. So why would 31 owners reward an 1 owner who didn't follow the rules? I guess I just don't understand how that can be just overlooked. Oh well Stan did everything we asked him not to do so we can't hold him to our standards just give him what he wants. That isn't going to happen. On Carson the NFL has stated they control the process and if that is who they approve to move then they don't have to support Stan. Is there enough PSL money for 3 teams? What about the TV schedule for two teams in the NFC. If the Raiders and the Rams are both in the NFC and playing at the same time who is the NFL going to broadcast locally?
This situation is differet because it's about him going to LA not to idk OKC or San Antonio. If the league wants 1 or 2 teams in LA they would let him move. As for the record I don't think he is going to go rogue. I just don't see it. No one knows what will happen it court. I doubt it's going to go that far. It's a bottom line business. Come on we all know the NFL and what they're about. If the NFL makes more money by having a franshise in LA and a owner is taking care of all the financing then I don't get it why would they say no to more money? Directv,madden, London Thursday night games which players n owners don't like. The city and the people in jacksonville don't like the fact that the team keeps on playing in London. But guess what the NFL doesn't care. They growing the league and making more money.
 
Last edited:

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
There's a lot of money in LA, and I don't think that the NFL is going to give that up because they're upset that an owner was sick of sitting around and finally went and did something that they've been talking about for years. I do understand the NFL wants to control the process, but when it's come to moving, typically they haven't been able to control that process anyway. If they did then the Rams would still be in LA anyway. The NFL has ultimately been about money, and frankly cutting off the second largest market would be bad for business. To say that LA wouldn't bring any more money than Arizona, San Francisco or Atlanta is just unrealistic, it's the second largest market in the states, and the entertainment capital of the world, the weather is great those all matter and help increase profits.

I don't think it is unrealistic. There is not an endless supply of money in LA. Ticket prices are going to increase just because they are in LA, advertising isn't going to increase, and as far the fan experience and parking revenue I don't know how much of that the NFL would see. Regardless I can absolutely see the NFL and the other owners treating Stan like a second class citizen because he went against their wishes. They have said 1 - They want to control the process and 2- they would like to see a California solution. If Stan goes without approval and the other two California teams do not have a new stadium deal Stan has screwed two other teams pretty big. Do you think that is going to be over looked? Yes it is a bottom line league but the reason the has thrived is because the owners are working towards the greater good instead of the individual. Do you thank owners like Mara, Rooney, and McCaskey aren't going to be pissed off? The NFL doesn't have to cut of the LA market. They already control it so they can just continue to broadcast the most popular game of the day.

If Stan were to just up and move, I think they would stop the Carson project, not continue to push it. It would be an incredible pain in the ass, but if Kroenke is willing to fight, then I think he's going to go and do it, no matter what threats they make. Like the video said (which I just watched) if he feels he's right he's willing to go to court. However why would they want to dilute the market if he's determined to move? That just hurts themselves, and it hurts the Raiders and Chargers more than it hurts him. I also think that the NFL would make their case harder if they go through a lot of work to help the Chargers and Raiders, including giving them about half a billion dollars in loans, but then are trying to stop the Rams from moving, gives him extra ammo for a case.


*edit* when it comes to broadcasting, they put local sports on about 3 main channels, and in terms of the Ducks/Kings they've always done the Ducks on Prime Ticket and Kings on Fox Sports West, when there's baseball they also have channel 13 to kick over to.

With the NFL being more difficult because they keep it between 2 channels for "normal" games, I think they would figure out away to make it work. Or the networks would say "Give us _____ they're more popular"

That would be assuming the NFL would actually put 3 teams into a single market, which I don't think happens. So it falls back on my theory that if Stan shows he's willing to fight and move then they just go ahead and tell the Chargers/Raiders to back off.

That's assuming they try and stop Stan. They don't need to stop him from moving without approval because they can penalize him if he does. Money to help the Chargers/Raiders would come from the G4 program that Stan doesn't access to because he went rouge. I don't think they would stop the Carson project at because the Chargers and Raiders still need a place to go. To tell the other teams to back off would say they were backing Stan 100% and I don't think that is the case at all. TV contract for the NFL are completely different than the other sports. My point was they don't have to broadcast the Rams games and if they have three teams and one went rogue who do you think they are going to show? Which teams are going to get primetime games? If the NFL approves the Chargers/Raiders and Stan moves the diluted market will hurt Stan. The NFL will assist the other teams with money for the stadium and Stan will get none. If a SB will in LA it will be in Carson not Inglewood. TV revenue no goes to 31 teams instead of 32. The can also punished Stan in the forfeiture of draft picks.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
This situation is differet because it's about him going to LA not to idk OKC or San Antonio. If the league wants 1 or 2 teams in LA they would let him move. As for the record I don't think he is going to go rogue. I just don't see it. No one knows what will happen it court. I doubt it's going to go that far. It's a bottom line business. Come on we all know the NFL and what they're about. If the NFL makes more money by having a franshise in LA and a owner is taking care of all the financing then I don't get it why would they say no to more money? Directv,madden, London Thursday night games which players n owners don't like. The city and the people in jacksonville don't like the fact that the team keeps on playing in London. But guess what the NFL doesn't care. They growing the league and making more money.

I don't think he goes rouge either. I think if Stan is moving to LA it is with approval. But you can't change the rules because it is LA and not a smaller market. You should have the same rules for every potential city. Does the NFL make more money with a team in LA? I think that is the real question that none of us can truly answer. Since the TV money is structured on the league and not the city can they make that much more money? You already supposedly broadcast in that area with the most popular game of the week. How are you going to make more money on Madden? Suddenly more kids are going to want to play it? Plus you lose the STL market. So does having a team in LA compensate you for that lost market?
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
I don't think he goes rouge either. I think if Stan is moving to LA it is with approval. But you can't change the rules because it is LA and not a smaller market. You should have the same rules for every potential city. Does the NFL make more money with a team in LA? I think that is the real question that none of us can truly answer. Since the TV money is structured on the league and not the city can they make that much more money? You already supposedly broadcast in that area with the most popular game of the week. How are you going to make more money on Madden? Suddenly more kids are going to want to play it? Plus you lose the STL market. So does having a team in LA compensate you for that lost market?
No no the Madden thing I meant as in they have a contract with EA sports thus EA doesn't put as much effort into the game and it usually sucks. Expect maybe this years game. Ppl complain ea doesn't have competition but the NFL didn't care Bc ea gives them the money and the consumer is once again screwed Bc that's the only game we could buy. My point is the NFL doesn't care about us it's about them and their bottom line. As far as la it does make more money for the league overall. Why do you think they want 2 teams there and they keep on saying we want a team in la.
 
Last edited:

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
http://m.axs.com/news/facts-regarding-nfl-rams-have-given-way-to-speculation-fantasy-in-st-l-44623



Facts regarding NFL Rams have given way to speculation & fantasy in St. Louis
Dealing in what ifs in news and sports is the product of the 24 hour news cycle with both radio and TV capitalizing on it. It fuels all talk formats. Why? You have to fill time and there’s a lot of it. Further, speculation makes for great theater. A good example of this lies in the speculation that is fueling St. Louis in its efforts to keep the Rams this coming season. However, speculations aside, looks as if owner and Missouri native – Stan Kroenke – will move the franchise back to Los Angeles in time for the 2016 season.

Kroenke’s partnered with the Stockbridge Capital Group. They’re overseeing The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative in Inglewood California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Part of this revitalization project includes the building of an 80,000 seat football stadium which will return the NFL to the Los Angeles area after what will have been a 21 year hiatus.

This isn’t speculation. This is fact. It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. And if Kroenke’s building it, it’s going to be the Rams' eventual home base. If you think otherwise you’re dealing with fantasy.

Last week, a headline from INSIDESTL.com read: “If Kroenke Moves On, Who Could Fill Rams’ Ownership Void?”Shane Gray wrote the article because Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s stadium task force co-head Dave Peacock fired a shot on a St. Louis sports radio show randomly discussing the possibility Kroenke could be forced to sell his team. "The goal is to keep the Rams," Peacock said during the radio interview. "Teams can be prevented from moving, but owners can move. Ownership can change within a team and that's probably more palatable than actually moving a team. And I don't know that Stan Kroenke long-term will own the team. I don't know that. And I don't know if Stan Kroenke knows that."

So, Gray ran with it, discussing possible new owners in the event Kroenke was to sell the team based on Peacock’s theory (a theory conjured up, mind you, with not much evidence to back it).

Speculation can also add a measure of fantasy. Let’s put those two terms together and you have Specu-Fantasy. That’s what Gray’s article is; Specu-Fantasy. Here’s why: Kroenke isn’t going to sell the Rams and no one can force him to. His possible team-relocation back to Los Angeles isn’t a detriment to the league; it’s a benefit to it.

This is a fact (not speculation). Kroenke doesn’t sell any of his sports enterprises; he only buys them. That’s what Gray has written throughout this St. Louis stadium issue in regards to the Rams’ owner, and he’s absolutely correct.

Another important fact to keep in mind about the Rams’ owner as reported via some of Gray’s other articles follows: Kroenke likes to own the real estate and facilities his teams play in. That’s an absolute fact. This is why the NFL's return to Los Angeles is happening. It's all thanks to Kroenke. He owns the Rams and the land he’s building his stadium on in Inglewood.

Here’s another fact for you regarding Kroenke and the Rams’ Edward Jones Dome lease, specifically that Top Tier stipulation. Kroenke doesn’t have to fork out a red cent of his money to ensure the EJD becomes one of the top eight stadiums in the NFL. The state of Missouri and the city of St. Louis is responsible for every penny.

And after an arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams $700 million renovation proposal of the EJD over the CVCs $124 million proposal, that gave Kroenke and the Rams free agency which Kroenke is taking full advantage of now going year-to-year able to leave when he needs to. That’s happening because of another fact. According to Forbes, of the 32 NFL teams, the Rams are dead last in value at $930 million which is way below the $1.4 billion average per franchise.These facts make the proposed $900 million St. Louis Riverfront Stadium worth as much as the renderings for AEGs now defunct Farmers Field. Nothing.

Here’s why the value rings in at nothing. For that Riverfront Stadium to be built, it will require Kroenke to fork over somewhere between $200 million to $400 million. What makes anyone think he would fork over that much coin for a non-existant stadium when the only stadium that matters is the one his team currently plays in, the EJD? And remember, the top tier stipulation in his EJD lease says he doesn’t have to fork over one red cent to make the EJD one of the eight best in the league.

Here's another fact for you. It’s all about Location! Location! Location! Los Angeles- the home of Hollywood a.k.a. the Entertainment Capital of the World – is a much more desirable and valuable media market place than St. Louis ever was or will be. Period. If Kroenke’s going to shell out between a quarter of a billion to half a billion dollars of his own coin to build a football stadium, it stands to reason he’ll do that in a market place that will increase the value of his team minimum three times its current value which is dead last in the league.

That’s exactly what he’s doing with his real estate investment in Inglewood. Kroenke’s increasing the value of his team from dead last to top five in the entire NFL.

And let’s not go the “L.A. lost three teams because they couldn't support them. What’s any different now?” route. That is nothing but a tired lie.

Nothing’s different. Los Angeles has always been able to support the NFL. The Rams first called Los Angeles home for 49 years prior to the move to the Mid-West in 1995. Georgia Frontiere moved the team not because there wasn’t a fan following, but because she was offered hundreds of millions of dollars by St. Louis and only after she purged the team of its best players driving the team into the ground.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I don't think it is unrealistic. There is not an endless supply of money in LA. Ticket prices are going to increase just because they are in LA, advertising isn't going to increase, and as far the fan experience and parking revenue I don't know how much of that the NFL would see.

There's not an endless supply but there's more than SF, Phoenix, and Atlanta. Without knowing the numbers, they probably have close or more than the three combined. There's also going to be a bigger stadium which brings more money, etc. Advertising can increase, plus more merchandising sales, etc. It'll add up. That doesn't mean that they'll definitely say okay or anything like that, but it probably factors in. They can also get this money from the Carson project, although the Champions Project is a bigger scale, so there is likely to be more from that. How much more and if it's significant enough to really factor in remains to be seen though.

Regardless I can absolutely see the NFL and the other owners treating Stan like a second class citizen because he went against their wishes. They have said 1 - They want to control the process and 2- they would like to see a California solution. If Stan goes without approval and the other two California teams do not have a new stadium deal Stan has screwed two other teams pretty big. Do you think that is going to be over looked? Yes it is a bottom line league but the reason the has thrived is because the owners are working towards the greater good instead of the individual. Do you thank owners like Mara, Rooney, and McCaskey aren't going to be pissed off? The NFL doesn't have to cut of the LA market. They already control it so they can just continue to broadcast the most popular game of the day.

They could, but they didn't seem to do it to Al Davis, they didn't to Georgia, they don't to Jerry Jones (who has thumbed his nose at them a few times), so why are they going to start with Kroenke? I'll be honest, I think Rooney likes Stan's idea, he was quoted saying he supported a team in LA and thought there would be a team there within the next few years a few years ago. Carson wasn't an idea then, but the Inglewood project was starting to form. I don't think he's a big fan of Kroenke suing the league or going rouge, which is part of why I think the NFL wont put up a huge fight and risk if if he says he's going to do it. They may not like it, but I don't think they're going to just ostracize him. Not showing Rams games on TV is ridiculous, and frankly I think Kroenke would just make a deal with another station and get his own channel, and then that opens a huge can of worms the NFL definitely doesn't want. If Kroenke pushing forward in LA brings a serious solution to St Louis then he can argue he hasn't screwed over anyone. There's a room in his stadium for one team, and a city with a plan for the other. If they don't want it, then he can argue that's their problem, not his. Where does it say it's his obligation to help out other owners? Owners have historically done what's best for them first and foremost, that's been the standard.

That's assuming they try and stop Stan. They don't need to stop him from moving without approval because they can penalize him if he does. Money to help the Chargers/Raiders would come from the G4 program that Stan doesn't access to because he went rouge

Chargers and Raiders don't have access to the G4 program either, it's for owners who need help building a stadium in their existing market. Spanos could potentially argue that LA is his market (and he has alluded to before) but it's a pretty ridiculous argument because they're not the same market.

I don't think they would stop the Carson project at because the Chargers and Raiders still need a place to go. To tell the other teams to back off would say they were backing Stan 100% and I don't think that is the case at all.

I don't think they would say they back Stan either, I think they'll go "Well he won the race, his stadium is being built and we can't stop him." and then the Carson project dies on its own. They can also say that they wont change the G4 rules, which then kills the project.

TV contract for the NFL are completely different than the other sports. My point was they don't have to broadcast the Rams games and if they have three teams and one went rogue who do you think they are going to show? Which teams are going to get primetime games?

I don't really know details, but I'd imagine if they just flat out refused to show Rams games (which would piss off the teams playing the Rams) then I'm guessing Stan can argue he can make his own deal with another network. If they wont show the games how can they really stop him?

If the NFL approves the Chargers/Raiders and Stan moves the diluted market will hurt Stan. The NFL will assist the other teams with money for the stadium and Stan will get none. If a SB will in LA it will be in Carson not Inglewood. TV revenue no goes to 31 teams instead of 32. The can also punished Stan in the forfeiture of draft picks.

Stan would be the first one there, the Carson project is much further behind in that aspect, and they said they wont start building until a team signs a 20 year lease. Inglewood Stadium is expected to be started by December at the latest. Unless a team up and moved in the summer (which I believe all three have signed a year lease with their home stadium) Kroenke has the upper hand there. Kroenke also doesn't need the NFL's help, and hasn't asked for any money, while the Chargers and Raiders both do, and need the NFL to change the rules to allow them to get said money, so I don't think that factors in. A SB being held in Carson vs Inglewood is an option, but as I said earlier, if Kroenke starts building his stadium I can't see them pushing forward on the Carson project.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
http://m.axs.com/news/facts-regarding-nfl-rams-have-given-way-to-speculation-fantasy-in-st-l-44623



Facts regarding NFL Rams have given way to speculation & fantasy in St. Louis
Dealing in what ifs in news and sports is the product of the 24 hour news cycle with both radio and TV capitalizing on it. It fuels all talk formats. Why? You have to fill time and there’s a lot of it. Further, speculation makes for great theater. A good example of this lies in the speculation that is fueling St. Louis in its efforts to keep the Rams this coming season. However, speculations aside, looks as if owner and Missouri native – Stan Kroenke – will move the franchise back to Los Angeles in time for the 2016 season.

Kroenke’s partnered with the Stockbridge Capital Group. They’re overseeing The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative in Inglewood California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Part of this revitalization project includes the building of an 80,000 seat football stadium which will return the NFL to the Los Angeles area after what will have been a 21 year hiatus.

This isn’t speculation. This is fact. It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. And if Kroenke’s building it, it’s going to be the Rams' eventual home base. If you think otherwise you’re dealing with fantasy.

Last week, a headline from INSIDESTL.com read: “If Kroenke Moves On, Who Could Fill Rams’ Ownership Void?”Shane Gray wrote the article because Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s stadium task force co-head Dave Peacock fired a shot on a St. Louis sports radio show randomly discussing the possibility Kroenke could be forced to sell his team. "The goal is to keep the Rams," Peacock said during the radio interview. "Teams can be prevented from moving, but owners can move. Ownership can change within a team and that's probably more palatable than actually moving a team. And I don't know that Stan Kroenke long-term will own the team. I don't know that. And I don't know if Stan Kroenke knows that."

So, Gray ran with it, discussing possible new owners in the event Kroenke was to sell the team based on Peacock’s theory (a theory conjured up, mind you, with not much evidence to back it).

Speculation can also add a measure of fantasy. Let’s put those two terms together and you have Specu-Fantasy. That’s what Gray’s article is; Specu-Fantasy. Here’s why: Kroenke isn’t going to sell the Rams and no one can force him to. His possible team-relocation back to Los Angeles isn’t a detriment to the league; it’s a benefit to it.

This is a fact (not speculation). Kroenke doesn’t sell any of his sports enterprises; he only buys them. That’s what Gray has written throughout this St. Louis stadium issue in regards to the Rams’ owner, and he’s absolutely correct.

Another important fact to keep in mind about the Rams’ owner as reported via some of Gray’s other articles follows: Kroenke likes to own the real estate and facilities his teams play in. That’s an absolute fact. This is why the NFL's return to Los Angeles is happening. It's all thanks to Kroenke. He owns the Rams and the land he’s building his stadium on in Inglewood.

Here’s another fact for you regarding Kroenke and the Rams’ Edward Jones Dome lease, specifically that Top Tier stipulation. Kroenke doesn’t have to fork out a red cent of his money to ensure the EJD becomes one of the top eight stadiums in the NFL. The state of Missouri and the city of St. Louis is responsible for every penny.

And after an arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams $700 million renovation proposal of the EJD over the CVCs $124 million proposal, that gave Kroenke and the Rams free agency which Kroenke is taking full advantage of now going year-to-year able to leave when he needs to. That’s happening because of another fact. According to Forbes, of the 32 NFL teams, the Rams are dead last in value at $930 million which is way below the $1.4 billion average per franchise.These facts make the proposed $900 million St. Louis Riverfront Stadium worth as much as the renderings for AEGs now defunct Farmers Field. Nothing.

Here’s why the value rings in at nothing. For that Riverfront Stadium to be built, it will require Kroenke to fork over somewhere between $200 million to $400 million. What makes anyone think he would fork over that much coin for a non-existant stadium when the only stadium that matters is the one his team currently plays in, the EJD? And remember, the top tier stipulation in his EJD lease says he doesn’t have to fork over one red cent to make the EJD one of the eight best in the league.

Here's another fact for you. It’s all about Location! Location! Location! Los Angeles- the home of Hollywood a.k.a. the Entertainment Capital of the World – is a much more desirable and valuable media market place than St. Louis ever was or will be. Period. If Kroenke’s going to shell out between a quarter of a billion to half a billion dollars of his own coin to build a football stadium, it stands to reason he’ll do that in a market place that will increase the value of his team minimum three times its current value which is dead last in the league.

That’s exactly what he’s doing with his real estate investment in Inglewood. Kroenke’s increasing the value of his team from dead last to top five in the entire NFL.

And let’s not go the “L.A. lost three teams because they couldn't support them. What’s any different now?” route. That is nothing but a tired lie.

Nothing’s different. Los Angeles has always been able to support the NFL. The Rams first called Los Angeles home for 49 years prior to the move to the Mid-West in 1995. Georgia Frontiere moved the team not because there wasn’t a fan following, but because she was offered hundreds of millions of dollars by St. Louis and only after she purged the team of its best players driving the team into the ground.


The most interesting part of that article is that it's written by AXS. Also known as the digital marketing company that focuses on selling tickets developed, owned, and operated by AEG.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
The most interesting part of that article is that it's written by AXS. Also known as the digital marketing company that focuses on selling tickets developed, owned, and operated by AEG.
That's intresting. AEG hates the Inglewood project Bc it's going to be a direct competitor to LA live in LA. Facts are facts and eventually people will buy in. I also heard rumors that the 6,000 seat performance arts theater in Inglewood will be ideal to host the NFL draft.
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
17,935
http://m.axs.com/news/facts-regarding-nfl-rams-have-given-way-to-speculation-fantasy-in-st-l-44623



Facts regarding NFL Rams have given way to speculation & fantasy in St. Louis
Dealing in what ifs in news and sports is the product of the 24 hour news cycle with both radio and TV capitalizing on it. It fuels all talk formats. Why? You have to fill time and there’s a lot of it. Further, speculation makes for great theater. A good example of this lies in the speculation that is fueling St. Louis in its efforts to keep the Rams this coming season. However, speculations aside, looks as if owner and Missouri native – Stan Kroenke – will move the franchise back to Los Angeles in time for the 2016 season.

Kroenke’s partnered with the Stockbridge Capital Group. They’re overseeing The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative in Inglewood California, a suburb of Los Angeles. Part of this revitalization project includes the building of an 80,000 seat football stadium which will return the NFL to the Los Angeles area after what will have been a 21 year hiatus.

This isn’t speculation. This is fact. It’s happening and there’s really nothing anyone can do to stop it from happening. And if Kroenke’s building it, it’s going to be the Rams' eventual home base. If you think otherwise you’re dealing with fantasy.

Last week, a headline from INSIDESTL.com read: “If Kroenke Moves On, Who Could Fill Rams’ Ownership Void?”Shane Gray wrote the article because Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s stadium task force co-head Dave Peacock fired a shot on a St. Louis sports radio show randomly discussing the possibility Kroenke could be forced to sell his team. "The goal is to keep the Rams," Peacock said during the radio interview. "Teams can be prevented from moving, but owners can move. Ownership can change within a team and that's probably more palatable than actually moving a team. And I don't know that Stan Kroenke long-term will own the team. I don't know that. And I don't know if Stan Kroenke knows that."

So, Gray ran with it, discussing possible new owners in the event Kroenke was to sell the team based on Peacock’s theory (a theory conjured up, mind you, with not much evidence to back it).

Speculation can also add a measure of fantasy. Let’s put those two terms together and you have Specu-Fantasy. That’s what Gray’s article is; Specu-Fantasy. Here’s why: Kroenke isn’t going to sell the Rams and no one can force him to. His possible team-relocation back to Los Angeles isn’t a detriment to the league; it’s a benefit to it.

This is a fact (not speculation). Kroenke doesn’t sell any of his sports enterprises; he only buys them. That’s what Gray has written throughout this St. Louis stadium issue in regards to the Rams’ owner, and he’s absolutely correct.

Another important fact to keep in mind about the Rams’ owner as reported via some of Gray’s other articles follows: Kroenke likes to own the real estate and facilities his teams play in. That’s an absolute fact. This is why the NFL's return to Los Angeles is happening. It's all thanks to Kroenke. He owns the Rams and the land he’s building his stadium on in Inglewood.

Here’s another fact for you regarding Kroenke and the Rams’ Edward Jones Dome lease, specifically that Top Tier stipulation. Kroenke doesn’t have to fork out a red cent of his money to ensure the EJD becomes one of the top eight stadiums in the NFL. The state of Missouri and the city of St. Louis is responsible for every penny.

And after an arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams $700 million renovation proposal of the EJD over the CVCs $124 million proposal, that gave Kroenke and the Rams free agency which Kroenke is taking full advantage of now going year-to-year able to leave when he needs to. That’s happening because of another fact. According to Forbes, of the 32 NFL teams, the Rams are dead last in value at $930 million which is way below the $1.4 billion average per franchise.These facts make the proposed $900 million St. Louis Riverfront Stadium worth as much as the renderings for AEGs now defunct Farmers Field. Nothing.

Here’s why the value rings in at nothing. For that Riverfront Stadium to be built, it will require Kroenke to fork over somewhere between $200 million to $400 million. What makes anyone think he would fork over that much coin for a non-existant stadium when the only stadium that matters is the one his team currently plays in, the EJD? And remember, the top tier stipulation in his EJD lease says he doesn’t have to fork over one red cent to make the EJD one of the eight best in the league.

Here's another fact for you. It’s all about Location! Location! Location! Los Angeles- the home of Hollywood a.k.a. the Entertainment Capital of the World – is a much more desirable and valuable media market place than St. Louis ever was or will be. Period. If Kroenke’s going to shell out between a quarter of a billion to half a billion dollars of his own coin to build a football stadium, it stands to reason he’ll do that in a market place that will increase the value of his team minimum three times its current value which is dead last in the league.

That’s exactly what he’s doing with his real estate investment in Inglewood. Kroenke’s increasing the value of his team from dead last to top five in the entire NFL.

And let’s not go the “L.A. lost three teams because they couldn't support them. What’s any different now?” route. That is nothing but a tired lie.

Nothing’s different. Los Angeles has always been able to support the NFL. The Rams first called Los Angeles home for 49 years prior to the move to the Mid-West in 1995. Georgia Frontiere moved the team not because there wasn’t a fan following, but because she was offered hundreds of millions of dollars by St. Louis and only after she purged the team of its best players driving the team into the ground.


This article would have a lot more credibility if the writer didn't piss on Shane Gray.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Totally agree. Know one knows what all the other owners are thinking. Actually we do. They're thinking how they could make more money and grow the NFL. London,LA,18 games, expanded playoffs etc. Follow the money. You could never lose if you do. The only way the NFL won't let Stan move is if they feel bad for the people in STL and do follow the rules when it comes to the bylaws. So ask yourself. Do they care?

They might not let Stan move if Carson starts to look up. Why would they allow Stan to move and not the other two? If you follow the money, it makes more sense to move two California franchises within California than move one from the Midwest.
 

RedAlice

UDFA
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
30
Name
Alice
It's that Irish holiday today. San Diego looooves their drinking holidays. I trolled and asked very specific questions to many Charger fans today.

wow. I was way under prepared.

these fans LOVE their team. Padres were not brought up once. AT ALL. These are real fans. One guy actually cried - his family has had season tickets his whole life. He refuses to buy them now.

He goes: chargers, hand to his heart. LA? hand across the throat like slice.

He goes: there are only two options. My Chargers or else I have no team and Karma will beat that team down and Spanos will earn what he deserves by abandoning us.

Was pretty emotional.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
It's that Irish holiday today. San Diego looooves their drinking holidays. I trolled and asked very specific questions to many Charger fans today.

wow. I was way under prepared.

these fans LOVE their team. Padres were not brought up once. AT ALL. These are real fans. One guy actually cried - his family has had season tickets his whole life. He refuses to buy them now.

He goes: chargers, hand to his heart. LA? hand across the throat like slice.

He goes: there are only two options. My Chargers or else I have no team and Karma will beat that team down and Spanos will earn what he deserves by abandoning us.

Was pretty emotional.

Yeah, you'll certainly never find a fan like that here. And with all that research:rolleyes: you did to make such a confident statement. (y)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.