New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

It doesn't have to excite him as much as it has to meet NFL standards. If the other owners deem it as worthy, hard to vision him getting the rights to move before Spanos and Davis who have been working for years on their stadiums yet to no avail.

not sure how you can say Spanos hasn't been - the big issue for them is that SD doesn't have any public money.

Again, Kroenke is the only owner with a viable deal on the table. So the one city that is ponying up is going to get the shaft while the other two owners are left out in the cold? Call me skeptical.

I don't see Kroenke being told he can move with a stadium on the table and the other two owners' don't after working for 10+ years on it

If it's what's offered now than it's a bad deal and can be rejected. Public money is only 40% for the project

 

[bluecoconuts]

Wearing your fatigues out is not allowed as it is for us because it still has your name on the uniform.

And no it doesn't apply - being asked to leave walking into a restaurant because I was swearing my Rams sweater because of it's potential gang "colors"

After the 4th or 5th time I just said screw it and only went out to BJ's Brewhouse for food/football games right off the 101, and Woodranch for dinner with the ex.

It was easier to just not return to those places - I'll spend my hard earned money else where, especially since the sweater was a gift from the ex-wife (so even though the sweater was awesome, if i didn't like it i would have been obligated to wear it anyway)... come to think of it that was probably the only thing i didn't return lol

I get that, I'm not doubting those experiences happened to you, I'm just wondering if it was because of Rams colors or because of football colors? Did you see people with Chargers or 49ers gear able to walk in freely? Or Packers? Saints? Cowboys?

Rules around military posts are always a bit different, different places often have seemingly silly rules in order to keep the peace.

We couldn't wear fatigues either, but it was more than that, we couldn't wear a platoon shirt, or our PT shirt, or anything. I had friends who were asked to turn their shirt inside out because it had the 3rd Battalion Scroll on it. This wasn't because there were gangs who wore that, but rather because if there's some random drunk asshole looking for a fight, he potentially has someone in plain view he knows he doesn't like.

I don't know about the gang culture in Ventura (which obviously isn't LA County), but I don't really know of any gangs in LA who wear Rams gear. Raiders obviously have been infused with a lot of Gang culture, I wont deny that, it's pretty well documented, but not the Rams.

If anything it was probably more of an anomaly than anything else, it's certainly not the norm, especially in LA County. Again, I've never in my time here seen anyone booted out simply because of their jersey, only for their behavior. I know that there are some places that have banned Raiders gear, but never heard of anyone banning Rams gear.

 

[bluecoconuts]

not sure how you can say Spanos hasn't been - the big issue for them is that SD doesn't have any public money.

SD has public money, Spanos has been very restrictive with his demands, which makes it a lot harder for them to get things moving.

If the San Diego task force approached Spanos with the exact same proposal as the St Louis task force did to Kroenke, he probably already has turned it down, and his lap dog has blasted it to the public.

 

[iced]

If it's what's offered now than it's a bad deal and can be rejected. Public money is only 40% for the project

Kroenke only has to chip in $200-$250 million. $400-$500 in public ($450 is most common number thrown around) with $150 coming from PSL's + g4 loan.

 

[Goose]

If it's what's offered now than it's a bad deal and can be rejected. Public money is only 40% for the project

The NFL isn't going to reject any amount of public money. The reality is that Stan only needs to contribute 250 million. That's it. The 200 million from the G4 program is not money out of Stan's pocket.

 

[The Ripper]

The NFL isn't going to reject any amount of public money. The reality is that Stan only needs to contribute 250 million. That's it. The 200 million from the G4 program is not money out of Stan's pocket.

When the average is 57% and St Louis's offer 40%, PSL's and G4 are not part of the public money. Just go look at the Chargers they have demanded more so if they can say no they how come the Rams have too accept it. The other question is who covers the shortfalls.

 

[Hacksaw]

SD doesn't go now, but could later in Inglewood.
Same with Davis. Keeps the leverage alive and no funds required by NFL at this point.

A viable deal in StL if everyone involved agrees that coming up with half (if) is enough.

F'n with the divisions would be bad. That would happen with Charaiders.

Spanos / Davis have tried with little results. How stubborn have they been in the negotiations is unknown but suspected. Now that Chargers/CSD had their 'secret' meeting where reports say they gained traction for the Mission Valley site (Spanos wanted downtown), in a year or so things could still happen in SD or go Inglewood.
Seems to me the stadium issues are more about striking a deal and losing the leverage or SD's presumed market share they believe they inherited when the Rams left.

Raiders just invested some jack in Oakland and everything that comes out of his mouth says he wants to stay in Oakland (like SD) but would be crazy not to take Spanos up on a free ride to LA. Still Oakland fans aren't demanding a new stadium. Neither is Davis.

It's been stated that the NFL wants fix the LA problem. Have they said they want to fix the Oakland stadium problem? Or any stadium problem? I'm not sure.

The NFL isn't going to reject any amount of public money. The reality is that Stan only needs to contribute 250 million. That's it. The 200 million from the G4 program is not money out of Stan's pocket.

Yet.

 

[iced]

I get that, I'm not doubting those experiences happened to you, I'm just wondering if it was because of Rams colors or because of football colors? Did you see people with Chargers or 49ers gear able to walk in freely? Or Packers? Saints? Cowboys?

Rules around military posts are always a bit different, different places often have seemingly silly rules in order to keep the peace.

We couldn't wear fatigues either, but it was more than that, we couldn't wear a platoon shirt, or our PT shirt, or anything. I had friends who were asked to turn their shirt inside out because it had the 3rd Battalion Scroll on it. This wasn't because there were gangs who wore that, but rather because if there's some random drunk arsehole looking for a fight, he potentially has someone in plain view he knows he doesn't like.

I don't know about the gang culture in Ventura (which obviously isn't LA County), but I don't really know of any gangs in LA who wear Rams gear. Raiders obviously have been infused with a lot of Gang culture, I wont deny that, it's pretty well documented, but not the Rams.

If anything it was probably more of an anomaly than anything else, it's certainly not the norm, especially in LA County. Again, I've never in my time here seen anyone booted out simply because of their jersey, only for their behavior. I know that there are some places that have banned Raiders gear, but never heard of anyone banning Rams gear.

It was because of Rams, Raiders, and another team's colors (I can't remember which team right now).. And yea I saw other teams jerseys for sure, and every time I was personally told or someone in my group it was because of "gang colors". Most common colors I saw that were okay were Cowboys, Packers, and I think Saints.

The Air force, including their officers, were allowed to fatigues off base as well as Army and Marines. In the Seabees (Navy), we were not unless it was for a necessary reason (like gas station, food/lunch,etc.) They started relaxing a bit more on it when i was getting out in 2011 but they were still kinda anal about it.

The perception of the gang culture I had of ventura, particularly near the base i was at was pretty rough initially. There are 3 bases in ventura: Port Hueneme (mine), Point Mugu Air station, Nicolas island). I remember once or twice hearing gun shots off in the distance late at night from the base - apparently the beach area near the base wasn't the greatest place at night. Don't recall it being that bad for too long though... As far as the colors go - I don't know if it was actual gang colors or just an assumption, but multiple places asked me to take it off or outright leave.

I'm trying to remember what places gave me crap about it - I wanna say Cheesecake factory was one of them. It was mostly restaurants that banned that type of thing.

The first time it had happened to me I literally had just walked through the door, was told those colors weren't allowed due to gang relations and I was asked to leave immediately. I just laughed and went somewhere else... Another time I was asked to leave, once to take off my sweater and put it in the car, a couple times they let me put it on ground/in the booth/etc.

I got sick of that crap so quickly. I switched apartment complexes after 1 year so I could get direct TV and wear my gear at home while watching the game.... and then I got the kegerator for my birthday present from the ex..right before the 2009 season... Great timing lol :cheers::cheers:

 

[iced]

When the average is 57% and St Louis's offer 40%, PSL's and G4 are not part of the public money. Just go look at the Chargers they have demanded more so if they can say no they how come the Rams have too accept it. The other question is who covers the shortfalls.

how are PSL's not part of the public? They Come from The Public paying for it! lol

The PSL's are probably considered public since: A) it doesn't come from the NFL or owner, b) It comes from the citizens

St.Louis would be putting up $550 to $650 in money - which is 55% to 65%... for sake of argument, the most consistent bonds number has been $450 million.. with PSLs, thats $600 from the public, or 61% of the 985 million stadium.

 

[beej]

When the average is 57% and St Louis's offer 40%, PSL's and G4 are not part of the public money. Just go look at the Chargers they have demanded more so if they can say no they how come the Rams have too accept it. The other question is who covers the shortfalls.

OK so maybe he wouldn't have to accept, but he could at least call back with a counter-offer

 

[ChrisW]

how are PSL's not part of the public? They Come from The Public paying for it! lol

The PSL's are probably considered public since: A) it doesn't come from the NFL or owner, b) It comes from the citizens

St.Louis would be putting up $550 to $650 in money - which is 55% to 65%... for sake of argument, the most consistent bonds number has been $450 million.. with PSLs, thats $600 from the public, or 61% of the 985 million stadium.

Also, the city is to be listed owner of the stadium. Maybe that's why they are claiming PSL's for their part.

 

[The Ripper]

how are PSL's not part of the public? They Come from The Public paying for it! lol

The PSL's are probably considered public since: A) it doesn't come from the NFL or owner, b) It comes from the citizens

St.Louis would be putting up $550 to $650 in money - which is 55% to 65%... for sake of argument, the most consistent bonds number has been $450 million.. with PSLs, thats $600 from the public, or 61% of the 985 million stadium.

Go watch the Grubman press conference in San Diego PSL's are revenues of the owner. Their ticket sales and as such are revenues of the team. Public money is from local and state governments. Peacock said in front of the house committee that the public money is only 40% and a lot less than what other cities have had to pay.

 

[RamFan503]

Wearing your fatigues out is not allowed as it is for us because it still has your name on the uniform.

And no it doesn't apply - being asked to leave walking into a restaurant because I was swearing my Rams sweater because of it's potential gang "colors"

After the 4th or 5th time I just said screw it and only went out to BJ's Brewhouse for food/football games right off the 101, and Woodranch for dinner with the ex.

It was easier to just not return to those places - I'll spend my hard earned money else where, especially since the sweater was a gift from the ex-wife (so even though the sweater was awesome, if i didn't like it i would have been obligated to wear it anyway)... come to think of it that was probably the only thing i didn't return lol

OK - obviously there are going to be places that have policies about what you can wear. I'm going to guess that if you showed up in pretty much any team gear it is going to be the same story. I can't imagine a Ray Lewis jersey is going to be ok when a Rams jersey is not. But even in LA - I don't recall any instance when I couldn't wear my jerseys or Rams gear into an establishment.

 

[iced]

Go watch the Grubman press conference in San Diego PSL's are revenues of the owner. Their ticket sales and as such are revenues of the team. Public money is from local and state governments. Peacock said in front of the house committee that the public money is only 40% and a lot less than what other cities have had to pay.

Yet The Vikings are pledging $525 million to their new stadium, which costs just over $1b. they're covering just over 50%.
Public funding? $498 million.

http://finance-commerce.com/2014/08/vikings-stadium-project-goes-past-1b-mark/

The authority said at its board meeting Friday that the Vikings are contributing an additional $48.65 million, beyond the team’s initial commitment of $477 million, bringing the total team contribution to $525.65 million.

Public funding sources for the project remain at $498 million.

The new Falcons stadium is $1.4 Billion - the public investment? $200 million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...stadiums-cost-could-rise-to-1-4.html?page=all

The public investment in the new stadium construction remains limited to $200 million from the sale of bonds by Invest Atlanta that are funded by a hotel-motel tax.

I'd say the Rams are right in the area where they need to be.

 

[Dodgersrf]

how are PSL's not part of the public? They Come from The Public paying for it! lol

The PSL's are probably considered public since: A) it doesn't come from the NFL or owner, b) It comes from the citizens

St.Louis would be putting up $550 to $650 in money - which is 55% to 65%... for sake of argument, the most consistent bonds number has been $450 million.. with PSLs, thats $600 from the public, or 61% of the 985 million stadium.

I believe it's private due to the fact that it comes from individuals, not governments from tax revanue.

 

[iced]

I believe it's private due to the fact that it comes from individuals, not governments from tax revanue.

ah okay

the way i see it - money that's somehow coming from the city, and not the nfl/owner's pockets

 

[Dodgersrf]

ah okay

the way i see it - money that's somehow coming from the city, and not the nfl/owner's pockets

I would say niether. When I hear City, I think of tax payer money, not an individual.
As usual. I may be wrong.

 

[RamFan503]

ah okay

the way i see it - money that's somehow coming from the city, and not the nfl/owner's pockets

So if you had a street corner property and someone wanted put a down payment on it to reserve it for say, a Christmas tree lot, that would be public money?

 

[iced]

I would say niether. When I hear City, I think of tax payer money, not an individual.
As usual. I may be wrong.

So if you had a street corner property and someone wanted put a down payment on it to reserve it for say, a Christmas tree lot, that would be public money?

lol i meant as it was applying to this discussion since we're talking about how much owners vs cities should contribute

 

[Dodgersrf]

lol i meant as it was applying to this discussion since we're talking about how much owners vs cities should contribute

Got it.