New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

He'd be a damned fool not too. The Chargers, 9ers and Rams on his doorstep? The losingest team of the 4 in a crumbling stadium with no more LA leverage? It's as much a lifeline for him as it would be for us.

Yeah, it would be really stupid for him to not take it, plus the Riverfront Stadium sounds like it's exactly the type of stadium he wants to build.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/03/26/chargers-seem-destined-to-leave-san-diego/

Chargers seem destined to leave San Diego

Getty Images
Apart from the bright-line rules that were (and weren’t) adopted at the now-concluded annual league meetings, one thing became clear via the chatter among those in attendance: The Chargers are determined to leave San Diego for Los Angeles.

They haven’t said so publicly, and they likely won’t for months to come. But enough is being said privately to lead to the inescapable conclusion that the Chargers are destined to escape from the city they’ve called home since 1961.

With public money no longer a viable option in California (or pretty much anywhere) to construct an NFL stadium, the money necessary to build a new building in San Diego won’t be offset by the kind of revenue that justifies the investment. Instead, it now seems to be far more likely than not that the Chargers will partner with the Raiders in Carson, or that the Chargers will become the second team in the Inglewood stadium that will house the Rams.

It means that the Rams or Raiders will be shut out of the market. The most common theory making the rounds in Arizona this week had the Rams joining the Chargers and the Raiders possibly filling the void in St. Louis created by the departure of the Rams.

Regardless, 20 years of talk about a team moving to L.A. will soon be ending. In 2016, it now seems inevitable that the Chargers and another NFL team will be back in Los Angeles.

 

[dieterbrock]

Who said anything about blaming players or coaches? I'm sure a good many STL fans including myself will follow those players throughout their careers, regardless of who they play for. That won't stop the fans from being unhappy about losing the Rams, or won't stop them from being relieved at getting someone else like the Raiders. I'm sure there might be a few small number of fans who, upon losing the Rams, might prefer to have nothing at all. Drive up the highway and see blight and junk. But I think most of the fans here, upon hearing of another team, will say good riddance Stan if you don't want to be here and enjoy their new downtown with some other team. We've been loyal fans to the organization, and now the organization wants to move on. The players have nothing to do with it, why would anyone blame them?

I clearly didnt map my thoughts out correctly and in no way was I accusing you of anything. In my warped mind I was applauding you potentially accepting a new team, while rhetorically stating dont hate the Rams, hate the owner.

 

[blue4]

I clearly didnt map my thoughts out correctly and in no way was I accusing you of anything. In my warped mind I was applauding you potentially accepting a new team, while rhetorically stating dont hate the Rams, hate the owner.

Actually I was thinking that I hadn't been clear and my response was an attempt to correct that. I didn't think you were accusing me of anything, or mean to come off as retaliatory.

 

[Isiah58]

As a life long resident of Southern California, I had been a die hard Rams fan for 25 years when they "left" for St. Louis. During the months before they announced the move, there were the same discussions going on that are happening here and elsewhere on the net with respect to this new, proposed move. It is so reminiscent of what I and my fellow Rams fans went through back in the mid-90s. There was a lot of whistling in the dark, "they would never let the Rams move" discussions, and Georgia was vilified like no other public figure I know. I can't tell you how many times people have stopped me on the street, complete strangers, who notice my Rams' gear and say "I was a Rams fan, but Georgia ruined the NFL for me."

I honestly didn't know if I could follow them again after they moved. None of the people I hung around with cared one bit about the Rams once they left. I had not missed a game since 1970, either on tv or on the radio. I remember telling my girlfriend (now my wife) that I was going to a sports bar in Santa Monica to watch the first St. Louis Rams game. It was a 10 am game in So Cal, and it was sparsely populated at that time of day. The Rams game (against the Packers I believe) was televised on one small tv in the back, and I didn't have to fight anyone to see the screen. As soon as I saw them, saw the same guys I had been rooting for just 10 months earlier in Anaheim, still wearing the same uniform, I knew nothing changed as far as my devotion to the Rams. There was Ike Bruce blocking a punt to help the Rams win, and I knew they were still "my" team. I haven't missed a single game that they have played in St. Louis.

If the Rams move, most of you will be like my friends, turning your back on the NFL, citing "greed" and corruption and the utter disregard for the fans. All true. But some of you will see the horns and maintain that connection, as if you can't help it. People now ask me if I am excited about the prospects of the Rams coming back. It is hard for me to be excited, knowing what my St. Louis brethren are going through. I have met so many fans thanks to the Internet who share my passion for the Rams, many of whom live in the Midwest. The thought of having some replacement team like the Raiders come there would be appalling to most of them, and I would feel the same way.

Now the purpose of this post. While I have been trying to read as many of the articles that have been coming out recently, I have not been able to find the answers to 2 questions. Perhaps someone here who knows the answers can respond and clear this up for me.

First, what are the repercussions of SK "going rogue"? In other words, it is unclear to me what exactly Kroenke can and cannot do if the league denies him permission to move to LA. My very cloudy understanding is that he can move them anyways against the league's wishes. However, in addition to alienating most of the owners what consequences would he suffer? Yes, he would forfeit getting any Super Bowls in LA, but he is not getting any Super Bowls in St. Louis either. He would still have his shiny new stadium, his franchise would triple in value overnight, and he would seem to be able to accomplish what the League wants anyways, a high profile team in Los Angeles. Can anyone explain what deterrent the League could impose that would be so draconian that this "nuclear" option would be unthinkable? Because it seems like SK is not someone who will take no for an answer.

Second, if the new St. Louis stadium financing plan relies on a contribution from Kroenke, what if he refuses to pay? Can he say that he doesn't want to spend any of his $$$ to construct a St. Louis stadium, and if so does that scuttle the plan? Can he be forced to write a check for $300M for a stadium he won't own and doesn't want? My very limited understanding is that the NFL would also have to pony up a significant contribution for the new STL riverfront stadium. Which means the owners have to decide between reaching into their own pockets to help St. Louis build their stadium, or let Stan foot the whole bill for his LA stadium. Am I correct about this?

St. Louis does not deserve to lose its team. But I don't see how the Inglewood stadium is not getting built, one way or another. And if that happens, I think this move is fait accompli regardless of what things Missouri does to prevent it.

 

[ChrisW]

Second, if the new St. Louis stadium financing plan relies on a contribution from Kroenke, what if he refuses to pay? Can he say that he doesn't want to spend any of his $$$ to construct a St. Louis stadium, and if so does that scuttle the plan? Can he be forced to write a check for $300M for a stadium he won't own and doesn't want? My very limited understanding is that the NFL would also have to pony up a significant contribution for the new STL riverfront stadium. Which means the owners have to decide between reaching into their own pockets to help St. Louis build their stadium, or let Stan foot the whole bill for his LA stadium. Am I correct about this?

Sure, he can say that. But if the NFL puts the kabosh on his plans in LA and keeps him in STL, his options are to play in the dome year to year, or pony up 250 mil to play in a brand new stadium.

 

[rdw]

As a life long resident of Southern California, I had been a die hard Rams fan for 25 years when they "left" for St. Louis. During the months before they announced the move, there were the same discussions going on that are happening here and elsewhere on the net with respect to this new, proposed move. It is so reminiscent of what I and my fellow Rams fans went through back in the mid-90s. There was a lot of whistling in the dark, "they would never let the Rams move" discussions, and Georgia was vilified like no other public figure I know. I can't tell you how many times people have stopped me on the street, complete strangers, who notice my Rams' gear and say "I was a Rams fan, but Georgia ruined the NFL for me."

I honestly didn't know if I could follow them again after they moved. None of the people I hung around with cared one bit about the Rams once they left. I had not missed a game since 1970, either on tv or on the radio. I remember telling my girlfriend (now my wife) that I was going to a sports bar in Santa Monica to watch the first St. Louis Rams game. It was a 10 am game in So Cal, and it was sparsely populated at that time of day. The Rams game (against the Packers I believe) was televised on one small tv in the back, and I didn't have to fight anyone to see the screen. As soon as I saw them, saw the same guys I had been rooting for just 10 months earlier in Anaheim, still wearing the same uniform, I knew nothing changed as far as my devotion to the Rams. There was Ike Bruce blocking a punt to help the Rams win, and I knew they were still "my" team. I haven't missed a single game that they have played in St. Louis.

If the Rams move, most of you will be like my friends, turning your back on the NFL, citing "greed" and corruption and the utter disregard for the fans. All true. But some of you will see the horns and maintain that connection, as if you can't help it. People now ask me if I am excited about the prospects of the Rams coming back. It is hard for me to be excited, knowing what my St. Louis brethren are going through. I have met so many fans thanks to the Internet who share my passion for the Rams, many of whom live in the Midwest. The thought of having some replacement team like the Raiders come there would be appalling to most of them, and I would feel the same way.

Now the purpose of this post. While I have been trying to read as many of the articles that have been coming out recently, I have not been able to find the answers to 2 questions. Perhaps someone here who knows the answers can respond and clear this up for me.

First, what are the repercussions of SK "going rogue"? In other words, it is unclear to me what exactly Kroenke can and cannot do if the league denies him permission to move to LA. My very cloudy understanding is that he can move them anyways against the league's wishes. However, in addition to alienating most of the owners what consequences would he suffer? Yes, he would forfeit getting any Super Bowls in LA, but he is not getting any Super Bowls in St. Louis either. He would still have his shiny new stadium, his franchise would triple in value overnight, and he would seem to be able to accomplish what the League wants anyways, a high profile team in Los Angeles. Can anyone explain what deterrent the League could impose that would be so draconian that this "nuclear" option would be unthinkable? Because it seems like SK is not someone who will take no for an answer.

Second, if the new St. Louis stadium financing plan relies on a contribution from Kroenke, what if he refuses to pay? Can he say that he doesn't want to spend any of his $$$ to construct a St. Louis stadium, and if so does that scuttle the plan? Can he be forced to write a check for $300M for a stadium he won't own and doesn't want? My very limited understanding is that the NFL would also have to pony up a significant contribution for the new STL riverfront stadium. Which means the owners have to decide between reaching into their own pockets to help St. Louis build their stadium, or let Stan foot the whole bill for his LA stadium. Am I correct about this?

St. Louis does not deserve to lose its team. But I don't see how the Inglewood stadium is not getting built, one way or another. And if that happens, I think this move is fait accompli regardless of what things Missouri does to prevent it.

Thanks for your post Isiah58.


I grew up an L.A. Rams fan and when they moved to St. Louis I remember wondering if I'd remain a fan of a team halfway across the country from me. When games started that first season in St. Louis I immediately realized I had zero doubt about where my allegiances were. My fandom never diminished and any animosity or anger was 100% directed at that old bag GF. (Nevertheless RIP). I’ve even flown out to St. Louis to see games over the years.

The Rams are the ONLY pro sports team I root for outside of L.A. I’m also a Dodgers, Lakers, and Kings (NHL) fan.


If they do move back to L.A. it will be the very definition of bittersweet for me. I’ll be happy they’re back and happy they may have picked up some lifelong fans however I’ll be sad at the St. Louis fans who are experiencing what many L.A. Rams fans experienced so many years ago.

 

[Sum1]

Not to be "that" guy, but I'm not so sure how this is possible. The financing can fall through if the house votes with a greater than 2/3rd majority on that bill that went through the senate. Unless they have some inside information about how they will vote. Even then, 99% would seem too high, because Kroenke still needs to put in his half of the bill, and if he says no, then that's that.

I don't doubt that they'll get the financing figured out, I just can't imagine that it's done now, or that it can be 99% a done deal when Kroenke hasn't said he'll pitch in yet.

I think you are assuming that what has been speculated is the only route they will get financing. Also, that bill still has to pass. Let's assume it will, what stops Nixon from using his power before that happens?

There have been people in the know saying that Peacock hasn't flinched at all with that senator's bill. Seems reasonable to speculate that the task force hasn't put all of their eggs into the bonds basket so to speak.

Something I think is a possibility is that there might be some other investors involved.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I think you are assuming that what has been speculated is the only route they will get financing. Also, that bill still has to pass. Let's assume it will, what stops Nixon from using his power before that happens?

There have been people in the know saying that Peacock hasn't flinched at all with that senator's bill. Seems reasonable to speculate that the task force hasn't put all of their eggs into the bonds basket so to speak.

Something I think is a possibility is that there might be some other investors involved.

If there's a investor that could fund that kind of money into the riverfront stadium, then there could be investors that do the same in OAK or SD. The investor wants intrest. The city would never want that. That's why the cities usually finance and own the stadium so they could reap the benefits. Just like the dome.

Now they could do what the raiders are trying to do. Build real estate around the stadium to help fund it.

 

[den-the-coach]

The Rams are the ONLY pro sports team I root for outside of L.A. I’m also a Dodgers, Lakers, and Kings (NHL) fan.


If they do move back to L.A. it will be the very definition of bittersweet for me. I’ll be happy they’re back and happy they may have picked up some lifelong fans however I’ll be sad at the St. Louis fans who are experiencing what many L.A. Rams fans experienced so many years ago.

And this is me too including being a Dodger, Laker & King fan and I truly enjoyed the post by @Isiah58 and his avt too...All of us who were LA Ram fans first and then bonded with our Midwest brethren are dying inside.

 

[Mackeyser]

I learned when the Rams, Raiders and Ravens (formerly the Cleveland Browns) moved as well as the Indy Colts (formerly the Baltimore Colts) that by the 90s, I had to root for the Uni, not the city because teams aren't anchored like they used to be.

Is it unthinkable that the Packers would move? Now it is... But I don't know what the future holds (although the Pack is a rare case due being a publicly held corp.) how about the Bears?

I know folks are upset about the greed of the owners and the league. Trust me I get it.

For me, the only way to enjoy football is to focus on the sport. Any other encroachment ruins it for me. Dunno if that helps anyone.

 

[CoachO]

The question I have for all of the talk about what Kroenke would have to put up to get the stadium built in STL without "owning" it. But yet, everyone is making an assumption that he will OWN the stadium in Inglewood. Where has this been documented?

It seems to me, everyone is making some big assumptions that he is going to unilaterally fund the Inglewood stadium, when in fact, the only thing that has been announced, is he has an agreement in place with Stockbridge to "partner" a development that includes a stadium.

So how is it, that if he ponies up $300M (give or take) he wouldn't have partial ownership in any STL project, but its just assumed that he will be owner in Inglewood? When in fact, no one really knows this to be fact.

He owns the a portion of the LAND that the development will be built on. Has there been any comment or factual report that quantifies his ownership of that stadium project?

And do people really think that if he puts up his share to have the STL project built, he wouldn't be entitled to, and receive a very enticing incentive, and return on his investment?

This just seems to be the most lopsided reported story, with all the attention on the LA side of this because it then becomes a NATIONAL story. If this was reported from the STL perspective, then it doesn't have nearly the national appeal.

 

[RamBill]

Yahoo Sports’ Dan Wetzel, who recently wrote the Rams going to Inglewood is “exponentially more likely than the Chargers and the Raiders getting a shared stadium,” was at the NFL owners meetings in Arizona this week. Wetzel joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Thursday to talk about the Los Angeles situation and the latest he’s hearing on the three teams – Rams, Chargers and Raiders – vying for a spot in the country’s No. 2 television market.

Listen to Wetzel Talk Rams/Stadiums

 

[RAMbler]

As a life long resident of Southern California, I had been a die hard Rams fan for 25 years when they "left" for St. Louis. During the months before they announced the move, there were the same discussions going on that are happening here and elsewhere on the net with respect to this new, proposed move. It is so reminiscent of what I and my fellow Rams fans went through back in the mid-90s. There was a lot of whistling in the dark, "they would never let the Rams move" discussions, and Georgia was vilified like no other public figure I know. I can't tell you how many times people have stopped me on the street, complete strangers, who notice my Rams' gear and say "I was a Rams fan, but Georgia ruined the NFL for me."

I honestly didn't know if I could follow them again after they moved. None of the people I hung around with cared one bit about the Rams once they left. I had not missed a game since 1970, either on tv or on the radio. I remember telling my girlfriend (now my wife) that I was going to a sports bar in Santa Monica to watch the first St. Louis Rams game. It was a 10 am game in So Cal, and it was sparsely populated at that time of day. The Rams game (against the Packers I believe) was televised on one small tv in the back, and I didn't have to fight anyone to see the screen. As soon as I saw them, saw the same guys I had been rooting for just 10 months earlier in Anaheim, still wearing the same uniform, I knew nothing changed as far as my devotion to the Rams. There was Ike Bruce blocking a punt to help the Rams win, and I knew they were still "my" team. I haven't missed a single game that they have played in St. Louis.

If the Rams move, most of you will be like my friends, turning your back on the NFL, citing "greed" and corruption and the utter disregard for the fans. All true. But some of you will see the horns and maintain that connection, as if you can't help it. People now ask me if I am excited about the prospects of the Rams coming back. It is hard for me to be excited, knowing what my St. Louis brethren are going through. I have met so many fans thanks to the Internet who share my passion for the Rams, many of whom live in the Midwest. The thought of having some replacement team like the Raiders come there would be appalling to most of them, and I would feel the same way.

Now the purpose of this post. While I have been trying to read as many of the articles that have been coming out recently, I have not been able to find the answers to 2 questions. Perhaps someone here who knows the answers can respond and clear this up for me.

First, what are the repercussions of SK "going rogue"? In other words, it is unclear to me what exactly Kroenke can and cannot do if the league denies him permission to move to LA. My very cloudy understanding is that he can move them anyways against the league's wishes. However, in addition to alienating most of the owners what consequences would he suffer? Yes, he would forfeit getting any Super Bowls in LA, but he is not getting any Super Bowls in St. Louis either. He would still have his shiny new stadium, his franchise would triple in value overnight, and he would seem to be able to accomplish what the League wants anyways, a high profile team in Los Angeles. Can anyone explain what deterrent the League could impose that would be so draconian that this "nuclear" option would be unthinkable? Because it seems like SK is not someone who will take no for an answer.

Second, if the new St. Louis stadium financing plan relies on a contribution from Kroenke, what if he refuses to pay? Can he say that he doesn't want to spend any of his $$$ to construct a St. Louis stadium, and if so does that scuttle the plan? Can he be forced to write a check for $300M for a stadium he won't own and doesn't want? My very limited understanding is that the NFL would also have to pony up a significant contribution for the new STL riverfront stadium. Which means the owners have to decide between reaching into their own pockets to help St. Louis build their stadium, or let Stan foot the whole bill for his LA stadium. Am I correct about this?

St. Louis does not deserve to lose its team. But I don't see how the Inglewood stadium is not getting built, one way or another. And if that happens, I think this move is fait accompli regardless of what things Missouri does to prevent it.

Outstanding Post. I agree from top to bottom. The answers you will get will be different depending on who gives them (St. L or L.A fan). If you look up the G4 Loan program, you will see that the 'team' is on the hook for the loan, and has about 15 years to pay it back. This means SK would have to pony up about $450M. That's a lot of $$$ for not owning the stadium.

IMHO..., in the end..., the NFL will not try to stop Kroenke's plan in Inglewood...., because they do not want to.

 

[MrMotes]

The question I have for all of the talk about what Kroenke would have to put up to get the stadium built in STL without "owning" it. But yet, everyone is making an assumption that he will OWN the stadium in Inglewood. Where has this been documented?

It seems to me, everyone is making some big assumptions that he is going to unilaterally fund the Inglewood stadium, when in fact, the only thing that has been announced, is he has an agreement in place with Stockbridge to "partner" a development that includes a stadium.

So how is it, that if he ponies up $300M (give or take) he wouldn't have partial ownership in any STL project, but its just assumed that he will be owner in Inglewood? When in fact, no one really knows this to be fact.

He owns the a portion of the LAND that the development will be built on. Has there been any comment or factual report that quantifies his ownership of that stadium project?

And do people really think that if he puts up his share to have the STL project built, he wouldn't be entitled to, and receive a very enticing incentive, and return on his investment?

This just seems to be the most lopsided reported story, with all the attention on the LA side of this because it then becomes a NATIONAL story. If this was reported from the STL perspective, then it doesn't have nearly the national appeal.

Why isn't Kroenke partnering up with somebody to build a stadium in St. Louis?

 

[RamBill]

Roger Goodell encouraged by St. Louis stadium progress
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...odell-encouraged-by-st-louis-stadium-progress

PHOENIX -- Speaking to the assembled media at the NFL owners meetings Wednesday, commissioner Roger Goodell was asked a variety of questions about relocation and the efforts to retain teams in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland.

The St. Louis Rams, in particular, were a popular topic for Goodell. Of the three cities attempting to keep their teams, the St. Louis stadium proposal is probably furthest along, although that's something of a relative term when compared to shovel-ready Inglewood. Nonetheless, the St. Louis stadium task force led by local businessman Dave Peacock has forged ahead undeterred and checked off boxes along the way in a manner that has made Goodell stand up and take notice.

"I’ve spoken to the governor (Jay Nixon) and our staff have been there," Goodell said. "I think Dave Peacock has done a terrific job of formulating a plan and they have a great site. They have a site that is important for St. Louis to redevelop, makes the perfect stadium site as the governor told me, and I think they’re working toward making it become a reality. We need to continue that momentum. We need to continue the focus of making it a reality and that’s a positive. The efforts that are going on there are very positive."

Those efforts have included steps such as reaching a labor agreement with local unions to expedite construction should it get underway, deals with railroad and utility companies to help clear the land for the site and the addition of multiple consultants to help the project reach the finish line. Goodell and the league view all of those steps as positive for St. Louis.

Of course, none of that guarantees anything until the St. Louis project can get the financing and land acquisition squared away. Nixon has made it clear that he's hoping to have that aspect of the deal in place by fall, but that might need a little bump forward as well after Goodell told reporters Wednesday that the opportunity to file for relocation earlier than the usual window has been discussed by the ownership group.

"We've had some discussions within our (Los Angeles opportunity) committee," Goodell said. "Whether that time frame -- 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."

And there's also the not-so-little matter of getting an owner to agree to pay up to $250 million plus the $200 million G4 loan from the league. To this point, Rams owner Stan Kroenke has not even said that he intends to move the team let alone discussed the possibility of providing funding for a stadium in St. Louis.

Goodell also addressed the lack of direct communication between Kroenke and St. Louis.

"Well, we certainly have had that conversation with the governor on several occasions," Goodell said. "Our staff has been there on a regular basis, as you know, making sure that we’re doing whatever we can do as a league and I think it’s a great deal, by the way. We’ve had a lot of experience in this and putting together a stadium plan that could be responsive not only for St. Louis but also could work for a franchise long-term. We’re trying to do our part as a league. Every management structure is going to deal with those issues differently. He has contact with his season-ticket base, maybe not through him directly, but through the team and that’s something that he’s going to have to decide how he’s going to proceed on that basis."

Really, Goodell didn't offer much on St. Louis, Los Angeles or anything else pertaining to relocation. But the wait for a more tangible update might not be too long. There's another round of owners meetings in May and it would surprise no one if the topic garners more attention then.

 

[MarkMyWords]

I want the Rams to stay. That's my position. After hearing/reading all of this speculation that St. Louis could get the consolation prize of the Raiders, It begs the question: how does that work?? Would the NFL simply tell Davis to move? Can they force a team from one city halfway across the continent to another? Davis doesn't seem interested in St. Louis-at least for now. The city of Oakland is partnering with Alameda County to come up with a solution-this is in it's early stages, and results are far, far away-does Davis give this teamwork a chance so that they can remain in Oakland? I'm just not seeing the dots to be connected with the Raiders coming here.

Jim Thomas ‏@jthom1 Mar 24
David Hunn and I had an interesting conversation with Raiders owner Mark Davis earlier today. Davis first told us. . . .

Jim Thomas ‏@jthom1 Mar 24
. . . ."We're not moving to St. Louis." A few minutes later _ same question _ the reply was: "We'll listen to anybody."

(This is all I've seen tying the Raiders to St. Louis, other than reporters opinions........)

 

[RamFan503]

The question I have for all of the talk about what Kroenke would have to put up to get the stadium built in STL without "owning" it. But yet, everyone is making an assumption that he will OWN the stadium in Inglewood. Where has this been documented?

It seems to me, everyone is making some big assumptions that he is going to unilaterally fund the Inglewood stadium, when in fact, the only thing that has been announced, is he has an agreement in place with Stockbridge to "partner" a development that includes a stadium.

So how is it, that if he ponies up $300M (give or take) he wouldn't have partial ownership in any STL project, but its just assumed that he will be owner in Inglewood? When in fact, no one really knows this to be fact.

He owns the a portion of the LAND that the development will be built on. Has there been any comment or factual report that quantifies his ownership of that stadium project?

And do people really think that if he puts up his share to have the STL project built, he wouldn't be entitled to, and receive a very enticing incentive, and return on his investment?

This just seems to be the most lopsided reported story, with all the attention on the LA side of this because it then becomes a NATIONAL story. If this was reported from the STL perspective, then it doesn't have nearly the national appeal.

Nah Coach - you're right. I think there are a fair number of assumptions here. There has been no financial plan detailed about the St Louis project so just as Stan's silence has kept everyone guessing, so have the plans being worked on by MO. We don't know if the St Louis project will include financial incentives for Stan - such as maybe parking and concessions. We don't know what kind of lease will be offered as part of the deal. We don't even know for sure how much Stan will be asked to pony up. Will it be the $250 million plus the essentially $200 million lean in the form of the G4 loan? Are they going to offset his contribution somehow? Dunno.

I think most are operating under the assumption that it will be the $250 + $200 and the state/city comes up with the rest.

As far as the Inglewood project is concerned, I don't think anyone outside of Stockbridge and Stan know the partnership details or how it will be divided/funded. The only thing we know is that there will be no public monies being used for construction or infrastructure but that some of the expenses will be offset if the project generates more than it cost the city for their part in maintenance and administration.

Regardless of what that partnership split is, I think we can assume that it will be a ratio of money invested plus a value placed on the team moving in to the stadium - if Stan were to actually move the Rams. The revenues generated by the project will all go to the partnership rather than the city/state as in the case of St Louis. If the Inglewood project can be maxed out, then those revenues coming back to the partners would be huge. But still - no one knows how huge just yet.

So - yeah - there is a lot of speculation going on and the assumption is that Stan will make far more money in Inglewood than in St Louis. But all things considered and being discussed, I don't see how you can avoid that conclusion. The question then becomes IMO - does that increased money and prestige outweigh things like his desire to keep the team in St Louis and the hassle of possibly having to fight the NFL. I'm not sure it does.

Those Inglewood stadium renderings are really difficult to dismiss - yet something inside me still says that the Rams are staying in the Lou.

 

[CoachO]

Why isn't Kroenke partnering up with somebody to build a stadium in St. Louis?

Because at this point, the city, state and county are stepping up to put it together. You could ask the same question 20 yrs ago? Why did he let the city, state and county pay for the Dome? He also didnt set out to build the Inglewood stadium on his own,, He joined and existing development project that now includes a plan for a stadium.

Apples and oranges.

 

[RamFan503]

Why isn't Kroenke partnering up with somebody to build a stadium in St. Louis?

You have to wonder if the riverfront property was offered to him for purchase, if he wouldn't do just that. But I believe the gov't has to take possession of the property under eminent domain which would mean the gov't has to not only purchase the properties from the owners but also either hold onto it for a period of time before selling it or trade it for similar use land. I haven't looked into those laws in over a decade but that is what I recall.

I had heard a couple years ago that there was interest by Kroenke's group in buying the old Chrysler property but that not only had mass clean-up to do but was slated for some other project and is already being built.

I would think that for a property to be attractive, it would have to be easily obtained and built upon and have very good infrastructure for massive traffic flows.