New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Goose]

Los Angeles scenarios coming into focus at NFL Annual Meeting
By Albert Breer

New York Giants owner John Mara said on Sunday something that has been obvious to most in and around the NFL for the last few months.

Yes, the league is closer to returning to Los Angeles than it has been at any point over the past 20 years. Yes, that means there's a better chance than not that some team will be playing in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl or Dodger Stadium in 2016. And yes, that makes the NFL Annual Meeting in Phoenix this week a significant mile marker in the path back to the nation's second largest market.

We won't have a conclusion this week. But we already have a roadmap. And the dominoes have fallen quickly.

The league first looked at buying a 60-acre parcel adjacent to Hollywood Park in 2013. That promptedRams owner Stan Kroenke to move on and ultimately purchase the land. That led to Kroenke linking up with Stockbridge Capital Group, which owns the 238-acre lot next Kroenke's land, and developingthe Inglewood stadium plan. That, of course, pushed the Chargers and Raiders to partner on their ownjoint project in Carson. All the while, St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland were put in the position of having to play catch-up.

On Monday, executive vice president of NFL ventures and business operations Eric Grubman will make a presentation to the owners about where the L.A. projects stand. He'll field questions, and Kroenke, as well as the Raiders' Mark Davis and the Chargers' Dean Spanos, will be free to (but not forced to) jump in and provide answers. This will be the first forum en masse for the newly formed Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (made up of Mara, theKansas City Chiefs' Clark Hunt, the New England Patriots' Robert Kraft, the Houston Texans' Bob McNair, the Carolina Panthers' Jerry Richardson and the Pittsburgh Steelers' Art Rooney).

This much is clear: The race is now on.

The NFL's dilemma is that the most advanced and attractive project is being run by the Rams, who are the team least qualified to move by the letter of the league's relocation criteria. Indeed, Kroenke's $1.86 billion football palace, which would anchor the larger 298-acre development, is shovel-ready and provides what the league long believed impossible: an L.A. solution driven by a single team owner. The flip side is that the Chargers and Raiders are far more capable of demonstrating the failures of their existing markets.

And that brings us to the other layer of this: the status of St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego. According to a league source, the NFL plans to visit all three cities in April as part of market assessments being done on each city (the owners will get an update on those Monday, as well). As things are now, the league is measuring each on how aggressive and specific they've been in their efforts to retain a team.

St. Louis, as the NFL sees it, has been both aggressive and specific. San Diego has been specific but not aggressive. Oakland has been neither. But all three cities have been more active as the tenor of the NFL's effort to return to L.A. has changed.

There is one condition that hovers over all of this: in order to protect the Chargers, the league prefers, at least in the short term, to look at having two teams total -- rather than three -- in Southern California. That means there will either be two teams in Los Angeles -- one being the Chargers -- or one in L.A., with the Chargers staying put in San Diego.

With that in mind, one of the 10 to 12 scenarios being looked at by the league is particularly intriguing: The Rams go to L.A., the Raiders replace them in St. Louis and the Chargers remain in San Diego. The Rams would get a head start as the first team in L.A. (a reward for Kroenke's investment), the Raiderswould get a fresh start in a new stadium and the Chargers would be potentially be able to jump start their efforts to build in San Diego, with the city knowing the team could join the Rams in Inglewood.

At any rate, it's clear there's a spirited game of musical chairs playing out in real time now. And no team wants to be left standing up, knowing things could crystallize as soon as October or November.

That accelerated timetable -- along with the attendant competition -- is certainly a good thing as far as the league is concerned.

Here are five other things to watch for, in addition to the usual rules discussions, in Phoenix this week:

» Expanded playoffs. Mara said Sunday that expanded playoffs are likely to come about in the long term, and the topic is on the agenda for this week, but no vote is expected. The plan, for now, is to go forward with the usual 12-team field for 2015.

» Introduction of a new medical chief. Betsy Nabel, president of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, was named the NFL's first chief medical and health advisor in February, and she will make a presentation to the owners. Since her appointment, a number of young players have retired early, again bringing the topic of player health and safety to the forefront.

» International discussion. The NFL is ramping up efforts to test London's ability to be home to a team, with a divisional game (Jets-Dolphins in Week 4) added to the mix for 2015, along with games set for back-to-back weeks (Bills-Jaguars in Week 7 and Lions-Chiefs in Week 8), which will test Wembley's turf and logistics. The next steps could be to take the automatic bye away for teams visiting London and potentially adding a December game. NFL executive vice president of international Mark Waller told me in November he'd be "very disappointed if we're not playing more than three games there in 2016."

» Conduct Committee report. This is anothernewly formed committee that will have its first big forum at this set of meetings. And with the situations of Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson still unresolved, this nine-member group, which includes two women (Dallas' Charlotte Jones Anderson and Cleveland's Dee Haslam), will have a high profile.

» Team business. With the draft a month away, this gathering of so many power brokers under one roof can lead to news on the team level, and Peterson is the one to watch on that front. He still wants out of Minnesota, according to two sources close to the Vikings tailback, with the presence of Vikings COO Kevin Warren remaining the problem. Minnesota general manager Rick Spielman, coachMike Zimmer and Peterson's agent, Ben Dogra, will all be in Arizona, but Dogra already turned down a meeting with Spielman. As I understand it, the reasoning on the player's side was that the Vikings' decision not to release Peterson leaves the sides with little to discuss.

Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...arios-coming-into-focus-at-nfl-annual-meeting

 

[PowayRamFan]

Just got back from Tunica, MS-my wife lost $$ and i lost golf balls during my 30th anniversary..had to rush here to get the latest updates on all of this! You guys are the best! This coming week in Phoenix should be interesting, but probably wont clarify this mess much. After reading some earlier posts about how the television broadcasting of games in LA seems to be the most popular games that week, a question arises. And i dont ask this because i'm trying to downplay the Rams popularity in LA or anything-i dont have an agenda, believe me. Yes, i want the team to stay put, but i'll still follow them-too much emotional investment not to. There was a reference to a recent LA Times poll on the most popular NFL team in LA, with the Rams an overwhelming favorite. The question: In the last 10 years of historical mediocrity by our favorite team, how often have they been on TV there in LA?

They have only been on once for a non- prime time game here in San Diego in the last two years, can't imagine it's been much different up North. I long for the days when the game could be watched from the comfort of my living room, for free. The Rams were on every Sunday when I was a kid, hope that can happen again at some point.

 

[Goose]

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Los Angeles scenarios coming into focus at NFL Annual Meeting
By Albert Breer

New York Giants owner John Mara said on Sunday something that has been obvious to most in and around the NFL for the last few months.

Yes, the league is closer to returning to Los Angeles than it has been at any point over the past 20 years. Yes, that means there's a better chance than not that some team will be playing in the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl or Dodger Stadium in 2016. And yes, that makes the NFL Annual Meeting in Phoenix this week a significant mile marker in the path back to the nation's second largest market.

We won't have a conclusion this week. But we already have a roadmap. And the dominoes have fallen quickly.

The league first looked at buying a 60-acre parcel adjacent to Hollywood Park in 2013. That promptedRams owner Stan Kroenke to move on and ultimately purchase the land. That led to Kroenke linking up with Stockbridge Capital Group, which owns the 238-acre lot next Kroenke's land, and developingthe Inglewood stadium plan. That, of course, pushed the Chargers and Raiders to partner on their ownjoint project in Carson. All the while, St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland were put in the position of having to play catch-up.

On Monday, executive vice president of NFL ventures and business operations Eric Grubman will make a presentation to the owners about where the L.A. projects stand. He'll field questions, and Kroenke, as well as the Raiders' Mark Davis and the Chargers' Dean Spanos, will be free to (but not forced to) jump in and provide answers. This will be the first forum en masse for the newly formed Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (made up of Mara, theKansas City Chiefs' Clark Hunt, the New England Patriots' Robert Kraft, the Houston Texans' Bob McNair, the Carolina Panthers' Jerry Richardson and the Pittsburgh Steelers' Art Rooney).

This much is clear: The race is now on.

The NFL's dilemma is that the most advanced and attractive project is being run by the Rams, who are the team least qualified to move by the letter of the league's relocation criteria. Indeed, Kroenke's $1.86 billion football palace, which would anchor the larger 298-acre development, is shovel-ready and provides what the league long believed impossible: an L.A. solution driven by a single team owner. The flip side is that the Chargers and Raiders are far more capable of demonstrating the failures of their existing markets.

And that brings us to the other layer of this: the status of St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego. According to a league source, the NFL plans to visit all three cities in April as part of market assessments being done on each city (the owners will get an update on those Monday, as well). As things are now, the league is measuring each on how aggressive and specific they've been in their efforts to retain a team.

St. Louis, as the NFL sees it, has been both aggressive and specific. San Diego has been specific but not aggressive. Oakland has been neither. But all three cities have been more active as the tenor of the NFL's effort to return to L.A. has changed.

There is one condition that hovers over all of this: in order to protect the Chargers, the league prefers, at least in the short term, to look at having two teams total -- rather than three -- in Southern California. That means there will either be two teams in Los Angeles -- one being the Chargers -- or one in L.A., with the Chargers staying put in San Diego.

With that in mind, one of the 10 to 12 scenarios being looked at by the league is particularly intriguing: The Rams go to L.A., the Raiders replace them in St. Louis and the Chargers remain in San Diego. The Rams would get a head start as the first team in L.A. (a reward for Kroenke's investment), the Raiderswould get a fresh start in a new stadium and the Chargers would be potentially be able to jump start their efforts to build in San Diego, with the city knowing the team could join the Rams in Inglewood.

At any rate, it's clear there's a spirited game of musical chairs playing out in real time now. And no team wants to be left standing up, knowing things could crystallize as soon as October or November.

That accelerated timetable -- along with the attendant competition -- is certainly a good thing as far as the league is concerned.

Here are five other things to watch for, in addition to the usual rules discussions, in Phoenix this week:

» Expanded playoffs. Mara said Sunday that expanded playoffs are likely to come about in the long term, and the topic is on the agenda for this week, but no vote is expected. The plan, for now, is to go forward with the usual 12-team field for 2015.

» Introduction of a new medical chief. Betsy Nabel, president of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston, was named the NFL's first chief medical and health advisor in February, and she will make a presentation to the owners. Since her appointment, a number of young players have retired early, again bringing the topic of player health and safety to the forefront.

» International discussion. The NFL is ramping up efforts to test London's ability to be home to a team, with a divisional game (Jets-Dolphins in Week 4) added to the mix for 2015, along with games set for back-to-back weeks (Bills-Jaguars in Week 7 and Lions-Chiefs in Week 8), which will test Wembley's turf and logistics. The next steps could be to take the automatic bye away for teams visiting London and potentially adding a December game. NFL executive vice president of international Mark Waller told me in November he'd be "very disappointed if we're not playing more than three games there in 2016."

» Conduct Committee report. This is anothernewly formed committee that will have its first big forum at this set of meetings. And with the situations of Greg Hardy and Adrian Peterson still unresolved, this nine-member group, which includes two women (Dallas' Charlotte Jones Anderson and Cleveland's Dee Haslam), will have a high profile.

» Team business. With the draft a month away, this gathering of so many power brokers under one roof can lead to news on the team level, and Peterson is the one to watch on that front. He still wants out of Minnesota, according to two sources close to the Vikings tailback, with the presence of Vikings COO Kevin Warren remaining the problem. Minnesota general manager Rick Spielman, coachMike Zimmer and Peterson's agent, Ben Dogra, will all be in Arizona, but Dogra already turned down a meeting with Spielman. As I understand it, the reasoning on the player's side was that the Vikings' decision not to release Peterson leaves the sides with little to discuss.

Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...arios-coming-into-focus-at-nfl-annual-meeting

So what I understand is, the league favors the Ingelwood project the most but feels like SD and Oak should get a crack at LA first because they've been trying to get a stadium deal longer then the Rams in STL. That's fair I get that. If either SD and Oak get a stadium in their city then it's a green light for Stan to move? Or if STL can't get a stadium then the Rams will move. Or if Oak gets a stadium the Rams will move to LA. If the Rams move to LA, SD could stay in SD and either get a stadium in SD or threat moving to ingelwood with Stan. The Carson project seems like it'll never happen. It's either Ingelwood or nothing. I think the key to all this and the first domino to fall is going to be if the Raiders get a stadium. They don't want the raiders and Rams in la with the chargers trying to get a stadium in sd and even if they get a new stadium in SD they still don't want 2 teams in la Bc it will hurt the chargers. Bravo NFL! You keep winning.

 

[Dodgersrf]

Just got back from Tunica, MS-my wife lost $$ and i lost golf balls during my 30th anniversary..had to rush here to get the latest updates on all of this! You guys are the best! This coming week in Phoenix should be interesting, but probably wont clarify this mess much. After reading some earlier posts about how the television broadcasting of games in LA seems to be the most popular games that week, a question arises. And i dont ask this because i'm trying to downplay the Rams popularity in LA or anything-i dont have an agenda, believe me. Yes, i want the team to stay put, but i'll still follow them-too much emotional investment not to. There was a reference to a recent LA Times poll on the most popular NFL team in LA, with the Rams an overwhelming favorite. The question: In the last 10 years of historical mediocrity by our favorite team, how often have they been on TV there in LA?

The LA Times poll was a multiple choice question, with only the Raiders, Chargers and Rams as choices.
The favorite team in So Cal is tough to determine. I know more Cowboys Fans than any other team. Much like the culture, team favorites are highly diverse.

As far as the Rams being televised. They are rarely televised. The Cowboys, GB and the Pats get much of the air time.
The Chargers are considered a local market, but were often blacked out until blackouts were lifted entirely. They would even black them out on the NFL ticket, since the ticket excludes local market games.

 

[rdw]

IMO Kroenke building a two-team stadium in Inglewood is a brilliant move and gives the NFL a owners a huge win. If the Rams move to Inglewood then the NFL still continues to use LA as leverage for teams in need of a new stadium. It's a very real leverage when a stadium exists, ready to house a second team at the drop of a hat.

My guess for the short-term. The Rams move to Los Angeles for the 2016 season and the Inglewood site is used as leverage for the Raiders and Chargers to get new stadiums built in San Diego and Oakland.

 

[Hacksaw]

So what I understand is, the league favors the Inglewood project the most but feels like SD and Oak should get a crack at LA first because they've been trying to get a stadium deal longer then the Rams in STL. That's fair I get that.
Bravo NFL! You keep winning.

I get the fairness to SD's and Oak's ownership as well. This thinking doesn't imply much love for the fans in SD and Oakland though does it?. Doesn't bode well for any fans in any city involved in this either. LA included.
They take a poll but don't really care of it's results. Rather just make the team owners happy. ESK is an owner too.
I'm curious how the fact that the Rams would be RE-relocating does not factor into what is fair or not? Or fairness to the LA fans who have been used for decades following GF's grand play. Oh, wait, we're just lowly fans too.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

IMO Kroenke building a two-team stadium in Inglewood is a brilliant move and gives the NFL a owners a huge win. If the Rams move to Inglewood then the NFL still continues to use LA as leverage for teams in need of a new stadium. It's a very real leverage when a stadium exists, ready to house a second team at the drop of a hat.

My guess for the short-term. The Rams move to Los Angeles for the 2016 season and the Inglewood site is used as leverage for the Raiders and Chargers to get new stadiums built in San Diego and Oakland.

I was thinking this too. It makes so much sense. The perfect scenario for the NFL might be this. The Raiders stay in oak. Sd stays in sd. They both get new stadiums. The Rams move to la and the league will use LA leverage once agin because the ingelwood stadium is 2 team compliant. Brilliant NFL brilliant. I told you guys from the get go this all planned behind closed doors. They want us to think the Spanos has beef with Stan and it's a race. If there's 3 new stadiums and one is in LA. They league win.

I think the only thing that worries Spanos is that 2 teams move to LA and he's stuck with an old stadium. Then what is he supposed to do?

 

[rdw]

I was thinking this too. It makes so much sense. The perfect scenario for the NFL might be this. The Raiders stay in oak. Sd stays in sd. They both get new stadiums. The Rams move to la and the league will use LA leverage once agin because the ingelwood stadium is 2 team compliant. Brilliant NFL brilliant. I told you guys from the get go this all planned behind closed doors. They want us to think the Spanos has beef with Stan and it's a race. If there's 3 new stadiums and one is in LA. They league win.

If it plays out this way what happens in St. Louis? Maybe the St. Louis stadium plan lures the Jags?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

If it plays out this way what happens in St. Louis? Maybe the St. Louis stadium plan lures the Jags?

I think the Jags are tied to a lease until 2030. I'm not quite sure. They might be the team that moves to London in the future. They keep on playing their and they seem to enjoy it. They're bulding a strong fan base in London. As far as any other team that could potentially move is under a lease. After these 3 teams get a new stadium. I think the NFL is good on future stadium for a while. Look at each division each team. Every team has a a good stadium and or are under contract.

As far as STL, assuming they could get a stadium they might be left out. Which sucks for them. The league will just say we had to get a team in LA. Sorry STL. It's cruel but the NFL wants what's best for them. They will bypass bylaws for their gain. It's the NFL nothing has changed

 

[Goose]

I was thinking this too. It makes so much sense. The perfect scenario for the NFL might be this. The Raiders stay in oak. Sd stays in sd. They both get new stadiums. The Rams move to la and the league will use LA leverage once agin because the ingelwood stadium is 2 team compliant. Brilliant NFL brilliant. I told you guys from the get go this all planned behind closed doors. They want us to think the Spanos has beef with Stan and it's a race. If there's 3 new stadiums and one is in LA. They league win.

I think the only thing that worries Spanos is that 2 teams move to LA and he's stuck with an old stadium. Then what is he supposed to do?

Well it's perfect for you and LA Rams fans it isn't a perfect plan. I think the perfect plan is any that involves keeping the Rams in STL.

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: More pressure on STL effort to keep Rams
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_6ebf9111-1ad3-5cad-8011-52bb600657d6.html

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the specifics of Stan Kroenke's stadium plans for Inglewood. And really, the plans are spectacular. You can read about them by clicking Farmer's piece and/or the Associated Press story we posted on STLtoday.

My takeaways from the story:

• If the plan is executed as drawn up, it would be the most dynamic stadium the NFL. Actually, it would be the most dynamic venue in North American professional sports.

• The stadium is being designed to accommodate two NFL franchises. Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It would be short-sighted and stupid to build a place in LA that could only house one franchise.

• This only reaffirms something I've written a couple of times. I know that the Raiders and Chargers have gone in together for a stadium project in suburban Carson. But Kroenke surely can split one of the teams off, and recruit one to join him in Inglewood. It would benefit Kroenke to have the only NFL team in town -- but if it helps him get the Rams to LA by procuring a second franchise for his venue, then why wouldn't he do that?

• The Kroenke stadium plan will surely impress his fellow NFL owners. This one seemingly checks all of the boxes and has the glamorous, glitzy, over-the-top element that's right for Los Angeles. To return to the nation's second-largest market, the NFL wants more than a functional, solid, stadium. The one in Los Angeles has to be something special. By the designed appearance, this one qualifies.

• This is mere speculation on my part ... but I'd have to think the detailed unveiling of the Kroenke stadium could sway some owners' votes to his side, should it come down to that.

• I don't know what the spec stadium in suburban Carson will look like (in terms of specifics) but I find it hard to believe it will top Kroenke's palace.

• The Kroenke stadium in LA is more grandiose and impressive than the proposed stadium in St. Louis. But that's inevitable given that Inglewood is a (mostly) privately-funded project and the STL stadium requires a significant commitment of public dollars. I don't think any reasonably sane person ever believed, for a second, that the STL drawing would be equal to the LA drawing. And that really isn't the point. The proposed stadium in St. Louis is absolutely suitable for the market.

So what does this mean for St. Louis?

As wonderful as the Kroenke kingdom appears to be, the basic challenge remains the same.

If St. Louis can fund a stadium plan by the end of the year, then STL will put strong pressure on the NFL to keep the Rams here. Why? Well, again, we've gone over this many times, and I guess we'll have to go over it again ...

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executive VP Eric Grubman have repeatedly stated that the league's primary objective is to help existing markets come up with a stadium solution that will keep their franchise in place. And never in NFL history has a team moved from a market that has a new, funded stadium project ready to break ground.

And allowing the Rams to be stripped from St. Louis would be even more outrageous considering that (A) the league has encouraged St. Louis to build the stadium; and (B) the NFL dispatched Grubman to St. Louis to assist with the planning of the new stadium. How can you tell a city to fund and build a new stadium and send your second-most powerful exec to oversee the project and then take the franchise away after the city complies?

On the flip side: if the stadium plan here fails to become an actionable reality by the end of the calendar year, then the Rams are most likely gone. The reason I don't say "definitely" gone is because of the Carson plan, which would allow the league to solve the California problem with California teams instead of ripping another franchise from another region. But Kroenke's path to Los Angeles is much clearer without a new stadium in STL. Without a stadium, St. Louis makes it much easier for the owners to vote in Kroenke's favor if he applies for relocation. (Presuming he doesn't go rogue and move anyway.)

Related note: Sports Illustrated's Peter King asked Goodell about the LA situation. And King even asked about Kroenke's ongoing status of being in violation of the NFL rules that prohibit cross ownership.

Here's the pertinent passage, presented verbatim:

King: I mean, L.A. is going to happen … As you look at the landscape, what has changed to make it logical and likely that there will be football in Los Angeles?

Goodell: I’m not saying it’s likely. I think a couple of things are positive. One is our long-term labor agreement. I would say that when someone is making the kind of investment that you have to make in the Los Angeles market as well as a lot of other markets—you need the long-term stability so that we can invest back in the business. Ultimately that will pay you back. That’s why we’ve seen the salary cap increase by $20 million per team over the past two years. That investment is paying back. I think the long-term labor agreement has given us the ability to evaluate a long-term investment in Los Angeles to make it work successfully—because it’s a challenging market. It’s competitive. The stadium is a critical component of that. They’re not getting cheaper.

King: Doesn’t it make the most sense to have Oakland and San Diego combining in a stadium in L.A. and the Rams staying in St. Louis?

Goodell: Our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done—that they can get a stadium built to secure the long-term future of their franchise. San Diego has been working 14 years on a new stadium. Oakland is not in a new debate either, for the A’s or the Raiders. Same with St. Louis. … These are long debates about what is the right solution for the community and what is best for the team. We’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

King: Gut feeling—football in L.A. in 2016?

Goodell: I really don’t know, Peter. I’m not relying on my gut, I guess. I’m relying on if there is a real alternative where we can return to the market successfully for the long-term; that is the biggest priority in Los Angeles. And the other one is obviously making sure that we’re doing whatever necessary in the local markets to keep our teams successful and give them every opportunity to create a solution that works for the team long-term.

King: One other thing about L.A.—Stan Kroenke and the cross-ownership rules. Several times the league has told Kroenke to divest the ownership of his hockey and basketball teams. What can the league do to make him get rid of those teams?

Goodell: The finance committee has been working on this. They’ve given him periods of time to correct it and different ways in which to correct it. I think progress is being made on that. Stan hasn’t said, “I’m not going to be in compliance with the rules.” He wants to make sure that if we’re going to change our rules, he can get consideration for that. If we’re not going to change our rules, how can he do it in the appropriate way?

Goodell, as expected, is giving the NFL plenty of wiggle room on the LA front. But St. Louis-based Rams fans can take at least a little comfort from Goodell's claim that "our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done," ... and "we’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

That brings us back to the main point.

If St. Louis secures the necessary stadium funding, the city will remain in contention to keep the Rams or possibly attract another franchise.

If the St. Louis stadium plan collapses, then the "long-term solution" will most likely come elsewhere. Los Angeles.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

 

[bluecoconuts]

So it has been difficult to remain a Rams fan, unless you had the NFL ticket, because TV wasn't helping you much with broadcasts. Thumbs up to you guys, and Ram fans in non NFL markets! I live in Bears territory, and have Dish instead of Direct TV, so i have to resort to my computer to find a broadcast of the game. You know you're a fan when you will suffer through a halting streaming video from Germany, with the 2 announcers barking in german, and the only words you recognize are an occasional "Stephen Jackson", Lol! Thumbs up guys!!

Not really, I just used my computer when I could, others got Sunday Ticket. I became a Rams fan after they moved to St Louis though, so I'm a different situation.

As to this week's circus in Phoenix, any reason why Mr. Peacock wasn't invited? Seems like it would be an opportunity for all of the owners to be up to speed on events pertaining to St. Louis, as opposed to getting their information via Mr. Grubman. I understand that he's the point man on all of this, but with everyone in one place, the middle man can take a break-get the information on St. Louis' progress directly from the source. They will eventually need all info before making a relocation vote.

Why would he be? He's not an owner. They have Grubman to update them if they need. Kroenke can also update them, it's not like he's going to outright lie.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Well it's perfect for you and LA Rams fans it isn't a perfect plan. I think the perfect plan is any that involves keeping the Rams in STL.

I meant to say it's the perfect plan for the NFL.

 

[rhinobean]

If it plays out this way what happens in St. Louis? Maybe the St. Louis stadium plan lures the Jags?

Naw! Jaguars are committed for 10 plus years! Can't see any other team being in STL!

 

[Goose]

I meant to say it's the perfect plan for the NFL.

To me the perfect plan is returning the Raiders to LA with the Chargers possibly to join and the Rams in STL. The Raiders already have a fan base in LA and the logistics for Oakland fans to travel to LA are reasonable. You solve the California stadium issue, you don't completely alienate a single fan base, and you don't lose a market.

 

[bluecoconuts]

To me the perfect plan is returning the Raiders to LA with the Chargers possibly to join and the Rams in STL. The Raiders already have a fan base in LA and the logistics for Oakland fans to travel to LA are reasonable. You solve the California stadium issue, you don't completely alienate a single fan base, and you don't lose a market.

No it's not, you lose that Oakland market, and if the Chargers move you lose the San Diego market as well.

 

[dieterbrock]

Wow, this just got real interesting again. That stadium plan seems incredible.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

To me the perfect plan is returning the Raiders to LA with the Chargers possibly to join and the Rams in STL. The Raiders already have a fan base in LA and the logistics for Oakland fans to travel to LA are reasonable. You solve the California stadium issue, you don't completely alienate a single fan base, and you don't lose a market.

The perfect plan is you moving in with me here in LA. Splitting the rent. Bangin bitchess, playing madden and smoking weed all day and going and watching the Rams play in Inglewood. Tbh that's the perfect plan.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Bernie: More pressure on STL effort to keep Rams
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_6ebf9111-1ad3-5cad-8011-52bb600657d6.html

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the specifics of Stan Kroenke's stadium plans for Inglewood. And really, the plans are spectacular. You can read about them by clicking Farmer's piece and/or the Associated Press story we posted on STLtoday.

My takeaways from the story:

• If the plan is executed as drawn up, it would be the most dynamic stadium the NFL. Actually, it would be the most dynamic venue in North American professional sports.

• The stadium is being designed to accommodate two NFL franchises. Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. It would be short-sighted and stupid to build a place in LA that could only house one franchise.

• This only reaffirms something I've written a couple of times. I know that the Raiders and Chargers have gone in together for a stadium project in suburban Carson. But Kroenke surely can split one of the teams off, and recruit one to join him in Inglewood. It would benefit Kroenke to have the only NFL team in town -- but if it helps him get the Rams to LA by procuring a second franchise for his venue, then why wouldn't he do that?

• The Kroenke stadium plan will surely impress his fellow NFL owners. This one seemingly checks all of the boxes and has the glamorous, glitzy, over-the-top element that's right for Los Angeles. To return to the nation's second-largest market, the NFL wants more than a functional, solid, stadium. The one in Los Angeles has to be something special. By the designed appearance, this one qualifies.

• This is mere speculation on my part ... but I'd have to think the detailed unveiling of the Kroenke stadium could sway some owners' votes to his side, should it come down to that.

• I don't know what the spec stadium in suburban Carson will look like (in terms of specifics) but I find it hard to believe it will top Kroenke's palace.

• The Kroenke stadium in LA is more grandiose and impressive than the proposed stadium in St. Louis. But that's inevitable given that Inglewood is a (mostly) privately-funded project and the STL stadium requires a significant commitment of public dollars. I don't think any reasonably sane person ever believed, for a second, that the STL drawing would be equal to the LA drawing. And that really isn't the point. The proposed stadium in St. Louis is absolutely suitable for the market.

So what does this mean for St. Louis?

As wonderful as the Kroenke kingdom appears to be, the basic challenge remains the same.

If St. Louis can fund a stadium plan by the end of the year, then STL will put strong pressure on the NFL to keep the Rams here. Why? Well, again, we've gone over this many times, and I guess we'll have to go over it again ...

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executive VP Eric Grubman have repeatedly stated that the league's primary objective is to help existing markets come up with a stadium solution that will keep their franchise in place. And never in NFL history has a team moved from a market that has a new, funded stadium project ready to break ground.

And allowing the Rams to be stripped from St. Louis would be even more outrageous considering that (A) the league has encouraged St. Louis to build the stadium; and (B) the NFL dispatched Grubman to St. Louis to assist with the planning of the new stadium. How can you tell a city to fund and build a new stadium and send your second-most powerful exec to oversee the project and then take the franchise away after the city complies?

On the flip side: if the stadium plan here fails to become an actionable reality by the end of the calendar year, then the Rams are most likely gone. The reason I don't say "definitely" gone is because of the Carson plan, which would allow the league to solve the California problem with California teams instead of ripping another franchise from another region. But Kroenke's path to Los Angeles is much clearer without a new stadium in STL. Without a stadium, St. Louis makes it much easier for the owners to vote in Kroenke's favor if he applies for relocation. (Presuming he doesn't go rogue and move anyway.)

Related note: Sports Illustrated's Peter King asked Goodell about the LA situation. And King even asked about Kroenke's ongoing status of being in violation of the NFL rules that prohibit cross ownership.

Here's the pertinent passage, presented verbatim:

King: I mean, L.A. is going to happen … As you look at the landscape, what has changed to make it logical and likely that there will be football in Los Angeles?

Goodell: I’m not saying it’s likely. I think a couple of things are positive. One is our long-term labor agreement. I would say that when someone is making the kind of investment that you have to make in the Los Angeles market as well as a lot of other markets—you need the long-term stability so that we can invest back in the business. Ultimately that will pay you back. That’s why we’ve seen the salary cap increase by $20 million per team over the past two years. That investment is paying back. I think the long-term labor agreement has given us the ability to evaluate a long-term investment in Los Angeles to make it work successfully—because it’s a challenging market. It’s competitive. The stadium is a critical component of that. They’re not getting cheaper.

King: Doesn’t it make the most sense to have Oakland and San Diego combining in a stadium in L.A. and the Rams staying in St. Louis?

Goodell: Our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done—that they can get a stadium built to secure the long-term future of their franchise. San Diego has been working 14 years on a new stadium. Oakland is not in a new debate either, for the A’s or the Raiders. Same with St. Louis. … These are long debates about what is the right solution for the community and what is best for the team. We’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

King: Gut feeling—football in L.A. in 2016?

Goodell: I really don’t know, Peter. I’m not relying on my gut, I guess. I’m relying on if there is a real alternative where we can return to the market successfully for the long-term; that is the biggest priority in Los Angeles. And the other one is obviously making sure that we’re doing whatever necessary in the local markets to keep our teams successful and give them every opportunity to create a solution that works for the team long-term.

King: One other thing about L.A.—Stan Kroenke and the cross-ownership rules. Several times the league has told Kroenke to divest the ownership of his hockey and basketball teams. What can the league do to make him get rid of those teams?

Goodell: The finance committee has been working on this. They’ve given him periods of time to correct it and different ways in which to correct it. I think progress is being made on that. Stan hasn’t said, “I’m not going to be in compliance with the rules.” He wants to make sure that if we’re going to change our rules, he can get consideration for that. If we’re not going to change our rules, how can he do it in the appropriate way?

Goodell, as expected, is giving the NFL plenty of wiggle room on the LA front. But St. Louis-based Rams fans can take at least a little comfort from Goodell's claim that "our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done," ... and "we’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

That brings us back to the main point.

If St. Louis secures the necessary stadium funding, the city will remain in contention to keep the Rams or possibly attract another franchise.

If the St. Louis stadium plan collapses, then the "long-term solution" will most likely come elsewhere. Los Angeles.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

Bernie is finally making sense. I guess he gave up on the wacky scenario in which Stan buys both the Raiders and Broncos and moves them to LA or whatever else he was talking about. No ones selling or trading teams. It's not fantasy football.