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.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,042
Name
Stu
All I know is LA is leverage to get an STL stadium built. Clearly there nobody is lining up to foot the bill just yet, but this will get done. There is plenty of time. A great football season will definately seal the deal.
I believe you are right on the bolded part. The part I don't agree with is that St Louis has plenty of time. The clock is ticking and I would probably give them about 6 months to figure out the specific financing part of the deal. I can almost guarantee you Inglewood figures out a way to get the permits approved well before the December timeline. If that does indeed happen and a hole starts to form in Hollywood Park, all bets are off.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
35,042
Name
Stu
What's the threshold to override a veto in Missouri?
I think someone previously said 2/3 - that's what most states have too. Typically that is pretty hard to achieve but not so much on unanimously approved bills. I think it still has to go through another house though. Guess we'll see what their numbers are. But a little research shows that in September the Senate passed a vetoed bill with a 23-8 vote.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
IMG_20150101_010523.jpg
I believe you are right on the bolded part. The part I don't agree with is that St Louis has plenty of time. The clock is ticking and I would probably give them about 6 months to figure out the specific financing part of the deal. I can almost guarantee you Inglewood figures out a way to get the permits approved well before the December timeline. If that does indeed happen and a hole starts to form in Hollywood Park, all bets are off.

I just believe this is a tremendous opportunity for STL to have a world class down town. The river is iconic, the arch is too, and then you have an incredibly unique stadium right on the river. It's too good to pass up. And the impact of not pulling the trigger on this would be a huge step back for the city. Like I said, I don't see the finances not coming on. It will get done. Only a complete lack of vision from the state, city, and citizens will end this project. And I do believe they will be more open minded when the team rocks this year.
 

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
As a Californian ... I'm asking ... is Missouri a Democratic or Republican state? ... Voter and politics wise? Because Obamam is trying to also pass a bill that would make the use of public Bonds. etc. illegal for use in financing pro sports facilities.
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
As a Californian ... I'm asking ... is Missouri a Democratic or Republican state? ... Voter and politics wise? Because Obamam is trying to also pass a bill that would make the use of public Bonds. etc. illegal for use in financing pro sports facilities.

The governor is a Democrat while the legislature is heavily Republican...
 

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
The governor is a Democrat while the legislature is heavily Republican...
Ok .. .was just wondering as you could probably expect the legislature to vote WITH the president. But being a Rep. legislature ... probably not. When I read this story I thought ... there goes another nail....
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
Ok .. .was just wondering as you could probably expect the legislature to vote WITH the president. But being a Rep. legislature ... probably not. When I read this story I thought ... there goes another nail....

There's no way anything Obama proposes in his budget will become law with the Republicans running the congress.

Problem for St. Louis is if the same dynamic exists in Missouri: The Republican legislature might not be inclined to give the Democratic governor what he wants when it comes to funding a new stadium with taxpayer money...
 

ReddingRam

Hall of Fame
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
2,459
There's no way anything Obama proposes in his budget will become law with the Republicans running the congress.

Problem for St. Louis is if the same dynamic exists in Missouri: The Republican legislature might not be inclined to give the Democratic governor what he wants when it comes to funding a new stadium with taxpayer money...
Wasn't really meaning how they would vote towards Obama's bill proposals ... but more how they would "side" on certain "agendas" within your own state. I hear ya. And I'm not trying to spark anything here. I can careless where the Rams end up... but I DO want them in a top notch stadium.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I think someone previously said 2/3 - that's what most states have too. Typically that is pretty hard to achieve but not so much on unanimously approved bills. I think it still has to go through another house though. Guess we'll see what their numbers are. But a little research shows that in September the Senate passed a vetoed bill with a 23-8 vote.

I think they vetoed two bills last year didn't they?
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
St. Louis suffers setback, potential progress for Raiders in stadium fights
Posted on March 19, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore
Three days before the NFL opens its annual owners meetings in Phoenix, there are a few Los Angeles related relocation updates coming from St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and Los Angeles.

And while nothing is expected to dramatically move forward relative to any L.A. relocation when owners and league officials gather in the Valley of the Sun Sunday through Wednesday, you can be sure Los Angeles will be a hot topic of discussion.

Here are the updates, and it’s a mixed bag to be sure:

OAKLAND
With the Raiders and Chargers teaming up to build a stadium together in Carson pending developments in their current cities, it looks like the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda are taking notice – and action.

In fact, a deal that looked dead just a few months ago to develop the land where the Raiders currently play in Oakland now looks very much alive.

Oakland’s City Council will vote on Friday on new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart pushing the Coliseum City project that includes new stadiums for the Raiders and Oakland Athletics.

Meanwhile, the County of Alameda will vote on the same agreement next Tuesday.

This represents a significant step forward, as the the city of Oakland and county of Alameda jointly own the land but for years have been at odds with each other. The fact they are potentially willing to work with one another could expedite the $1.5 billion, 200-acre stadium aspect of the project.

The sense I get talking to city and county leaders is they are ready to move fast on this.

If the city and county agree on the ENA, Kephart can finally approach the Raiders with assurances the city and county are on board with land use. That doesn’t mean the Raiders are assured of getting their desired 55,000-seat stadium, and at some point Kephart must address financing and reveal his investors, but by next Tuesday a huge obstacle might be cleared.

SAN DIEGO
While the task force assigned by Mayor Kevin Faulconer has settled on the Mission Valley site to examine a new stadium for the Chargers – and seems confident a plan can be put in place by May – there remains deep concern within the Chargers offices relative to the ancillary financing mechanisms likely in place and the lengthy process involved in getting a mixed-use development entitled.

That means Carson is very much in play as a long-range option. Perhaps as soon as January 1, when teams are allowed to file for relocation.

The Chargers simply have no time to wait on a prolonged process getting Mission Valley entitled – with or without the St. Louis Rams involvement in Inglewood.

There is still time – albeit running out – and it will be fascinating to see what the task force presents to the mayor in May.

The sense I get talking to insiders on both sides is San Diego is in quite the pickle getting something done in time to extend the Chargers stay beyond next year. There is hope on the city’s side, but the Chargers are skeptical.

ST. LOUIS
St. Louis’ hopes of keeping the Rams were dealt a significant setback Thursday when the Missouri Senate passed a measure forbidding Gov. Jay Nixon from extending bonds for a new NFL stadium without a vote. The measure now moves to the Missouri House.

Considering Gov. Nixon’s two-man task force recommended that as much as $350 million of the $1 billion needed for a new, open-air stadium come from the bond extension – and the seemingly slim chance Missouri leaders and voters will now support such a bond in a vote – the challenge will be coming up with new financing, should the measure be ratified by the House.

If not, Rams owner Stan Kroenke could essentially walk to Inglewood, where he is proposing a privately financed football stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
St. Louis suffers setback, potential progress for Raiders in stadium fights
Posted on March 19, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore
Three days before the NFL opens its annual owners meetings in Phoenix, there are a few Los Angeles related relocation updates coming from St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and Los Angeles.

And while nothing is expected to dramatically move forward relative to any L.A. relocation when owners and league officials gather in the Valley of the Sun Sunday through Wednesday, you can be sure Los Angeles will be a hot topic of discussion.

Here are the updates, and it’s a mixed bag to be sure:

OAKLAND
With the Raiders and Chargers teaming up to build a stadium together in Carson pending developments in their current cities, it looks like the City of Oakland and the County of Alameda are taking notice – and action.

In fact, a deal that looked dead just a few months ago to develop the land where the Raiders currently play in Oakland now looks very much alive.

Oakland’s City Council will vote on Friday on new exclusive negotiating agreement between the city, county and New City Development LLC, the group led by Floyd Kephart pushing the Coliseum City project that includes new stadiums for the Raiders and Oakland Athletics.

Meanwhile, the County of Alameda will vote on the same agreement next Tuesday.

This represents a significant step forward, as the the city of Oakland and county of Alameda jointly own the land but for years have been at odds with each other. The fact they are potentially willing to work with one another could expedite the $1.5 billion, 200-acre stadium aspect of the project.

The sense I get talking to city and county leaders is they are ready to move fast on this.

If the city and county agree on the ENA, Kephart can finally approach the Raiders with assurances the city and county are on board with land use. That doesn’t mean the Raiders are assured of getting their desired 55,000-seat stadium, and at some point Kephart must address financing and reveal his investors, but by next Tuesday a huge obstacle might be cleared.

SAN DIEGO
While the task force assigned by Mayor Kevin Faulconer has settled on the Mission Valley site to examine a new stadium for the Chargers – and seems confident a plan can be put in place by May – there remains deep concern within the Chargers offices relative to the ancillary financing mechanisms likely in place and the lengthy process involved in getting a mixed-use development entitled.

That means Carson is very much in play as a long-range option. Perhaps as soon as January 1, when teams are allowed to file for relocation.

The Chargers simply have no time to wait on a prolonged process getting Mission Valley entitled – with or without the St. Louis Rams involvement in Inglewood.

There is still time – albeit running out – and it will be fascinating to see what the task force presents to the mayor in May.

The sense I get talking to insiders on both sides is San Diego is in quite the pickle getting something done in time to extend the Chargers stay beyond next year. There is hope on the city’s side, but the Chargers are skeptical.

ST. LOUIS
St. Louis’ hopes of keeping the Rams were dealt a significant setback Thursday when the Missouri Senate passed a measure forbidding Gov. Jay Nixon from extending bonds for a new NFL stadium without a vote. The measure now moves to the Missouri House.

Considering Gov. Nixon’s two-man task force recommended that as much as $350 million of the $1 billion needed for a new, open-air stadium come from the bond extension – and the seemingly slim chance Missouri leaders and voters will now support such a bond in a vote – the challenge will be coming up with new financing, should the measure be ratified by the House.

If not, Rams owner Stan Kroenke could essentially walk to Inglewood, where he is proposing a privately financed football stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track.

Oakland suddenly coming to life is the biggest surprise to me.

The St Louis bill, I wouldn't call a setback until it passes the house with enough votes to override a veto. Even then it may not be a big setback, just means they need to get public votes, which I would expect them to do so.
 

BriansRams

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,565
Name
Brian

St. Louis suffers setback

St. Louis’ hopes of keeping the Rams were dealt a significant setback Thursday when the Missouri Senate passed a measure forbidding Gov. Jay Nixon from extending bonds for a new NFL stadium without a vote. The measure now moves to the Missouri House.

Considering Gov. Nixon’s two-man task force recommended that as much as $350 million of the $1 billion needed for a new, open-air stadium come from the bond extension – and the seemingly slim chance Missouri leaders and voters will now support such a bond in a vote – the challenge will be coming up with new financing, should the measure be ratified by the House.

If not, Rams owner Stan Kroenke could essentially walk to Inglewood, where he is proposing a privately financed football stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Park race track.

Dang! Wow!
That doesn't sound promising for staying in St Louis.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
All I know is LA is leverage to get an STL stadium built. Clearly there nobody is lining up to foot the bill just yet, but this will get done. There is plenty of time. A great football season will definately seal the deal.

Yes and no. It is leverage to negotiate the best possible deal for his team but it is also a exit strategy if a deal can't get done. If the task group and the city stumble in its quest they might not get a second chance.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
I think someone previously said 2/3 - that's what most states have too. Typically that is pretty hard to achieve but not so much on unanimously approved bills. I think it still has to go through another house though. Guess we'll see what their numbers are. But a little research shows that in September the Senate passed a vetoed bill with a 23-8 vote.

You're correct 2/3. I thought the special session to over turn the Governs veto on open gun control was interesting.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Dang! Wow!
That doesn't sound promising for staying in St Louis.

Calling it set back is wildly misleading. It's the same as reporting that union workers are going to shut down the Inglewood project. It is just another step in this process. We have a long long way to go.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
It would take the owners approving of it before the NFL could award Stan any kind of increased TV revenues for staying put. If they did that, I can almost guarantee you they would have to do the same for Spanos and Davis especially since it is actually looking like neither one of them is moving out of their respective markets either. I'm sure they would offer to have the cross ownership rule go away but what is that really worth?
I would expect that anyway since they're moving markets and sharing a stadium - things will probably be renegotiated... but given all the extra revenue they have gotten recently and set to incur in the near future, there's plenty of money to go around. Salary cap increase is a result of the new revenue increases
As far as Rooney goes - what do you expect him to say? His committee is completely powerless?

How about nothing at all, or something that would be simply just passed off as "GM Speak" - not the complete opposite of what one incompetent owner said.

Jerruh - as much as I can't stand the dude - is probably being more realistic. After all, he has successfully thumbed his nose at the finance committee - the most powerful committee in the NFL. He was sued by the NFL when he signed outside agreements with several companies and also started producing his own merchandise. Jerruh got the case dismissed and then turned right around and sued the NFL for antitrust violations. What happened? The NFL settled.

lol he doesn't also the most track record of success lately either - he still believes his salary cap dumping wasn't wrong (and unsurprisingly, the other owners not named snyder disagreed with him)
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Oakland suddenly coming to life is the biggest surprise to me.

The St Louis bill, I wouldn't call a setback until it passes the house with enough votes to override a veto. Even then it may not be a big setback, just means they need to get public votes, which I would expect them to do so.

The Oakland process is interesting. Especially when you look at the time line they laid out. Most counties and cities don't tend to play well together especially when money in involved.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Yes and no. It is leverage to negotiate the best possible deal for his team but it is also a exit strategy if a deal can't get done. If the task group and the city stumble in its quest they might not get a second chance.

It is true, but the ball is firmly in STL's court right now, but Stan's asking price is still high. I do believe Stan will come to the table once he truly believe he had bled STL all he can. The city and state aren't there yet so we have a ways to go. He does have to come to the table at some point to finalize the decision either way and to show good faith.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
It is true, but the ball is firmly in STL's court right now, but Stan's asking price is still high. I do believe Stan will come to the table once he truly believe he had bled STL all he can. The city and state aren't there yet so we have a ways to go. He does have to come to the table at some point to finalize the decision either way and to show good faith.

I agree. I think that happens when the finances are in order. My guess is between October and November. Some expect some semi-significant information to come out after the owners meetings this month. We will have to wait and see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.