New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
It will be very convenient for the Raiders to practice in Oakland and play in LA?

Well clearly I am not saying that but I also don't think one has to do with the other. People are trying to make connections between every action, I'm saying you in particular, but not everything is related to one thing or another. Just like the picture of the work being done downtown around the potential stadium site. I don't think there is a direct correlation between the current work being done and the stadium. If anything it probably has more to do with the Arch grounds project. They also indicated it would cost between 10-40 million and my guess that it is a phase project. The initial phase would be closer to 10 million and if they stay it can be expanded. I remember when Ballpark Village was going to be a massive development but in the end was scaled way down from the original plan.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
That is it in a nutshell. All the teams involved in this stadium game want to stay put with the Rams presumably being the exception. ESK really toppled the apple cart.

Your mock conversation paints a good picture.
Although I don't think the FANS of Oakland feel any different than those of you in StL.

Oh, I doubt they're happy either. But at least the fans of the Rams can say we tried. They can't say that there. I don't know how the government works out there, but if it's just Oakland holding it up, they've no one to blame but themselves. Obviously, if the state's involved there's probably more to then we see here.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Well clearly I am not saying that but I also don't think one has to do with the other. People are trying to make connections between every action, I'm saying you in particular, but not everything is related to one thing or another. Just like the picture of the work being done downtown around the potential stadium site. I don't think there is a direct correlation between the current work being done and the stadium. If anything it probably has more to do with the Arch grounds project. They also indicated it would cost between 10-40 million and my guess that it is a phase project. The initial phase would be closer to 10 million and if they stay it can be expanded. I remember when Ballpark Village was going to be a massive development but in the end was scaled way down from the original plan.

Goose. It was supposed to be a tongue in cheek joke. The cheek part pointing at a possible clue in our seemslikeitwillneverend saga.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Oh, I doubt they're happy either. But at least the fans of the Rams can say we tried. They can't say that there. I don't know how the government works out there, but if it's just Oakland holding it up, they've no one to blame but themselves. Obviously, if the state's involved there's probably more to then we see here.
California is to big for the State to show as much interest in one of it's 3 NFL teams. The STL (Peacock) task force is who is championing your local cause with under the direction of the state governor. Oakland doesn't have that benefit.
Isn't it true that if the city of StL and the sports authority there were left to handle things, similar to Oakland's situation, would there really be that big a difference.
But to your point about effort, you can definitely rest on Peacocks laurels if this thing did go south, , , errr , west.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
California is to big for the State to show as much interest in one of it's 3 NFL teams. The STL (Peacock) task force is who is championing your local cause with under the direction of the state governor. Oakland doesn't have that benefit.
Isn't it true that if the city of StL and the sports authority there were left to handle things, similar to Oakland's situation, would there really be that big a difference.
But to your point about effort, you can definitely rest on Peacocks laurels if this thing did go south, , , errr , west.


To be honest I don't know. Our cities market is based on its myriad suburbs and municipalities. We might be able to get it done 5 years from now without state power. The difference as I see it (from way over here on one side of course) is that there is no lack of want to in STL, but a lack of how to. Oakland just seems at best divided and unorganized and at worse disinterested.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
He's claimed willingness to go 500 mil before. The NFL would have to almost totally waive the fee.

Or they could stick it to Kroenke like you said. He's the reason four towns are in this mess so he should take it in the shorts insuring this town has a football team.



Grumble.

The relocation fee can be as high as $500 million..Even if it's not $500 and say half that, that's still only part of the cost of moving...plus a team moving here isn't eligible for the G4 loan so they'd need $400-$450 from the owner for the stadium itself (Peacock's plan called for $200-$250 from the owner and $200-$250 from G4)...

And this doesn't even include the other costs that are associated with the actual move of the team...

Davis's options are pretty much Carson or Oakland
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
If the Rams had shown this much to STL the construction would have already started.

Raiders: "We love it here. We need a new stadium, but we'll certainly help build it. Preferably, a modest reasonable stadium, no need to crimp the taxpayers. And we want to put more construction money into the practice facility."

Oakland: "That's outrageous."

Compared to....

STL: "We love you we want you to stay. I know we've been slow but we are ready to get this done and keep supporting you thru good times and bad."

Stan: "That's outrageous."
Sorry man but I gotta disagree. Spanos has been somewhat doing that for a decade and a half. As much as I'd like to agree, I really do believe without the pressure tactic that Stan put down, there would be no headway at this point. I still think Stan saw the writing on the wall with how the city and CVC were reacting and decided he wasn't going to wait around pleading.

Just wondering, how many other teams ended up having the Governor step in and form a task force because the city wasn't getting things done? Maybe others but I don't recall hearing about them.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
upload_2015-5-8_10-1-30.png

:ROFLMAO:
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
The relocation fee can be as high as $500 million..Even if it's not $500 and say half that, that's still only part of the cost of moving...plus a team moving here isn't eligible for the G4 loan so they'd need $400-$450 from the owner for the stadium itself (Peacock's plan called for $200-$250 from the owner and $200-$250 from G4)...

And this doesn't even include the other costs that are associated with the actual move of the team...

Davis's options are pretty much Carson or Oakland

Relocation fee would be nowhere near what it is for LA and Grubman said G4 would be available for LA so it would be the same way in St Louis. If the NFL pushed the Raiders to St Louis there would be incentives offered to do it.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Relocation fee would be nowhere near what it is for LA and Grubman said G4 would be available for LA so it would be the same way in St Louis. If the NFL pushed the Raiders to St Louis there would be incentives offered to do it.
I don't recall Grubman or anyone else from the NFL saying that G4 monies could be used for LA. Do you have a link to the story? I know several reporters have somehow made that link but I don't know that the NFL itself actually did.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The relocation fee can be as high as $500 million..Even if it's not $500 and say half that, that's still only part of the cost of moving...plus a team moving here isn't eligible for the G4 loan so they'd need $400-$450 from the owner for the stadium itself (Peacock's plan called for $200-$250 from the owner and $200-$250 from G4)...

And this doesn't even include the other costs that are associated with the actual move of the team...

Davis's options are pretty much Carson or Oakland

That's part of the problem, if the owners wont budge on the G4 loan for relocation, then Carson is off the table too, as it requires BOTH teams getting that loan.

Which means only Inglewood is left, and that basically means Stan has a free path to LA.

The only loophole I can see to get around that is the NFL diverting most of the relocation fees to Davis to pay for a move, but that seems rather unlikely.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
There's an article on ESPNFC with is their soccer website about the next round of MLS expansion and which cities are in the running. STL made the list with the new stadium. Doesn't seem to be any new info, but it shows the stadium from the MLS angle.

http://www.espnfc.com/major-league-soccer/19/blog/post/2438275/examining-the-candidates-for-the-next-round-of-mls-expansion

I've cut out the other cities, click the link for the full story.


Businessman Dave Peacock has a lot on his plate these days. His primary task is to keep the NFL's St. Louis Rams in St. Louis. That's no easy feat with Rams owner Stan Kroenke threatening to move the team to Southern California and play in a stadium he plans to build in Inglewood, just 10 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

So Peacock, along with the appropriately named Bob Blitz, has been spending his time trying to put together a plan to build a new downtown stadium on St. Louis' riverfront. Part of the sales pitch is to have it house an MLS team in addition to the Rams.

If that sounds like the MLS team is taking a back seat to the Rams, well, it is, although Peacock is of the belief that an MLS expansion side in St. Louis makes sense regardless of what happens with the city's NFL team.

"I think we're first and foremost Rams," Peacock told ESPN FC via telephone. "We want to retain the team. The project that's enabling us to keep the [Rams] creates an opportunity for MLS. I think if something were to fall through -- and I can't imagine that happening -- I think the region could still support an MLS team."

St. Louis has long been one of the nation's soccer hotbeds. It has provided a pipeline of U.S. internationals, a list that includes Frank Borghi, Harry Keough, Taylor Twellman, Steve Ralston and Tim Ream. In terms of market size, St. Louis ranks 21st according to A.C. Nielsen, ahead of MLS cities such as Portland, Kansas City and Salt Lake City. A new USL side, St. Louis FC, has just come online, and drew more than 5,000 fans to each of its first two games.

An NFL-sized stadium, while not ideal, would certainly bring an MLS expansion team closer to reality. Peacock said the initial design of the venue would allow for a downsized configuration that would seat 25,000 fans. The fact that it would also be downtown would no doubt please MLS.

"I think frankly it's hard to sell an NFL stadium for soccer, but I think the way it's being designed could really work for soccer," Peacock said. "I think the crowds we would have in St. Louis would surprise people in numbers. It's at a price point and there's a passion for the support. That combination along with what I would think would likely be good local ownership, managing the team profitably, I think you would have the right combination for a successful franchise here."

The ownership group remains the big unknown. Peacock's relationship with MLS goes back a ways to when he was an executive at Anheuser-Busch, and the company was a charter sponsor of the league. Peacock worked with MLS commissioner Don Garber as far back as 2007, and discussed bringing MLS to St. Louis.

When asked if he would be part of the ownership group, Peacock said, "Maybe." He confirmed that he had met with MLS leaders back in December, and a source told ESPN FC that Garber and MLS will visit with Peacock at the end of this month.

"What we're trying to do is organize a meeting with local leaders -- and that can be business and civic leaders -- with Don and the league to get to know each other," Peacock said. "There's a lot of people here, who because of where we're located don't have as much awareness of [MLS]. Sporting Kansas City has helped, but I think you've got to first have the dialogue."

i

An MLS franchise would be ideal co-tenants for this new stadium in St. Louis should the Rams stay.
For now, Peacock remains focused on the stadium project, and is confident of succeeding. He said his group has obtained options for more than 60 percent of the required land. Funding remains a work in progress.

St. Louis County declined to provide any dollars, and the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority recently filed a lawsuit against the city of St. Louis in an effort to have the city contribute public funds without having to obtain voter approval. The thinking is that time is of the essence, given Kroenke's maneuverings and there's no time for a long election process. Peacock is of the belief that the city and state will kick in the needed funds. He also expects the stadium to be completed around 2019.

All of this assumes that Kroenke -- not to mention other NFL owners who would have to approve any potential move -- agrees to keep the team in St. Louis. In the meantime, discussions with MLS will continue.

"We have some time," Peacock said. "We don't want to act like [an expansion team] is a burning bridge, but at the same time we want to get the dialogue going now because it's a great opportunity and something really additive to our region."
 
Last edited:

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
WOW! I just noticed, 300 pages and counting... I this the longest thread in ROD history?

What's the over / under number for the amount of posts in this thread before the vote or a definitive answer?
I'll go with 579.

GO RAMS
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
That's part of the problem, if the owners wont budge on the G4 loan for relocation, then Carson is off the table too, as it requires BOTH teams getting that loan.

Which means only Inglewood is left, and that basically means Stan has a free path to LA.

The only loophole I can see to get around that is the NFL diverting most of the relocation fees to Davis to pay for a move, but that seems rather unlikely.

I don't think you can just assume that what works with Carson will work for St.Louis. Two completely different situations.. And even then while we've heard rumors about the G4 Loan for Carson, the only source was someone in the Chargers organization. you know anything more about this?And as it stands only Kroenke meets the criteria for the G4 loan right now

regardless - Davis can't afford it, which has been my point all along. Raiders in STL isn't realistic at all imo.
 
Last edited:

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,464
Name
Wes
I don't think you can just assume that what works will Carson will work for St.Louis. Two completely different situations.

Irregardless - Davis can't afford it, which has been my point all along. Raiders in STL isn't realistic at all imo
:mad:
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Final cleanup approved at Carson site where Chargers, Raiders want stadium

Final cleanup of the old landfill site in Carson where the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders want to build a stadium should be funded by August.

The Carson City Council on Tuesday night approved the sale of $50.5 million in bonds to finish stalled environmental work on the former Cal Compact landfill, along the 405 freeway. They also approved a deal for a city authority to take possession of the site after a Chargers subsidiary buys it from real estate firm Starwood Capital, which had planned a shopping center there. That deal, which in escrow, has been delayed by paperwork but is set to close soon, according to a Chargers attorney.

The city had been obligated to fund the cleanup under a deal with a prior owner of the site. Under this agreement, a city authority will own the site and can sell it to another developer if the stadium falls through. The work, which can’t begin until there’s a development plan for the site, should take about 18 months to complete, state environmental officials have said.

Before anything can be built on Carson's toxic waste dump, the city has to come up with the funding to pay for the clean up, then it is estimated that it will take 18 months to clean it up. In the meantime Stan Kroenke will start building his stadium in Inglewood by the end of the year.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html
 

Legatron4

Legend
Joined
Aug 10, 2013
Messages
9,464
Name
Wes
What, you don't like double negatives? I bet you aren't a fan of a dangling participial either. LOL

BTW Zuerlein's head on your robot is classic.
Haha, thanks. With the power of Google you can achieve anything lol
 
Status
Not open for further replies.