New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[BuiltRamTough]

Goodell: Long-term fit vital for L.A.
By Eric D. Williams and Nick Wagoner
ESPN.com

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/1...ocess?ex_cid=espnapi_public/print?id=12557439

PHOENIX -- NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told reporters at the conclusion of the league owners meetings here on Wednesday that speed is not driving the process in the inevitable return of professional football to Los Angeles, but finding the right fit that will work in the nation's second-largest market long-term.

Goodell said that owners discussed the possibility of moving up the time frame teams can apply for relocation -- currently set for Jan. 1 to Feb. 15 next year -- to sometime in 2015 in order to give teams relocating to Los Angeles a better chance at transitioning for the 2016 NFL season.

"We have some discussions within our committee of whether that time frame -- if there was a relocation -- whether that's the appropriate time frame to do so," Goodell said. "There's a lot to do when you relocate a franchise. And if a decision is made earlier, would that give the teams a better opportunity to properly transition to a new marketplace, which is the goal if there a relocation.

"So that's been discussed. I know we certainly have not come to any conclusion on that. We haven't ruled it out though."

Before the group convenes again at the May owners meetings in San Francisco, Goodell says he expects all three teams considering relocating to Los Angeles -- the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders -- to meet with the ownership's Los Angeles relocation committee in late April, reporting back to the full membership in May.

"There will be a lot of dialogue," Goodell said. "There's a tremendous amount of focus on the stadium alternatives, looking at those stadium alternatives, marketing studies in all of the markets -- including the current markets. So there's a great deal of work being done, and I would expect that will continue at a very disciplined pace."

Eric Grubman, the league's point man on relocation, addressed the assembled owners on what's happening in Los Angeles, St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego on Monday. As it stands, the league has two Los Angeles proposals on the table.

The Chargers and Raiders proposed in February building a $1.7 billion NFL stadium in Carson. Last week, a signature-gathering effort in Carson financed by the two teams resulted in 14,836 signatures gathered -- about twice as many needed to qualify the initiative for public vote or consideration by the city council.

Now, the signatures go to election officials for verification, where they have 30 business days to certify the signatures. That process likely will be completed sooner than that. Once the signatures are verified, the initiative will be presented to the city council. The council can either adopt the initiative or call an election to present the initiative to voters.

The Chargers and Raiders believe they can have a fully entitled site ready to build in Carson by the end of May.

Meanwhile in San Diego, a mayor-appointed citizens' stadium advisory group recently selected the Mission Valley site where Qualcomm Stadium sits as the location for a new stadium. The group now is working on a finance plan for a new stadium, with a projected price tag between $700 million and $1.5 billion.

The group is committed to have its recommendation to San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer by a May 20 deadline.

Goodell said he spoke to Faulconer a few weeks ago, and had a good conversation on his city's stadium effort.

"He's put a very aggressive time frame forward to try and get a solution," Goodell said. "I think that's a positive step. And I encourage him to continue down that path."

The Oakland city council voted unanimously to add Alameda County to the joint agreement the city signed with the New City Development. The development's goal is to finance two new stadiums at the proposed Coliseum City complex in Oakland. It would house new stadiums for both the Raiders and Major League Baseball's Oakland Athletics.

The proposal is in the early stages, but the agreement between the city and county is a solid step toward keeping the Raiders happy in Oakland.

The St. Louis stadium proposal is probably the furthest along of the three current markets, having been announced in January less than a week after Rams owner Stan Kroenke revealed his plans for the Inglewood project.

In the time since, the St. Louis stadium task force led by local businessmen Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz has steadily gone about checking off the appropriate boxes. That includes adding consultants to help with the project and striking agreements with railroad and utility companies to help clear the land when the time might come.

Goodell said Wednesday he's been pleased with the progress made so far in St. Louis.

"Dave Peacock has done a terrific job of formulating a plan," Goodell said. "They have a great site. They have a site that I think is important for St. Louis redevelopment. It makes a perfect stadium site, as the governor told me. And I think they're working towards making it become a reality. ... The efforts that have been going on there have been very positive."

While Goodell didn't commit to the expedited timeline for teams to file relocation, he did say it's been discussed which means that St. Louis also needs to get its financials in order sooner than later.

As it stands, that appears to be the most important hurdle left to clear. The Missouri Senate recently passed a measure intended to stop Governor Jay Nixon from extending or issuing bonds for a new stadium without the approval of the legislature or public. That bill still must pass through the full chamber for full consideration.

Beyond the public funding, the St. Louis proposal also requires Kroenke or any team owner to contribute up to $250 million on top of $200 million in the form of the NFL's G4 loan.

The NFL has these 3 cities by the balls and they keep squeezing them and applying pressure. By saying we might move the relocation timeframe to an earlier time. Bravo NFL.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

This just in. Kroenke has purchased Walt Disney World and is threatening to move it to Inglewood.

Worried about losing a significant part of their tourist fan base, Universal Studios Hollywood and Knott's Berry Farm have entered into a joint venture to build a super theme park in Carson.

Lol

 

[RamBill]

Now more than ever, NFL needs Los Angeles
Posted on March 25, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/03/25/now-more-than-ever-nfl-needs-los-angeles/

PHOENIX – On the same day more than 15,000 signed petitions were delivered to Carson’s city hall in support of a stadium for the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders and fancy renditions of an extravagant stadium in Inglewood for the St. Louis Rams were released, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell stood at a podium in Phoenix and said his league is not focused on Los Angeles for the 2016 season.

Well isn’t that just the darnedest thing you’ve ever heard.

Less then 400 miles from where Goodell stood, two Los Angeles stadium proposals were chugging along to full entitlement and being shovel ready.

Meanwhile, Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis stood considerably behind in the process, their stadium plans still all talk at the moment. They will remain so until financing is in place, and with all three markets facing unique challenges relative to paying for new venues, uncertainty and anxiety remain.

That represents an ironic twist in the 20-year-long battle to bring football back to Los Angeles.

For two decades L.A. struggled to figure out the complex problem of where to put a stadium, how to pay for it and who would play in it.

And for years the NFL beautifully played our dysfunction to it’s benefit, manipulating the threat of an open L.A. market to get new palaces built in Minnesota and Seattle among others.

Lo and behold, Los Angeles has finally connected all the necessary dots.
And while St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego scramble to come up with plans that make financial sense for their teams, it’s more apparent than ever the interesting role reversal that’s taken place.

Who needs who now, NFL?

So a word of warning to the commissioner. If you really aren’t focused on L.A. for 2016, you might want to start.

We’re about to save the day.

The threat of us will probably get another stadium built, maybe in St. Louis where strong state leadership and a more willing appetite to spend taxpayer money might keep pro football along the Mississippi River.

But it seems hopeless that all three cities will get deals done. The odds are stacked too high, the financing too complex and the public will too weak to hit the trifecta.
Someone – perhaps some two – will have to seek refuge in Los Angeles.

The power shift isn’t lost on Goodell, no matter how much water he threw on the thought of pro football back in Los Angeles by 2016.

It will be. And he knows it.

His focus now, and he admitted it, is the importance of getting it right in L.A.
“If we go back to the Los Angeles market, we want to succeed for the long-term,” Goodell said.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

See, it’s no longer a question of if the NFL returns. And it’s growing increasingly clear it’s not a question of when, either.

It’s about the right teams and the right owners creating the best chance of not only returning to L.A., but seizing it, dominating it, owning it and flourishing in it.

That is the challenge Goodell and the owners he works for are now tasked with, and it’s not as easy as saying the Rams stay in St. Louis if Missouri steps up with a stadium plan and the Chargers and Raiders moving to Carson if San Diego and Oakland don’t.

The Rams, with all their history in Los Angeles, a proud fan base still intact, multi-billionaire owner Stan Kroenke and a brilliantly conceived stadium located in an easily accessible city makes too much sense to ignore.

Even with an existing stadium plan on the table in St. Louis and if San Diego and Oakland can’t come up with plans for new homes for the Chargers and Rams.
That would be an easy fix.

Demand a partnership between Kroenke and Chargers owner Dean Spanos in which they share the stadium in Inglewood.

Kroenke wants to be in L.A., no matter what it seems. Grant him his wish, but do it on your terms.

Move the Raiders to St. Louis, where a publicly financed stadium awaits the Silver and Black.

That might not make everyone completely happy. But it sure beats playing in revenue challenged old stadiums or in the case of St. Louis, not having pro football at all.
It’s a workable deal. More importantly, it sets Los Angles up beautifully for long-term success.

The NFL has manipulated L.A. to it’s benefit for years. Now it’s time Goodell and the owners manipulate the situation to appease us.

It’s the least they can do, seeing how badly then need us now.

 

[bluecoconuts]

This just in. Kroenke has purchased Walt Disney World and is threatening to move it to Inglewood.

Worried about losing a significant part of their tourist fan base, Universal Studios Hollywood and Knott's Berry Farm have entered into a joint venture to build a super theme park in Carson.

Everyone knows that Knott's Berry Farm sucks. Universal Studios is good though, just wish it was bigger. Halloween Horror Nights though..

 

[Hacksaw]

The NFL has these 3 cities by the balls and they keep squeezing them and applying pressure. By saying we might move the relocation timeframe to an earlier time. Bravo NFL.

Survival of the fittest. ?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Even with an existing stadium plan on the table in St. Louis and if San Diego and Oakland can’t come up with plans for new homes for the Chargers and Rams.
That would be an easy fix.

Demand a partnership between Kroenke and Chargers owner Dean Spanos in which they share the stadium in Inglewood.

Kroenke wants to be in L.A., no matter what it seems. Grant him his wish, but do it on your terms.

Move the Raiders to St. Louis, where a publicly financed stadium awaits the Silver and Black.

That might not make everyone completely happy. But it sure beats playing in revenue challenged old stadiums or in the case of St. Louis, not having pro football at all.
It’s a workable deal. More importantly, it sets Los Angles up beautifully for long-term success.

I get the feeling this is what the NFL will ultimately want. It the cheapest option (200 million vs up to 600 million in loans) for them, makes them the most money, avoids a potential court battle with Kroenke, and the Inglewood proposal also makes it possible to hold other events there (NFL draft for example), and you know they're probably drooling over the idea of charging someone tens of millions of dollars to plaster their logo on the roof of that thing during the Super Bowl. The problem is will Spanos be willing to share LA with Kroenke? Is he willing to be the tenant and not co-owner (cant imagine he'd be happy about that)? Is he willing to abandon Carson? Will Kroenke be willing to let the Chargers go to LA at the same time (he can't set up shop first and get more fans that way)? Will Kroenke charge an arm and a leg for rent? Will the Raiders be willing to relocate? Will St Louis be willing to work hard for the Raiders? Will it end up that Kroenke really was using leverage? How much backlash would there be from Oakland? San Diego? Carson? St Louis? Would Kroenke be willing to trade the Rams for the Raiders (I very much doubt that)?

In terms of dollars it makes more for the NFL, if it all works out. So many different things though. The market that is most "losable" is Oakland, but Inglewood is a slam dunk, and makes too much financial sense to the NFL. Losing St Louis would be foolish though.

 

[Big Willie]

I

I keep cycling back and forth between, Hopeful, Pissed off, and "Fine, Whatever, I don't care anymore"

If STL gets our ducks in a row and can build a stadium, I am done with NFL if they try and stick us with any team but the Rams and its current personnel. I don't want any other team. I will not buy tickets, watch games, or buy any apparel. I am but one voice....but hear me roar.

 

[ozarkram]

They can keep the Raiders. Wonder if KC would like their arch rival in the back yard?

 

[LesBaker]

I think the selling point is the tranquility area. I'm also a fan of the lemonade stand and the bass pond. I'm behind this plan 100%.

SK is going to make a killing on the lemonade concession IMO.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They can keep the Raiders. Wonder if KC would like their arch rival in the back yard?

It would certainly increase the rivalry.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

http://m.utsandiego.com/subscriptions/select/


It’s been eight weeks since San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer named the task force charged with devising a plan for a new NFL stadium for the Chargers. It’s been two weeks since the task force announced Mission Valley as the best site for a new stadium and moved on to the thorny issue of how to pay for it. Never before in the 15 years since Chargers ownership first began talking about the need for a new home has so much happened so quickly to get it done. Yet the Chargers are anything but onboard. Chargers president Dean Spanos still publicly insists he wants to keep the team here, but every move the team makes behind the scenes says otherwise.

Mark Fabiani, the team’s special counsel for stadium issues, complained about the creation of the task force in the first place, calling it a waste of time and accusing the mayor of breaking faith. He complained about the task force recommendation that the stadium be built in Mission Valley, saying it would be too complicated to build it there, that the financing can’t work and that the ground beneath the existing Qualcomm Stadium is polluted with a gasoline plume. None of those claims is true, but he has continued to undermine the task force effort by pushing for a downtown stadium that would be more costly, would require two-thirds voter approval of a tax increase, would take much longer to develop and which includes a bus company yard that would definitely require significant environmental cleanup. And meanwhile, of course, the team has continued to push forward with a fly-by-night joint proposal with the Oakland Raiders to win approval for a new stadium in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson.

What’s going on here?

Perhaps our own desire to see the team remain in San Diego, along with our desire to believe Spanos when he said he wants to stay, blinded us to reality. But it’s becoming more plain by the day.

Spanos wants to keep the team in San Diego only if there is not another team in the Los Angeles area, which Fabiani says accounts for 25 percent of Chargers ticket sales. And Stan Kroenke, owner of the St. Louis Rams, beat the Chargers to the punch in L.A. by announcing plans for a self-financed stadium in Inglewood. If there is going to be a team in L.A., Spanos wants it to be the Chargers or he at least wants the Chargers to be one of two teams in L.A.

But to move to Carson or anywhere else, Spanos needs the approval of the NFL and of 24 of the 32 NFL team owners. To get that, he needs to make a compelling case that the team just couldn’t get a workable deal in San Diego.

Thus, the undermining of the mayor’s task force and its recommendation for Mission Valley.

As we have written on this page several times, a new stadium in San Diego is not possible without the enthusiastic cooperation and participation of Spanos and his organization. It’s not happening.

If this team ends up in Los Angeles, it won’t be because ownership exhausted all opportunities to reach a deal in San Diego. It will be because, when it came to crunch time, they didn’t try.




If Spanos wants the LA market so bad why didn't he make a move in the last 14 years? I don't understand.

 

[Legatron4]

Now more than ever, NFL needs Los Angeles
Posted on March 25, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/03/25/now-more-than-ever-nfl-needs-los-angeles/

PHOENIX – On the same day more than 15,000 signed petitions were delivered to Carson’s city hall in support of a stadium for the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders and fancy renditions of an extravagant stadium in Inglewood for the St. Louis Rams were released, NFL commissioner Roger Goodell stood at a podium in Phoenix and said his league is not focused on Los Angeles for the 2016 season.

Well isn’t that just the darnedest thing you’ve ever heard.

Less then 400 miles from where Goodell stood, two Los Angeles stadium proposals were chugging along to full entitlement and being shovel ready.

Meanwhile, Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis stood considerably behind in the process, their stadium plans still all talk at the moment. They will remain so until financing is in place, and with all three markets facing unique challenges relative to paying for new venues, uncertainty and anxiety remain.

That represents an ironic twist in the 20-year-long battle to bring football back to Los Angeles.

For two decades L.A. struggled to figure out the complex problem of where to put a stadium, how to pay for it and who would play in it.

And for years the NFL beautifully played our dysfunction to it’s benefit, manipulating the threat of an open L.A. market to get new palaces built in Minnesota and Seattle among others.

Lo and behold, Los Angeles has finally connected all the necessary dots.
And while St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego scramble to come up with plans that make financial sense for their teams, it’s more apparent than ever the interesting role reversal that’s taken place.

Who needs who now, NFL?

So a word of warning to the commissioner. If you really aren’t focused on L.A. for 2016, you might want to start.

We’re about to save the day.

The threat of us will probably get another stadium built, maybe in St. Louis where strong state leadership and a more willing appetite to spend taxpayer money might keep pro football along the Mississippi River.

But it seems hopeless that all three cities will get deals done. The odds are stacked too high, the financing too complex and the public will too weak to hit the trifecta.
Someone – perhaps some two – will have to seek refuge in Los Angeles.

The power shift isn’t lost on Goodell, no matter how much water he threw on the thought of pro football back in Los Angeles by 2016.

It will be. And he knows it.

His focus now, and he admitted it, is the importance of getting it right in L.A.
“If we go back to the Los Angeles market, we want to succeed for the long-term,” Goodell said.

Ah, now we’re getting somewhere.

See, it’s no longer a question of if the NFL returns. And it’s growing increasingly clear it’s not a question of when, either.

It’s about the right teams and the right owners creating the best chance of not only returning to L.A., but seizing it, dominating it, owning it and flourishing in it.

That is the challenge Goodell and the owners he works for are now tasked with, and it’s not as easy as saying the Rams stay in St. Louis if Missouri steps up with a stadium plan and the Chargers and Raiders moving to Carson if San Diego and Oakland don’t.

The Rams, with all their history in Los Angeles, a proud fan base still intact, multi-billionaire owner Stan Kroenke and a brilliantly conceived stadium located in an easily accessible city makes too much sense to ignore.

Even with an existing stadium plan on the table in St. Louis and if San Diego and Oakland can’t come up with plans for new homes for the Chargers and Rams.
That would be an easy fix.

Demand a partnership between Kroenke and Chargers owner Dean Spanos in which they share the stadium in Inglewood.

Kroenke wants to be in L.A., no matter what it seems. Grant him his wish, but do it on your terms.

Move the Raiders to St. Louis, where a publicly financed stadium awaits the Silver and Black.

That might not make everyone completely happy. But it sure beats playing in revenue challenged old stadiums or in the case of St. Louis, not having pro football at all.
It’s a workable deal. More importantly, it sets Los Angles up beautifully for long-term success.

The NFL has manipulated L.A. to it’s benefit for years. Now it’s time Goodell and the owners manipulate the situation to appease us.

It’s the least they can do, seeing how badly then need us now.

What a douchy fuckin article. The NFL does not NEED LA. It's been completely fine without it for 20 years. Better off IMO. We don't want the fucking Raiders. How in the world do you think it's acceptable to not make each franchise happy? The ones you already have are the most important. Keep them happy, god dammit.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If Spanos wants the LA market so bad why didn't he make a move in the last 14 years? I don't understand.

Combination of cost, and desire most likely. I don't think its so much about him wanting to be in LA as much as him not wanting anyone else in LA. Kroenke said "fuck that" and Spanos has been in panic mode. Likely the only thing that will have him join Kroenke if he can't stop him.

The NFL does not NEED LA. It's been completely fine without it for 20 years.

If their goal is to make 25 billion dollars by 2027 then yes they do need LA. About 3 years ago he set the goal for 25 billion, and they've moved up only about 1.5 billion. (They needed to be closer to 3 billion). So if they want to reach that target, then LA needs to be done, and probably 2 teams. That's why Inglewood will probably be much more attractive than Carson, without major changes.

 

[Legatron4]

Combination of cost, and desire most likely. I don't think its so much about him wanting to be in LA as much as him not wanting anyone else in LA. Kroenke said "freak that" and Spanos has been in panic mode. Likely the only thing that will have him join Kroenke if he can't stop him.



If their goal is to make 25 billion dollars by 2027 then yes they do need LA. About 3 years ago he set the goal for 25 billion, and they've moved up only about 1.5 billion. (They needed to be closer to 3 billion). So if they want to reach that target, then LA needs to be done, and probably 2.

Just straight greed. They should give back to the fans.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Just straight greed. They should give back to the fans.

And you're shocked? It's the NFL, they've always just cared about making money. But that's why abandoning St Louis isn't something they'll probably want to do. However that then leads to Raiders going to St Louis if they can swing it, unless Kroenke either A-doesn't actually want to move, B-is willing to trade franchises, C- they're willing to let Kroenke be an owner of Inglewood with the Raiders and Chargers playing there, or C - Carson becomes more than just a stadium, and it gives the NFL something comparable. However I don't think the above are very likely, especially the last three.

 

[RamBill]

Rams owner Stan Kroenke is force that won't be stopped

By Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Sports 10:09 p.m. EDT March 25, 2015

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ce-that-wont-be-stopped-with-la-bid/70463628/

PHOENIX – They are the dirty words of the L.A. movement.

Going rogue.

When the term was mentioned to a handful of NFL owners this week, it prompted a groan here and a grumble there. Missing was the 10-foot pole, but it didn't matter.

None of the owners dared to publicly address the notion that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke might be so bent on executing his plan to build a stadium in Los Angeles – presumably, where he'd move his team – that he would do it without flowing with the NFL's procedures.

But you know that prospect has to loom as an elephant in the room.

Would Kroenke step outside the NFL's process and just go, anyway?

It's Los Angeles, after all, where the NFL's history includes the late Al Davis – who sued his fellow owners during the 1980s and moved his Oakland Raiders to Tinsel Town.

At the moment, with Kroenke working with his NFL business partners, it hardly seems like that history will repeat. But never say never. With three teams, including the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, vying for two slots in Los Angeles, going rogue is like some sort of nuclear option.

Then again, there's no need for a war, which is what I hear every time NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell reiterates – as he did again Wednesday as the NFL annual meetings concluded – that the league wants to be sure to do things the "right way" to ensure success with the long-overdue return to Los Angeles.

With NFL voices becoming more definitive in expressing that there will be at least one team in Los Angeles in 2016, Kroenke appears to be the force that won't be stopped on an express track.

One NFL owner, with knowledge of details, told USA TODAY Sports that with the Chargers-Raiders plan for a stadium also in the mix, he expects a vote on the Los Angeles matter by December or January, consistent with a timetable that would have at least one team in the market by 2016.

Kroenke's plan for a $2 billion stadium in Inglewood doesn't hinge on a huge percentage of public money, which in California is what had to happen for an NFL return to L.A. It seems even more attractive given the revelation by the Los Angeles Times this week that Kroenke's stadium designs would accommodate two home teams.

Still, when considering the 24 votes needed for NFL approval, two other teams, another stadium plan and NFL relocation guidelines that stipulate franchises make an effort to stay in existing markets before moving, there's just that much uncertainty.

When the Missouri governor's office releases a statement maintaining that it needs a significant financial investment from the NFL for its plan to work for a new stadium that could keep the Rams in St. Louis, amid palatable frustration from people there over the lack of communication with Kroenke, that option seems like a long shot.

Meanwhile, Kroenke, who would not comment on the matter, was more visible this week than he has ever been at an NFL meeting. Behind the scenes, he has been busy, too, lobbying owners.

"I think that's smart," New York Giants co-owner Steve Tisch told USA TODAY Sports. "He's got to market this deal."

That's no doubt the best course of action.

Two other NFL owners, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, told USA TODAY Sports they think Kroenke will be inclined to follow the NFL's process because of the potential yet-to-be-determined relocation fee that by league bylaws can be attached to a move. The relocation fee, one owner said, represents one of the lessons from the battles with Davis, as it was added to the bylaws in ensuing years.

Furthermore, future Super Bowls are in the mix. Like a dangling carrot. A nasty fight over Los Angeles undoubtedly would become a drain on synergy needed to maximize the city's huge potential for the league.

Do it right. As one owner told me, there are too many dollars at stake not to have a partnership built on good spirit.

Besides, even though the Rams and Raiders didn't gain NFL approval until after they bolted from Los Angeles in 1995, conditions have changed tremendously since then.

Just listen to the maverick's son, current Raiders owner Mark Davis.

"I just know my mind-set is to work within the league process and try to do what's best for everybody," Davis told USA TODAY Sports. "There are three teams that need to get their stadiums figured out, and we'll see if we can get that done. I'm happy whichever way that works. I'd be more than happy to have something done in Oakland. I don't see it as a fight for Los Angeles. I see it as a fight for a home."

The NFL surely hopes it won't be a fight at any cost.

 

[rams2050]

I am so sick of this whole thing, and I am simply sickened that the powers-that-be at the time St. Louis first got the Rams were freaking dumb enough to put that 'first tier stadium' language in the contract.

If we don't keep the Rams then I don't know what I'll do, but right now I'm leaning toward not watching ANY NFL team. (And yet that little voice inside my head that has kept me a Rams' fan for 50 years keeps telling me that I have lived a Rams' fan and that I will die being a Rams' fan. Still, there are times when that is seeming less and less likely, sad to say).

 

[RamBill]

NFL commissioner moves up St. Louis stadium timeline
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_14bdd435-e871-5e51-9c77-73a8c6672ef6.html

PHOENIX • NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell likes what he’s seeing on the St. Louis stadium front.

“They’ve done a really good job of formulating a plan,” Goodell said Wednesday as the NFL wrapped up its annual owners meetings. “They have a great site. They have a site that I think is important for St. Louis to redevelop.”

He was referring, of course, to the riverfront site on the north edge of downtown selected by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz, the two-man task force appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon.

“I think it’s a perfect stadium site, as the governor told me,” Goodell continued. “And I think they’re working towards making it a reality. And that’s a positive. The efforts that are going on there are very positive.”

But that progress may have to come at an accelerated pace because the league is considering a move-up in its relocation timetable, with an eye on having at least one team in Los Angeles by 2016.

Goodell’s comments should be viewed as more than lip service, because in conversations by the Post-Dispatch with several club owners this week the consistent message has been that the league will have a hard time turning its back on St. Louis if it succeeds in finalizing a workable stadium plan.

The question remains, will progress on the St. Louis stadium project come quickly enough to prevent Rams owner Stan Kroenke from bolting to Los Angeles?

Along those lines, Goodell said Wednesday that the league has had discussions on the committee level about moving up the timetable for relocation after the 2015 season.

“We’ve had some discussions within our (Los Angeles opportunity) committee,” Goodell said. “If there was a relocation, whether that’s the appropriate time frame to do so. There’s a lot to do when you relocate a franchise.”

Currently, the next window for the Rams — and for that matter, the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers — to file for relocation is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15 of 2016. The league is considering moving up that window to the fall of 2015.

Proceeding earlier, Goodell said, would give relocating teams a better opportunity to properly transition to a new marketplace.

“Which is the goal if there is a relocation,” he said. “So that’s been discussed. We certainly have not come to any conclusion on that.”

Such a decision would make it more difficult for the three cities trying to keep their teams — St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego — to have their stadium plans finalized.

Kroenke plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in the Inglewood area of Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the Chargers and Raiders have formed an alliance to build a stadium in the Carson area of LA. At this point Kroenke’s plan is much further along than the Chargers-Raiders project, as well as the Peacock and Blitz plan in St. Louis.

It’s possible that the three teams potentially seeking to relocate to Los Angeles could make presentations at the next round of league meetings, May 18-20 in San Francisco.

“I do expect that we’ll be hearing from all three teams, not only to the league staff but also to the (Los Angeles) committee sometime in late April,” Goodell said. “We will likely report back to the membership again in May when we meet.

“There’ll be a lot of dialogue. There’s a tremendous amount of focus on stadium alternatives, looking at those stadium alternatives, marketing studies in all of the markets, including the current markets. So there’s a great deal of work being done and I will expect that will continue at a very disciplined pace.”

Eric Grubman, the NFL point man on Los Angeles, relocation and stadium issues, told the Post-Dispatch earlier in the week that St. Louis will have a chance to make a presentation on its stadium plan at some point in the spring.

Coming out of these owners meetings in Arizona, there almost seems to be an air of inevitability about the NFL’s having at least one franchise in Los Angeles by 2016. But Goodell was cautious on that subject Wednesday.

“We’re focused on doing this right,” he said. “If we go back to the Los Angeles market, we want to succeed for the long term. We have a lot to do to get to that place. But we’re not focused on ’16.

“Right now our focus is on the process, making sure that we’re evaluating the opportunities in the existing markets. And also making sure that we understand what it takes to be successful in the Los Angeles market.”

These meetings came and went without Kroenke addressing reporters; all interview requests were rejected by the team, making it more than three years since Kroenke has spoken to St. Louis-based media.

Goodell was asked about that lack of engagement by Kroenke with his current market, and the impact that has on a fan base that could lose its team. He basically sidestepped the question.

Goodell’s response in part pointed out the league’s level of engagement with St. Louis.

“We’re doing whatever we can do as a league — and I think it’s a great deal, by the way,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of experience in putting together a stadium plan that can be responsive not only to St. Louis but also to work for a franchise long-term.”

As for Kroenke’s direction participation in that process?

“Every management structure’s going to deal with those issues differently,” Goodell said. “He has contact with his season-ticket base — maybe not through him directly, but through the team. That’s something that he’s gonna have to decide, how he’s gonna proceed on that basis.”

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: NFL will do what it wants
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_8098b84e-dd1a-589a-a6a0-e258b319899d.html

The National Football League is conducting a market study of St. Louis in an attempt to assess our level of fandom and corporate support.

This is all part of the feverish chariot race to Los Angeles pitting the Rams, Chargers and Raiders. St. Louis isn’t the only market being scrutinized by the NFL; Oakland, San Diego and LA are also going through an official league inspection.

There have been a few problems; some longtime St. Louis-based fans complained that they never received the survey, which was supposedly distributed to season-ticket holders here. It was the first sign of a potentially flawed process.

So what will the St. Louis market study show?

Easy answer: whatever the NFL wants it to show.

These NFL operatives have more moves than Marshall Faulk; you can’t hem them in. They always find wiggle room.

There’s NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who on Wednesday praised the STL effort to get a new stadium off the ground here. But Goodell added that the NFL is considering speeding up the timetable to allow owners, including the Rams’ Stan Kroenke, to apply for relocation sooner than the league’s original Jan. 1 window.

So while Goodell says he likes what’s going on in St. Louis, he also pivots and offers that Kroenke (and others) may be allowed to apply for a move in the fall. Which, of course, would give St. Louis less time to finalize the stadium plan. If that happens, advantage Kroenke. You have to admit it: This was a nice cutback move by Goodell.

NFL executive VP Eric Grubman has also praised the progress being made toward a new St. Louis stadium. And if task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz can complete the land acquisition and stadium funding, then St. Louis should be in a great shape, right?

Uh, well … not necessarily.

“Your supposition is that it’s just public money that turns the key in the lock that opens the door that makes the market viable,” said Grubman, as quoted by the Orange County Register. “That’s not all there is. Let’s put the pieces together. You have to have a stadium and a financing plan … You have to have a market assessment that suggests that the market can and will be healthy for the long term so that stadium plan is supported.

“And if you do that then you’ve demonstrated viability against relocation guidelines, but it still goes to a vote. But the reason I make that distinction is that I could see a scenario where a financing plan is assembled and land is assembled and an entitlement is assembled but the market assessment is dim. And in that scenario, I don’t know that the owners would necessarily feel compelled to keep the team there.

“I could see a scenario where the market assessment is terrific and the land is assembled and the financing plan is not quite done and the owners may say, too late. let ’em go. Or they may say, let’s give them a little bit more time. That’s up to the owners.”

After absorbing all of that, please allow me to repeat what I said earlier in this piece: In the matter of franchise relocation, the league will do as it pleases. Do not even try to box these people in. It’s impossible.

This is a helpful reminder from the men who run the league. Seriously, it’s better to know what we’re up against instead of being naive and making false assumptions. I made that mistake — a big one — at the beginning of this escapade. Well, never again.

This is their league, they have full control of the process, and the relocation guidelines are essentially relocation suggestions. If this comes down to a relocation vote, the owners can disregard the rules and vote as they please.

If the NFL and its owners decide it’s smart to have the Rams head to SoCal and play in Kroenke’s spectacular new stadium, then this is exactly how things will go down.

I’m not saying situation is hopeless. It’s possible that the NFL will conduct an honorable process. And we were the first to discuss alternatives, including the NFL redirecting the Raiders to St. Louis, or Kroenke selling the Rams to buy the Raiders and set them up in Los Angeles.

A lot of this sounds goofy, but you just can’t rule anything out. This competition for the LA market already has featured surprise developments and frequent revisions to the narrative.

One thing has not changed: St. Louis must have a new stadium to stay in the game, and stay in the NFL. Peacock and Blitz have to finalize the land purchase and stadium funding as soon as possible. Without the stadium, it’s over for the NFL here. That’s the one absolute.

As for the NFL’s market study of St. Louis, I’ll try to offer some assistance.

This is a good football town that’s been stuck with bad teams and worse owners. There have been 48 NFL seasons here, with only 16 ending with a winning record, and only eight resulting in a trip to the postseason.

The Cardinals were here 28 seasons, ranked 18th in winning percentage and went 0-3 in the postseason. The Rams have been here 20 seasons, and while the “Greatest Show” era was tremendous (but brief), the franchise ranks 27th in the league in wins since moving here. Only the Raiders have won fewer games since 2004.

Despite already having endured decades of sad-sack football and having a 6-10 team and an owner plotting to move the franchise, St. Louis fans still averaged 57,000 in attendance per home game in 2014. These fans have had every reason to be demoralized but still filled the sterile Edward Jones Dome to 88 percent capacity.

I’d say this is strong but undernourished football market. One that hasn’t had the chance to enjoy many winning seasons or benefit from quality, or truly local, ownership. One that has watched home games in a cookie-cutter baseball stadium (Busch II) or in the current convention-center warehouse.

I doubt that any of this will make it to the NFL’s market-study report. The best we can hope for is that this town will receive fair treatment from the NFL. But this is the NFL’s game, and the league makes the rules. That’s the reality.

 

[iced]

What a douchy freakin article. The NFL does not NEED LA. It's been completely fine without it for 20 years. Better off IMO. We don't want the freaking Raiders. How in the world do you think it's acceptable to not make each franchise happy? The ones you already have are the most important. Keep them happy, god dammit.

this is the difference between Writers and owners....

writers don't have to think about 31 other owners - they can only speculate on SK and ignore the relationships he has with his 31 other business partners