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.

BriansRams

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,565
Name
Brian
There has been tons and tons of comments, speculation and discussion on this subject. From everything I've read, heard, and thought about ... my personal opinion (which I realize means nothing) is that the Rams WILL end up moving to LA, playing at Inglewood. Just my .2 cents. It's just a strong gut feeling. I've not the time to write 15 paragraphs of why I think so. I just think it will happen. Have a dandy day.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
I can't wait to see the renderings

Since January, the reclusive Kroenke, 67, has been maneuvering his NFL team west, out of Missouri and into what would be the crown jewel of his massive real estate development and sports empire: a proposed 80,000-seat NFL stadium in Inglewood, California, with a space-age retractable roof, open-air sides and a U.S.-record $1.86 billion budget.

Open air sides? Wtf does that mean?
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I can't wait to see the renderings

Since January, the reclusive Kroenke, 67, has been maneuvering his NFL team west, out of Missouri and into what would be the crown jewel of his massive real estate development and sports empire: a proposed 80,000-seat NFL stadium in Inglewood, California, with a space-age retractable roof, open-air sides and a U.S.-record $1.86 billion budget.

Open air sides? Wtf does that mean?

It makes easier for terrorists to dock their planes , remember?
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It makes easier for terrorists to dock their planes , remember?
Lol. I thought it was supposed to be a clear roof like the new Vikings stadium. IMO it should be open air. That's my preference. I don't like dome stadiums. Clear or not clear.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
no I would say that saying they have started on a stadium is overplaying what is actually going on, they have plans for a possible stadium, they cant say for sure that its going to be built yet, Stan can stand up today and say "changed my mind, not building that stadium" and guess what, that stadium wont be built. im not saying that will happen, but it could, so to say that a stadium there is a fact is wrong.

That's essentially what I said. Stan can change his mind, its not too late for that. However if the question is "is dirt moving?" Then the answer is yes.

They are doing prep work. They would need to do prep work for whatever they put there, but they are doing it now. That doesn't mean its too late, but it does mean th clock is ticking.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
That's essentially what I said. Stan can change his mind, its not too late for that. However if the question is "is dirt moving?" Then the answer is yes.

They are doing prep work. They would need to do prep work for whatever they put there, but they are doing it now. That doesn't mean its too late, but it does mean th clock is ticking.
Ya they're taking trees and boxing them up and doing water and suage pipes. Last week mayor butts said there trying to expedite the permits so they could break ground earlier then December. I don't know how to post audio links or else I would
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I got all that, but it doesn't say what they can do differently in a court case that helps them win if it were to go to that. That's why I'm not sure that they have anything.

A court case can always go either way, but I don't see the extra ammo people say the NFL has.

Lol I have rewritten this message about 3x now because there's some new piece of information that changes his mind..

This is the final draft (we found out about the exemptions, then had to look it up, etc.)

"First, the nfl has an exemption to certain anti-trust laws, but in 2010 a supreme court ruled that the NFL isn't a single entity but 32 individual teams. This is important because that makes every owner potentially co-liable. The Bylaws are a contractual agreement between all owners and the NFL.

So if Kroenke were to sue - he'd be suing all 31 other owners. If anti-trust laws are held to be applicable (ie: kroenke wins), all the other owners would have to pay triple the damages..

But Kroenke would be screwing himself over too - he could cause the NFL and ALL owners to Lose the exemptions to the anti-trust either through court or congressional action. Which hurts his interests too

The NFL and all the owners have to be very careful what they do politically, and make sure they're not waving a red flag at congress, the bull."

And Congress is already taking a long look at the NFL's anti trust laws

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

Losing Anti-trust would be a snow ball effect....things like the salary cap would go
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Lol I have rewritten this message about 3x now because there's some new piece of information that changes his mind..

This is the final draft (we found out about the exemptions, then had to look it up, etc.)

"First, the nfl has an exemption to certain anti-trust laws, but in 2010 a supreme court ruled that the NFL isn't a single entity but 32 individual teams. This is important because that makes every owner potentially co-liable. The Bylaws are a contractual agreement between all owners and the NFL.

So if Kroenke were to sue - he'd be suing all 31 other owners. If anti-trust laws are held to be applicable (ie: kroenke wins), all the other owners would have to pay triple the damages..

But Kroenke would be screwing himself over too - he could cause the NFL and ALL owners to Lose the exemptions to the anti-trust either through court or congressional action. Which hurts his interests too

The NFL and all the owners have to be very careful what they do politically, and make sure they're not waving a red flag at congress, the bull."

And Congress is already taking a long look at the NFL's anti trust laws

http://nypost.com/2014/12/04/congress-has-nfls-anti-trust-exemption-in-its-crosshairs/

Losing Anti-trust would be a snow ball effect....things like the salary cap would go

That's why I figure the NFL doesn't want to risk that. Rich owners would be able to thrive, "poorer" owners would be in more trouble.

Its interesting either way, ultimately it may come down to who blinks first, because I don't think either side wants to go that route. I do think that Kroenke will if he feels he needs to though.
 

Robocop

Pro Bowler
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
1,933
Name
J.
this all could very well be a meaningless topic. taxpayers would be paying for this stadium in STL correct? Obama is trying to pass a bill making it illegal to use public funds for building sports stadiums. no money no stadium.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
this all could very well be a meaningless topic. taxpayers would be paying for this stadium in STL correct? Obama is trying to pass a bill making it illegal to use public funds for building sports stadiums. no money no stadium.

I just hope the Governor just says "fuck it" and extends the bonds before this gets off the ground.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
this all could very well be a meaningless topic. taxpayers would be paying for this stadium in STL correct? Obama is trying to pass a bill making it illegal to use public funds for building sports stadiums. no money no stadium.
Obviously. We're just assuming that STL could get public funds for sake of argument. There's nothing else we could talk about. It's wait and see with the 3 city's. Sd Oak STL
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
That's why I figure the NFL doesn't want to risk that. Rich owners would be able to thrive, "poorer" owners would be in more trouble.

Its interesting either way, ultimately it may come down to who blinks first, because I don't think either side wants to go that route. I do think that Kroenke will if he feels he needs to though.

Eh I don't think so - according to him That would be the last thing any of the owners want. They'd all be losing some serious money.

conversely when they were talking about "NFL Could Sweeten the pot for Kroenke to keep The Rams in St.Louis" rumors that we've heard before - I asked my old man about that as well... one possibility he mentioned would be increasing his share of the market revenue.

But as far as anti-trust status goes - I'd wager that that's the last thing any and all owners want, including Kroenke himself. He'd win the battle, but could very easily lose the war.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,990
Name
Stu
So if Kroenke were to sue - he'd be suing all 31 other owners. If anti-trust laws are held to be applicable (ie: kroenke wins), all the other owners would have to pay triple the damages..
Which is exactly what they feared when Georgia/Shaw threatened to sue for $2.2 Billion. I just doubt the NFL owners as a whole would have the stomach to fight Stan and potentially have to pay up what some have said could be more than ten times that amount.

I still hold that the best chance for St Louis to keep the Rams is if Stan wants to stay. I also think that is the best scenario for the NFL. If however, he has either soured on St Louis or just really wants that LA market, I don't have much confidence that anyone can stop him.
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
23,100
Name
Dennis
I don't have much confidence that anyone can stop him.

And you're right they can't and believe me the NFL will not go to court they will come to an agreement and might be something like if you stay in St. Louis you can continue to keep your teams in Colorado with no repercussions.
 
Last edited:

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Which is exactly what they feared when Georgia/Shaw threatened to sue for $2.2 Billion. I just doubt the NFL owners as a whole would have the stomach to fight Stan and potentially have to pay up what some have said could be more than ten times that amount.

I still hold that the best chance for St Louis to keep the Rams is if Stan wants to stay. I also think that is the best scenario for the NFL. If however, he has either soured on St Louis or just really wants that LA market, I don't have much confidence that anyone can stop him.

Times are starkly different between now and then. Remember, the supreme court ruled in 2010 and several bylaws were added AFTER she moved.

I still believe the Rams are gonna stay in St.Louis - and I've never seen anything from Kroenke indicating that he'll go against the NFL; if anything, its been the opposite.

I don't think Kroenke would cut off his nose to spite his face

Asked the old man how much they could lose if they lost anti trust status - "hundreds of millions?" "No.Billions....and it could even cause the nfl to disintegrate"
 
Last edited:

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
Oakland's billion-dollar Coliseum City plan is ready for a big score
An agreement between Oakland and Alameda County that could pave the way for the massive Coliseum City development — including new stadiums for the Oakland Raiders and Oakland Athletics — will come before city and county leaders over the next few days.

Oakland City Council members are set to vote in a special session late Friday morning on a new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart that is trying to pull together the project. The county could vote on the deal either Friday or Tuesday.

Bringing the city and county together on the exclusive negotiating agreement, or ENA, would be a major step forward in the $1.5 billion, 200-acre first phase of the Coliseum City project. It would mark the first time the city and county have addressed their joint ownership of the land that holds O.co Coliseum, the home of the Raiders and A's, and the Golden State Warriors' Oracle Arena.

New City in October won an ENA with the city, which expires April 21. But Kephart said his team — and the Raiders — has been hamstrung on development and financing plans for a 55,000-seat Raiders stadium without the county's involvement in land discussions for the new project.

"The No. 1 condition from the Raiders to stay is, 'Tell us how to deal with the land,'" Kephart said.

The new ENA continues to allow the Raiders and A's the option of bypassing New City and submitting their own stadium plans.

The soonest a new stadium could host the National Football League Raiders, who have made rumblings about moving to the Los Angeles area or San Antonio but recently signed a one-year Coliseum lease, would be the 2019 season, Kephart said. That assumes final approval of plans and permits next summer and a 32-month build-out.

"Everyone believes this could be done by 2019, if we just function," said Kephart, who last month was critical of the county's work toward bringing an ENA to a vote.

A three-way ENA also could unlock other parts of the Coliseum City plan, such as the development of nearly 5,800 housing units, office and retail space, infrastructure to support stadiums and larger, 800-acre project, and upgrades to BART's Coliseum station.

The new ENA expires Aug. 21, but New City must present "broad strokes" financing and site plans by June 21, Kephart said.

New City also must detail the public and private participants in the development and how the plan actually is funded.

At that point, it's put-up-or-shut-up time for New City and Kephart, who since October has said lining up money for Coliseum City and, specifically, a new Raiders stadium isn't the most vexing issue.

"We've always had that," Kephart said about the availability of money. "That's not my issue here. That's not my issue today. That's not my issue tomorrow. That's not my issue next week."

In addition to funds Kephart can access, Raiders principal owner Mark Davis has said that the team would put as much as $400 million in a new stadium.

The city and county will have 15 business days to approve or reject each plan that New City submits along the ENA path.

"It's a real agreement for performance," Kephart said.

The city, county or New City also can terminate the ENA at any time, Kephart said.

New City would have to find a way of dealing with the $100 million-plus debt remaining from the renovation of the Coliseum in the early 1990s, which wooed the Raiders back to Oakland from Los Angeles. "We have no thoughts on how that gets paid," Kephart said.

Raiders officials weren't immediately available to comment for this story, and phone calls to the offices of Alameda County Board of Supervisors President Scott Haggerty and Supervisor Nate Miley, who has proposed a half-billion renovation of the current Coliseum structure, weren't returned.

The new ENA shows the city and county are "committed to getting this done," Kephart said, specifically calling out the work of Haggerty, Oakland City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney, Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf and City Councilman Larry Reid.

Baseball's A's have nine years remaining on a 10-year lease signed last summer. The Warriors, meanwhile, have said they are committed to building a new arena in San Francisco's Mission Bay neighborhood that will be ready for the tip off of the 2018-19 National Basketball Association season.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It's funny how when you really use levergae the city starts to move their ass. I know it's hard to get things done in cali but I wouldt be shocked if there are 2 new stadiums in SD and Oak. Cali has a ton of teams and stadiums. It could be done.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
lRelated
The process to approve an NFL stadium in Carson is “deeply flawed” and “an open invitation to litigation,” AEG Vice Chairman Ted Fikre warned Carson Mayor Jim Dear in a letter sent earlier this week.

In the six-page letter obtained by The Times, Fikre called the proposed home for the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders “potentially exciting” but also “of great concern to us” because of the ballot initiative being used to move forward with the project. The tactic, also used by a rival stadium concept in Inglewood, bypasses lengthy environmental review.

“But it is entirely unacceptable for a massive development project such as this one … to short cut the environmental and public review process entirely by use of the proposed initiative,” the letter said.

Last month, Fikre expressed similar concerns to Dear in a phone call after the project’s announcement. In a statement Wednesday, Fikre said his company – which owns the Stubhub Center in Carson – wants to make sure the $1.7-billion football stadium project is “thoroughly vetted” by the public before it wins local approval.

“As one of Carson’s biggest investors and business stakeholders, AEG has an interest in advocating for a responsible approach to major developments in the community,” Fikre said.

The safety of the proposed stadium in Inglewood has also been the topic of two reports by AEG, which owns the 27,000-seat StubHub Center and the L.A. Galaxy in Carson. The proposed stadium would sit two miles east of LAX.

The sports conglomerate earlier this month abandoned longstanding plans for a downtown NFL stadium after investing five years and more than $50 million in the effort.

Fikre’s letter asked Dear to pursue independent review of the Carson stadium’s impact and allow the public to vote on the ballot measure instead of the City Council approving it, as happened in Inglewood.

“Just because the Council has the right to bypass the people, it doesn’t make it right to take that huge short cut,” the letter said.

Carson City Attorney Sunny Soltani said city officials are reviewing the letter, but noted that earlier plans to turn the stadium site into a large shopping center received full environmental review several years ago, and that many of the mitigation measures for that project have been worked into the stadium plan.

“We will give due consideration to their concerns,” she said. “We are not surprised that they would try to find ways to oppose a stadium in Carson as they have opposed the Inglewood project as well.”

Mark Fabiani, point man on stadium issues for the Chargers, declined comment on AEG's letter.

nathan.fenno@latimes.com

tim.logan@latimes.com

Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
UPDATE
12:58 p.m.: This post has been updated with a statement from AEG Vice Chairman Ted Fikre and reaction from Carson City Atty. Sunny Soltani.

This post was first published at 10:57 a.m.
 

drasconis

Starter
Joined
Jul 31, 2014
Messages
810
Name
JA
this all could very well be a meaningless topic. taxpayers would be paying for this stadium in STL correct? Obama is trying to pass a bill making it illegal to use public funds for building sports stadiums. no money no stadium.

No he isn't....he is making those bonds taxable instead of tax free....
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond

A new 55,000-seat stadium for the Oakland Raiders is key to the 800-acre Coliseum City development. Left side football stadium for the Raiders. Top right side new stadium for the Warriors. Right side new stadium for the A's.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.