Goose
GoosesGanders
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2015
- Messages
- 363
- Name
- Goose
Well that is one scenario I hadn't quite considered. Don't think my wife would think it is the perfect plan though.New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
Well that is one scenario I hadn't quite considered. Don't think my wife would think it is the perfect plan though.
Goose
GoosesGanders
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2015
- Messages
- 363
- Name
- Goose
They didn't lose the Oakland market before when they went to LA. You would still broadcast them as local. If you move the Raiders to the NFC West then they travel to the Bay once a year to play the Niners so fans that don't lose touch completely. I have real serious doubts that Oakland will get a stadium deal done.
rdw
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,349
The NFL wants L.A. to succeed when a team moves there. I say this not to anger St. Louis Rams fans but honestly, I think the Rams would have an easier time filling seats than the Raiders or Chargers.
What other teams have stadium issues looming on the horizon? The Bills?
To be a fly on the wall...
What other teams have stadium issues looming on the horizon? The Bills?
To be a fly on the wall...
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
I have doubt's they will too, but if the Rams were to move they have St Louis open to move to. A fresh start in their own market would be good for the Raiders.
LA and Oakland are 6 hours apart, and Oakland shares the market (TV wise) with San Francisco and San Jose. They wouldn't be showing LA games there. If the Raiders were to move then they would show games for a while, but then fade out and probably just lump them with San Francisco. Especially if they were to join the NFC. Moving to LA for any of the three teams leaves their current market.
Oakland is easily filled because they already share the market with the 49ers (again in terms of TV broadcasting), San Diego could show LA games more, St Louis would probably show more KC games, but both those cities likely go to the LA model of the popular game at the time. If the Rams are dead set on moving, it's probably in the leagues best interest to have the Raiders move to St Louis. But they will have to cross that bridge when it comes.
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,209
- Name
- Edmond
@MarkMaske: Kraft said he believes there will be two teams in Los Angeles for the 2016 season.
rdw
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,349
How many teams are on a year-to-year lease at the moment?
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,921
- Name
- Dennis
Amazing....Silent Stan not so silent understood that Stan could sell me six ways to Sunday and I love playing poker, but that's one dude that I would never know when to hold em or when to fold em!
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,209
- Name
- Edmond
He's an intresting owner no question about it. There's this perception out there that no one likes him but from what I read the owners like him. He's usually on the field before the game talking to the other owner and they're usually laughing it up.
The article that Albert Breer wrote 2 months ago saying there was a quite applause by league owners when Stan announced the la project. I just can't see the owners saying no the ingelwood stadium. If they no this time then who knows when la will get a team and if it'll be that grand of a stadium.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
rdw
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,349
So which two are most likely to pack up and move to Los Angeles? I suppose at this point it depends on who you're asking...
ZigZagRam
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,846
Last edited:
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Rams' L.A. power play allows NFL to maintain its top leveraging weapon
By Dan Wetzel 15 minutes ago Yahoo Sports
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rams--...tain-its-top-leveraging-weapon-191030426.html
The NFL franchise that has proven most valuable to the league and its owners over the past two decades is the one that hasn't existed in Los Angeles.
It was after the 1994 season when the Rams and Raiders moved to St. Louis and Oakland respectively, leaving the nation's second biggest media market without a team of its own. Since then franchises have leveraged that gaping hole in California to get their local governments to subsidize construction of new stadiums, renovation of existing ones or innumerable other concessions on taxes and services provided.
Nothing scared the tax money out of some poor Rust Belt mayor or image-obsessed Sun Belt city council than an NFL owner trotting out a few awe-inspiring renderings of a proposed stadium in some obscure L.A. suburb.
The Rams and the Raiders, in fact, are even back, talking about a return to their old stomping grounds. The San Diego Chargers are talking big also.
At the NFL owners' meetings this week in Phoenix, the Rams will, according to the Los Angeles Times, show designs on their proposed stadium to be built at the old Hollywood Park in Inglewood. This one is serious and not just because Rams owner Stan Kroenke has already purchased the land and is willing to privately-fund stadium construction. There are plenty of rubes that own pro sports franchises in America. Kroenke, the league's second richest owner, isn't one of them. It's believed construction could begin as soon as 2016. He's more than capable of getting it done.
That's why the Rams going to Inglewood has always been exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium, funding source still unknown, down Interstate 405 in Carson.
And now a couple of key details in Kroenke's stadium proposal make the entire move seem even more likely, so likely that the Rams have to be the heavy favorite to win the long-running L.A. relocation derby and actually relocate.
The two big ones: $1.86 billion stadium is designed to house a second NFL franchise … it's just a second franchise won't be put in there right away, according to the Times.
"The Inglewood plan is two-team compliant, which means it has two home locker rooms, identical sets of office space, and two owners' suites," Sam Farmer's article states.
The two-team concept is an old one, mind you, because why use the fear of L.A. relocation to scare one city when you can scare two? The NFL has long claimed that a market that never supported one team very well is capable of supporting two. Whatever.
The twist here is Kroenke is putting up the money for the stadium and not relying on direct public funds or skimming off future possible tax revenue. A deal like that – essentially the Chargers/Raiders proposal – requires government support and approval, which is a lot easier if there are two clubs as tenants that can double revenue, taxes and ancillary neighborhood income.
Since this is all Kroenke, he reportedly will want exclusivity in his own stadium, and thus the market, for some undetermined stretch.
That seems fair. It's his money. Why would any owner in any business want to share the region? Why not lock out the competition and control it all for yourself?
At the very least, Kroenke's team wants time to ride the attention and excitement, draw in the most football-starved fans who are likely to become the most loyal customers, lock up the best corporate sponsors, and be the hot spot in town for all the celebrities to see and be seen. You always want to be first and sports are no different. More than half a century later, the New York Jets and Mets still, in various ways, play second fiddle to the Giants and Yankees.
The entire idea of splitting the L.A. market is actually a cause of concern for an owner. Is this market really that eager for football? It hasn't been in the past. While the sport is more popular than ever, there are also far more entertainment options out there. And the beach hasn't moved.
No one doubts one team could certainly work. So here's one team … Kroenke's, not two, the Chargers and Raiders. If, at some point in the future, Kroenke believes his team can handle the competition, he welcomes a tenant that will pay hefty rent that helps offset losses competition would bring. In the meantime, all the other NFL owners, three-fourths of whom would need to approve the move, don't lose the valuable bargaining chip they've always carried in their back pocket – the threat of packing up for L.A.
In fact, with Kroenke doing all the dirty work of building an actual stadium in a region that for decades has shown little eagerness to do such a thing, the ability to pressure governments and fans back home is greater.
This isn't some pipe dream plan anymore. There would be a modern stadium in place with an extra home locker room, extra identical office space, and an extra owner's suite just waiting. There's no funding to secure. No building permits to attain. No governments or unions to court. No transitional seasons at the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.
The NFL gets to trade smaller St. Louis for the larger L.A. and keep its relocation threat for all the owners who never actually want to move but are more than happy to bluff that they do.
So by at last putting an actual team in Los Angeles, Kroenke not only manages to continue the league-wide value of a team that doesn't exist in Los Angeles, he may have figured out how to make the new non-existent team in Los Angeles even more valuable than the old non-existent team in Los Angeles.
Does that last sentence make sense to you?
It will to NFL owners.
By Dan Wetzel 15 minutes ago Yahoo Sports
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rams--...tain-its-top-leveraging-weapon-191030426.html
The NFL franchise that has proven most valuable to the league and its owners over the past two decades is the one that hasn't existed in Los Angeles.
It was after the 1994 season when the Rams and Raiders moved to St. Louis and Oakland respectively, leaving the nation's second biggest media market without a team of its own. Since then franchises have leveraged that gaping hole in California to get their local governments to subsidize construction of new stadiums, renovation of existing ones or innumerable other concessions on taxes and services provided.
Nothing scared the tax money out of some poor Rust Belt mayor or image-obsessed Sun Belt city council than an NFL owner trotting out a few awe-inspiring renderings of a proposed stadium in some obscure L.A. suburb.
The Rams and the Raiders, in fact, are even back, talking about a return to their old stomping grounds. The San Diego Chargers are talking big also.
At the NFL owners' meetings this week in Phoenix, the Rams will, according to the Los Angeles Times, show designs on their proposed stadium to be built at the old Hollywood Park in Inglewood. This one is serious and not just because Rams owner Stan Kroenke has already purchased the land and is willing to privately-fund stadium construction. There are plenty of rubes that own pro sports franchises in America. Kroenke, the league's second richest owner, isn't one of them. It's believed construction could begin as soon as 2016. He's more than capable of getting it done.
That's why the Rams going to Inglewood has always been exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium, funding source still unknown, down Interstate 405 in Carson.
And now a couple of key details in Kroenke's stadium proposal make the entire move seem even more likely, so likely that the Rams have to be the heavy favorite to win the long-running L.A. relocation derby and actually relocate.
The two big ones: $1.86 billion stadium is designed to house a second NFL franchise … it's just a second franchise won't be put in there right away, according to the Times.
"The Inglewood plan is two-team compliant, which means it has two home locker rooms, identical sets of office space, and two owners' suites," Sam Farmer's article states.
The two-team concept is an old one, mind you, because why use the fear of L.A. relocation to scare one city when you can scare two? The NFL has long claimed that a market that never supported one team very well is capable of supporting two. Whatever.
The twist here is Kroenke is putting up the money for the stadium and not relying on direct public funds or skimming off future possible tax revenue. A deal like that – essentially the Chargers/Raiders proposal – requires government support and approval, which is a lot easier if there are two clubs as tenants that can double revenue, taxes and ancillary neighborhood income.
Since this is all Kroenke, he reportedly will want exclusivity in his own stadium, and thus the market, for some undetermined stretch.
That seems fair. It's his money. Why would any owner in any business want to share the region? Why not lock out the competition and control it all for yourself?
At the very least, Kroenke's team wants time to ride the attention and excitement, draw in the most football-starved fans who are likely to become the most loyal customers, lock up the best corporate sponsors, and be the hot spot in town for all the celebrities to see and be seen. You always want to be first and sports are no different. More than half a century later, the New York Jets and Mets still, in various ways, play second fiddle to the Giants and Yankees.
The entire idea of splitting the L.A. market is actually a cause of concern for an owner. Is this market really that eager for football? It hasn't been in the past. While the sport is more popular than ever, there are also far more entertainment options out there. And the beach hasn't moved.
No one doubts one team could certainly work. So here's one team … Kroenke's, not two, the Chargers and Raiders. If, at some point in the future, Kroenke believes his team can handle the competition, he welcomes a tenant that will pay hefty rent that helps offset losses competition would bring. In the meantime, all the other NFL owners, three-fourths of whom would need to approve the move, don't lose the valuable bargaining chip they've always carried in their back pocket – the threat of packing up for L.A.
In fact, with Kroenke doing all the dirty work of building an actual stadium in a region that for decades has shown little eagerness to do such a thing, the ability to pressure governments and fans back home is greater.
This isn't some pipe dream plan anymore. There would be a modern stadium in place with an extra home locker room, extra identical office space, and an extra owner's suite just waiting. There's no funding to secure. No building permits to attain. No governments or unions to court. No transitional seasons at the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.
The NFL gets to trade smaller St. Louis for the larger L.A. and keep its relocation threat for all the owners who never actually want to move but are more than happy to bluff that they do.
So by at last putting an actual team in Los Angeles, Kroenke not only manages to continue the league-wide value of a team that doesn't exist in Los Angeles, he may have figured out how to make the new non-existent team in Los Angeles even more valuable than the old non-existent team in Los Angeles.
Does that last sentence make sense to you?
It will to NFL owners.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
One of the big topics surrounding the meetings is the future of the NFL in Los Angeles and the progress of two different stadiums that have been proposed in the southern California region. Thomas joined The Wendy’s Big Show to discuss what he’s hearing about LA and give his thoughts on a Los Angeles Times article reporting Rams owner is set to unveil new plans this week.
Listen to JT Talk Stadium News
Listen to JT Talk Stadium News
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Well the Raiders and Chargers likely have more of a need, they're less likely to get a deal done for new stadiums than St Louis is.
However Kroenke has far more ability than the two of them do combined, his project is bigger, better, would make more money, and doesn't cost the league a thing. If you're looking strictly at who's project is better, Kroenke by a mile. Plus with room for another team they can move another team there if needed and again, no need for loans, or optimistic PSLs or naming rights money, etc.
Then it circles back to St Louis being more aggressive about a new stadium, especially if they get financing in order.
So it's hard to say.
Personally I think the NFL is going to start looking at Raiders to St Louis, because of how much the Inglewood project knocks it out of the park. It won't be easy for them to turn down the hundreds upon hundreds of millions they could get from that project.
Hacksaw
ROCK HARD STUD
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2015
- Messages
- 451
"There are plenty of rubes that own pro sports franchises in America. Kroenke, the league's second richest owner, isn't one of them. It's believed construction could begin as soon as 2016. He's more than capable of getting it done.
That's why the Rams going to Inglewood has always been exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium, funding source still unknown, down Interstate 405 in Carson.
And now a couple of key details in Kroenke's stadium proposal make the entire move seem even more likely, so likely that the Rams have to be the heavy favorite to win the long-running L.A. relocation derby and actually relocate"
"This isn't some pipe dream plan anymore. There would be a modern stadium in place with an extra home locker room, extra identical office space, and an extra owner's suite just waiting. There's no funding to secure. No building permits to attain. No governments or unions to court. No transitional seasons at the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.
The NFL gets to trade smaller St. Louis for the larger L.A. and keep its relocation threat for all the owners who never actually want to move but are more than happy to bluff that they do.
So by at last putting an actual team in Los Angeles, Kroenke not only manages to continue the league-wide value of a team that doesn't exist in Los Angeles, he may have figured out how to make the new non-existent team in Los Angeles even more valuable than the old non-existent team in Los Angeles.
Does that last sentence make sense to you?
It will to NFL owners."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rams--...tain-its-top-leveraging-weapon-191030426.html
Interesting takes.
That's why the Rams going to Inglewood has always been exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium, funding source still unknown, down Interstate 405 in Carson.
And now a couple of key details in Kroenke's stadium proposal make the entire move seem even more likely, so likely that the Rams have to be the heavy favorite to win the long-running L.A. relocation derby and actually relocate"
"This isn't some pipe dream plan anymore. There would be a modern stadium in place with an extra home locker room, extra identical office space, and an extra owner's suite just waiting. There's no funding to secure. No building permits to attain. No governments or unions to court. No transitional seasons at the Rose Bowl or L.A. Coliseum.
The NFL gets to trade smaller St. Louis for the larger L.A. and keep its relocation threat for all the owners who never actually want to move but are more than happy to bluff that they do.
So by at last putting an actual team in Los Angeles, Kroenke not only manages to continue the league-wide value of a team that doesn't exist in Los Angeles, he may have figured out how to make the new non-existent team in Los Angeles even more valuable than the old non-existent team in Los Angeles.
Does that last sentence make sense to you?
It will to NFL owners."
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/rams--...tain-its-top-leveraging-weapon-191030426.html
Interesting takes.
rdw
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 1,349
Interesting. Viable? As in, nowhere near as beneficial to Kroenke and the NFL as the Inglewood plan but "good enough"?
So Kroenke doesn't get to pick the better deal?
Hacksaw
ROCK HARD STUD
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2015
- Messages
- 451
The first one has a nice ring to it huh Goose?
- Status