New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[BriansRams]

Call me crazy for saying so, but I don't see why ANY team would build a new open air stadium in a cold weather climate. I just seems dumb. I think a open and close-able roof would be the way to go. Or just closed all the time.

 

[Username]

Kroenke has sent his people though. Just not himself personally. The stadium proposal wasn't anything near what he asked for, and has a lot of issues in terms of size, parking, and financing. The presser was filled with shots towards the ownership, and hints of potentially taking the team from him.

I'm interested in seeing the response, but I expect the Rams move to year to year and I wouldn't be shocked if instead of a counter he just says "try again"... Comparing this situation to the Chargers and hoping the league will agree that the Rams haven't exhausted all options isn't good because its not a good comparison. The chargers arent serious about moving. Simply making a proposal isn't enough, it needs to be good enough that to walk away from would be insane. If he doesn't agree and its not even close, then he can say the city can't do it. It falls back on if the owners would actually try and block or not. I don't see them doing that unless the offer is that good.

I don't know what all these issues are that you're alluding to. As of right now there seems to be more things open to question financially on the stadium in L.A., with this new revelation of there actually being taxes. The only thing really in question here I think is how their idea of extending the bonds on the dome would work, but plenty have people have already came out and said it's very doable. When they say shit like (paraphrasing here) the community is going to have to except PSLs again making a very rich man even richer, it's not because they're trying to be assholes, it's because they're being truthful and realistic. I can appreciate that, and I imagine the NFL does too.

They were asked to present a very realistic idea that matched the NFL's guidelines, and they did. If Kroenke wants a floating metallic birds nest on the Mississippi with a giant TV broadcasting catfish with lasers for eyes swimming below, then he can come in and say so. If he wants people to pay more tax money for a team that has been historically the worst ever for the last decade, then he can come out and say so. Maybe he and "his people" could just be normal human beings and explain why they want what they want, and how it will be better for the future of the city, and then maybe other normal human beings living in the area would consider giving them the money. That, or he could just say absolutely nothing until he moves the team to L.A. in which case he can go fuck himself. In the ear. We'll see which happens I guess.

 

[ChrisW]

Call me crazy for saying so, but I don't see why ANY team would build a new open air stadium in a cold weather climate. I just seems dumb. I think a open and close-able roof would be the way to go. Or just closed all the time.

Multiple reasons. The odds that inclement weather will be a problem is extremely cold. Also, you're looking at only 2 cold weather games at year.

Other reason is soccer. Open air stadiums with real turf is a HUGE draw for soccer, especially international friendlies. If we hope to get an MLS team in there (which will increase revenues, and the relevance of the stadium) open air is the way to go.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm gonna weigh in on this now.

I have always hated the divide that has been driven down the middle of this fan base. It's a very weird dynamic that Ram Fans like us have had to deal with.

I respect all of the different feelings that all of you are feeling. I wish we didn't have to deal with it.

Well, hopefully the whole thing is going to get resolved soon.

Either the team moves back, or takes a new deal in St. Louis and makes clear it's not going to move back any time soon.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't know what all these issues are that you're alluding to. As of right now there seems to be more things open to question financially on the stadium in L.A., with this new revelation of there actually being taxes. The only thing really in question here I think is how their idea of extending the bonds on the dome would work, but plenty have people have already came out and said it's very doable. When they say crap like (paraphrasing here) the community is going to have to except PSLs again making a very rich man even richer, it's not because they're trying to be assholes, it's because they're being truthful and realistic. I can appreciate that, and I imagine the NFL does too.

They were asked to present a very realistic idea that matched the NFL's guidelines, and they did. If Kroenke wants a floating metallic birds nest on the Mississippi with a giant TV broadcasting catfish with lasers for eyes swimming below, then he can come in and say so. If he wants people to pay more tax money for a team that has been historically the worst ever for the last decade, then he can come out and say so. Maybe he and "his people" could just be normal human beings and explain why they want what they want, and how it will be better for the future of the city, and then maybe other normal human beings living in the area would consider giving them the money. That, or he could just say absolutely nothing until he moves the team to L.A. in which case he can go freak himself. In the ear. We'll see which happens I guess.

Problems with the stadium include too few seats (less revenue) far too few parking (less than half of what the NFL says they need) the timetable, and the lack of something that really puts it over the top as a top tier stadium. Those things will likely prevent a SB from ever being played there, and to Stan that's a bad deal. Then you throw in that they're asking him to pay for half the stadium, and aren't sure if they can finance the other half, but still want to own it, have naming rights, and I heard get the PSL money (lost revenue) it is an absolutely awful deal for Stan to take, from a business standpoint. In fact it could be hard to convince any owner to take that deal. If you're starting off negotiating then that could be an offer that made sense, so it could be worked on, but to offer that up when we're approaching zero hour is not good enough. It's essentially asking Stan to give up seeing his investment and net worth grow by a few billion, remodel part of St Louis on his dime, and then see less profits than he normally would get on his return.

There is no financing issue in LA though, at all. The taxes, aren't a raise in taxes as they are reimbursement if the project (park, housing, stadium) generates over 25m in taxes for the city, which it likely will. Then the group can start to get some of the money back. So new taxes from additional income being spent there, and new people moving (new houses, etc) that would normally go to the city and then used on public funds, will see a portion of that go back to Stan. However since they are putting money into roads, water, sewage, parks, etc for the project, it will be a benefit to the city. The individual won't see his taxes raise, or public funding go down as a result of the project. While technically it will be some taxes, they won't be upfront, and it won't be taking anything away from people or giving them less than they have now. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Either way, the proposal that was made to Stan probably doesn't get done. If he counters then that may be a good sign, but if he doesn't and just says no, then St Louis will need a backup plan. Relying on the NFL blocking the move wouldn't be a good one either.

 

[Boffo97]

C'mon Stan, get ya some.

http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...42_1_antitrust-laws-antitrust-case-tagliablue

So, yeah... allowing a team to move doesn't HURT the league's anti-trust exemption. If anything, stopping a team from moving at will hurts the exemption.

 

[Username]

Problems with the stadium include too few seats (less revenue) far too few parking (less than half of what the NFL says they need) the timetable, and the lack of something that really puts it over the top as a top tier stadium. Those things will likely prevent a SB from ever being played there, and to Stan that's a bad deal. Then you throw in that they're asking him to pay for half the stadium, and aren't sure if they can finance the other half, but still want to own it, have naming rights, and I heard get the PSL money (lost revenue) it is an absolutely awful deal for Stan to take, from a business standpoint. In fact it could be hard to convince any owner to take that deal. If you're starting off negotiating then that could be an offer that made sense, so it could be worked on, but to offer that up when we're approaching zero hour is not good enough. It's essentially asking Stan to give up seeing his investment and net worth grow by a few billion, remodel part of St Louis on his dime, and then see less profits than he normally would get on his return.

There is no financing issue in LA though, at all. The taxes, aren't a raise in taxes as they are reimbursement if the project (park, housing, stadium) generates over 25m in taxes for the city, which it likely will. Then the group can start to get some of the money back. So new taxes from additional income being spent there, and new people moving (new houses, etc) that would normally go to the city and then used on public funds, will see a portion of that go back to Stan. However since they are putting money into roads, water, sewage, parks, etc for the project, it will be a benefit to the city. The individual won't see his taxes raise, or public funding go down as a result of the project. While technically it will be some taxes, they won't be upfront, and it won't be taking anything away from people or giving them less than they have now. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Either way, the proposal that was made to Stan probably doesn't get done. If he counters then that may be a good sign, but if he doesn't and just says no, then St Louis will need a backup plan. Relying on the NFL blocking the move wouldn't be a good one either.

Will try to comment more once this game is over, but I'm pretty sure they're asking for 250 from Stan, not half.

 

[ChrisW]

Will try to comment more once this game is over, but I'm pretty sure they're asking for 250 from Stan, not half.

It's 200 from Stan and 200 from the NFL via the G4, which requires that 200M from Stan to match.

 

[Username]

Problems with the stadium include too few seats (less revenue) far too few parking (less than half of what the NFL says they need) the timetable, and the lack of something that really puts it over the top as a top tier stadium. Those things will likely prevent a SB from ever being played there, and to Stan that's a bad deal. Then you throw in that they're asking him to pay for half the stadium, and aren't sure if they can finance the other half, but still want to own it, have naming rights, and I heard get the PSL money (lost revenue) it is an absolutely awful deal for Stan to take, from a business standpoint. In fact it could be hard to convince any owner to take that deal. If you're starting off negotiating then that could be an offer that made sense, so it could be worked on, but to offer that up when we're approaching zero hour is not good enough. It's essentially asking Stan to give up seeing his investment and net worth grow by a few billion, remodel part of St Louis on his dime, and then see less profits than he normally would get on his return.

There is no financing issue in LA though, at all. The taxes, aren't a raise in taxes as they are reimbursement if the project (park, housing, stadium) generates over 25m in taxes for the city, which it likely will. Then the group can start to get some of the money back. So new taxes from additional income being spent there, and new people moving (new houses, etc) that would normally go to the city and then used on public funds, will see a portion of that go back to Stan. However since they are putting money into roads, water, sewage, parks, etc for the project, it will be a benefit to the city. The individual won't see his taxes raise, or public funding go down as a result of the project. While technically it will be some taxes, they won't be upfront, and it won't be taking anything away from people or giving them less than they have now. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Either way, the proposal that was made to Stan probably doesn't get done. If he counters then that may be a good sign, but if he doesn't and just says no, then St Louis will need a backup plan. Relying on the NFL blocking the move wouldn't be a good one either.

In the end here, the issue is the money (obviously). I think we both agree on that. When the Rams issued their plan with the retractable roof, they really didn't even say how it would be paid for. You can't expect the city (or citizens for that matter) to be happy with that either. The problem is that there is no dialect. I know that we're cut off from most of what is taking place here, but for each side to still be this far apart is very telling at this stage in the game. The majority of me believes the Rams honestly have had "1 foot out the door" the entire time since Kroenke took over.

One things for certain, the organization isn't getting any sympathy from me.

If he counters then that may be a good sign, but if he doesn't and just says no, then St Louis will need a backup plan. Relying on the NFL blocking the move wouldn't be a good one either.

This I can agree with 100%. I'd even go one further and suggest that it would be done completely for St. Louis if he continues to avoid negotiation.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Will try to comment more once this game is over, but I'm pretty sure they're asking for 250 from Stan, not half.

The G4 loan is one that needs to get paid back, and it's typically the owner who does that paying.

For example the Vikings wanting to make it seem like they were putting up more money, so they announced they were putting up 400 million, even though half was from the G4 loan that he pays back later. St Louis wants it to appear that Stan is paying for less so they separated it, and said its from the NFL. He still has to repay it though, which means he pays for nearly half of it. That assumes the city can indeed pay for the other half.

 

[RamBill]

JONES SAYS RAMS CAN MOVE

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/s...nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1

When the St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans last week to build an 80,000-seat football stadium near downtown Los Angeles, it raised the specter that he might unilaterally move his team to Southern California.

After his announcement, the N.F.L. reiterated that any team relocation must be approved by at least 24 out of the league’s 32 owners. The N.F.L. controls the Los Angeles market, and Commissioner Roger Goodell has said that any move there must be done in an orderly way.

But in an interview last week, the Dallas Cowboys’ owner, Jerry Jones, said that while he prefers that the owners approve any team moving to Los Angeles, a team could possibly move there without league approval.

“As it would turn out now, apart from the league saying no, you can move there,” he said. “Keep in mind that teams have moved without the permission of the league. They just have.”

Asked if Kroenke could move on his own, Jones said: “He can if the league says he can’t.”

Asked if the N.F.L. preferred to coordinate any relocation, Jones said: “Again, there are just certain things that clubs can do.”

Jones’s comments are bound to stir interest in a murky and emotional process because he is one of the N.F.L.’s most powerful and unconventional owners.

The league said last month that the Rams, the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders would not move to Los Angeles in 2015. But Kroenke has the ability to shift to a year-to-year lease at the Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams play.

That would give him the flexibility to leave St. Louis in the coming years.

“The idea of Stan going ahead and making his announcement was driven by all of the right things,” said Jones, who cited Kroenke’s having a deal for a location and his owning a team with “a great legacy.”

Jones added, “All of that is to me a very positive thing for Los Angeles and for the N.F.L.”

Last week, civic leaders in Missouri unveiled plans to build a new 64,000-seat outdoor stadium in downtown St. Louis to persuade Kroenke to stay. KEN BELSON

 

[bluecoconuts]

In the end here, the issue is the money (obviously). I think we both agree on that. When the Rams issued their plan with the retractable roof, they really didn't even say how it would be paid for. You can't expect the city (or citizens for that matter) to be happy with that either. The problem is that there is no dialect. I know that we're cut off from most of what is taking place here, but for each side to still be this far apart is very telling at this stage in the game. The majority of me believes the Rams honestly have had "1 foot out the door" the entire time since Kroenke took over.

One things for certain, the organization isn't getting any sympathy from me.



This I can agree with 100%. I'd even go one further and suggest that it would be done completely for St. Louis if he continues to avoid negotiation.

That wouldn't shock me if he was. I think one of the things that could have potentially doomed this thing from being worked out is that Stan may have had one foot out the door, and St Louis, nervous of voter backlash wouldn't talk or address the issue until the elections. Now it might be too late. I hope they figure it all out, but I'm not really hopeful to be honest. Like 503 said, I think the only way they stay is if Stan isn't really serious about moving.

 

[RamFan503]

If Kroenke wants a floating metallic birds nest on the Mississippi with a giant TV broadcasting catfish with lasers for eyes swimming below, then he can come in and say so.

Count me in. Sounds awesome.

Problems with the stadium include too few seats (less revenue) far too few parking (less than half of what the NFL says they need)

One trip to a shecocks game will tell you that is not an issue. Not sure they even have a parking lot. Seriously though, they only have about 3000 sites dedicated to Century Link Field.

 

[RamFan503]

The problem is that there is no dialect.

The thing I'm not sure of is how much dialogue there has been in similar situations. Supposedly the owners in Minnesota weren't returning calls during much of their negotiations either. Seems to have worked out ok.

 

[Username]

Asked if Kroenke could move on his own, Jones said: “He can if the league says he can’t.”

LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL

 

[dbrooks25]

Problems with the stadium include too few seats (less revenue) far too few parking (less than half of what the NFL says they need) the timetable, and the lack of something that really puts it over the top as a top tier stadium. Those things will likely prevent a SB from ever being played there, and to Stan that's a bad deal. Then you throw in that they're asking him to pay for half the stadium, and aren't sure if they can finance the other half, but still want to own it, have naming rights, and I heard get the PSL money (lost revenue) it is an absolutely awful deal for Stan to take, from a business standpoint. In fact it could be hard to convince any owner to take that deal. If you're starting off negotiating then that could be an offer that made sense, so it could be worked on, but to offer that up when we're approaching zero hour is not good enough. It's essentially asking Stan to give up seeing his investment and net worth grow by a few billion, remodel part of St Louis on his dime, and then see less profits than he normally would get on his return.

There is no financing issue in LA though, at all. The taxes, aren't a raise in taxes as they are reimbursement if the project (park, housing, stadium) generates over 25m in taxes for the city, which it likely will. Then the group can start to get some of the money back. So new taxes from additional income being spent there, and new people moving (new houses, etc) that would normally go to the city and then used on public funds, will see a portion of that go back to Stan. However since they are putting money into roads, water, sewage, parks, etc for the project, it will be a benefit to the city. The individual won't see his taxes raise, or public funding go down as a result of the project. While technically it will be some taxes, they won't be upfront, and it won't be taking anything away from people or giving them less than they have now. That's my understanding of it anyway.

Either way, the proposal that was made to Stan probably doesn't get done. If he counters then that may be a good sign, but if he doesn't and just says no, then St Louis will need a backup plan. Relying on the NFL blocking the move wouldn't be a good one either.

An absolute awful deal for Stan? I wouldn't dare go that far. Most of the issues you are talking about relating to the St. Louis stadium proposal are likely negotiable. Minnesota's new stadium has a seating capacity of 65,400 which isn't much more than the new one here that's being proposed. I'm sure that won't be a sticking point. There will be far more parking spaces available around the new stadium as well, not just the 10k in front of the stadium for tailgating. This goes along with what I was saying prior that folks on each side of the fence are going to spin things a little out of natural bias as to where they want the team to land eventually, imo. One thing is for certain, the sooner this crap is over, the better.

 

[Username]

Count me in. Sounds awesome.

Have you ever seen catfish with friggin laser beams in their eyes?

One trip to a shecocks game will tell you that is not an issue. Not sure they even have a parking lot. Seriously though, they only have about 3000 sites dedicated to Century Link Field.

You gotta have a min of like 25 thousand I think for a SB though. Think that's what he's alluding to. I plan on driving 8 hours by boat every game from the Ozarks, then parking at the docks.

 

[Boffo97]

I think the sticking point on the St. Louis deal is going to be Kroenke likely not wanting to put a couple of million dollars into a stadium he won't own.

And before anyone goes there, whether he "can" or not isn't the issue.

 

[Username]

The thing I'm not sure of is how much dialogue there has been in similar situations. Supposedly the owners in Minnesota weren't returning calls during much of their negotiations either. Seems to have worked out ok.

Yeah, there's definitely a strategical advantage to be had I suppose. The problem is Kroenke holds all the cards here, but it's all the cards for the worst team in the history of the league. One that fucked the city with the lease to begin with. Fans and city officials are already at their breaking point here. How much is there to be gained by keeping quiet anymore? Unless you're moving, then it doesn't really matter I guess.

 

[Boffo97]

LooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooL

I have a funny feeling that that (Kroenke leaving no matter what the League says) is the way it's going to happen.

What makes you think Jerry Jones of all people would be mistaken about what owners can or can't do?