New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[beej]

the stadium got bigger

 

[The Ripper]

"we think this is an NFL issue.” Interesting quote except it doesn't say the NFL thinks the same thing.

 

[The Ripper]

says a lot...Guess Stan may really want to bolt to LA

add in the cross ownership issues, and the plot thickens

Not sure why cross ownership is even brought up anymore. It's unenforceable as long as different rules apply to MLS and the "other major leagues". It's not just ownership but control of a team and the potential conflicts.

 

[dieterbrock]

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

Yikes

 

[RAGRam]

Peacock said he thinks NFL owners will vote on whether to allow a team to move to Los Angeles in December.

Just get it over with already, I don't think I can survive 7 more months of this shit .

 

[dieterbrock]

"we think this is an NFL issue.” Interesting quote except it doesn't say the NFL thinks the same thing.

Well for all intents and purposes, Kroenke is 1/32 OF the NFL, whereas Peacock and group arent....

 

[bluecoconuts]

They explored San antonio - but I don't see them having the financial means to do it, even if the league broke protocol and gave them the g4 loan (which i don't see happening)

Maybe not, but its not as if Davis is poor. I can see him having problems coming up with a billion dollars, but he should be able to get half of that.

Not in my opinion because SF still has the bay area - if oakland leaves they still keep market in a sense. And 2 Teams in LA would bring in more revenue than one team while maintaining the market in St.Louis

Size of the market doesn't matter - Green bay has already proven that.

I don't think you can really compare Green Bay to other small markets, there's a lot of different factors that go into that, including history and being the only show in town.

That being said, I'm not in the opinion that keeping Oakland over St Louis is good either, but without knowing everything, the NFL could determine that its an acceptable loss if they feel Inglewood is better. Ultimately I believe the first thing they do is select the stadium they feel is best for them, and then go from there. If they feel Inglewood is better, I don't believe they will turn it down because they want to leave Oakland and not St Louis.

Hard to imagine turning down the Riverfront would be in Good faith, especially if the other owners believe it meets NFL standards.

Good faith doesn't mean you have to accept whatever proposal even if its not what you want. Even if Grubman says good faith is necessary, it doesn't mean that's going to be the big debate. First, he has to say that, its his job. Second the NFL can simply say they believe Stan did work in good faith. Sure people in St Louis may not agree, but that's not their concern ultimately.

As to your Spanos - Kroenke partnership theory

That wasn't just a wild theory, that was from the Fabiani himself. When asked in an interview if it was possible that Carson was a bluff and Spanos will go with Kroenke to Inglewood he said yes it was a possibility. So I'm going to file that under its a possibility.

And as much time as the Rams gave the CVC pales in Comparison to how much time the Chargers and Raiders have given their cities

The other cities don't have the same lease, you can't really compare them, and I think its foolish to expect the NFL to do the same.

In the end the NFL has said one of the biggest things they want is to make sure LA is done right. While Kroenke was a bit bullish initially it seems he's playing ball now. If the NFL doesn't think the Raiders can get Oakland to work, why put them in LA? If they're so concerned about making sure LA is done right with long term stability, then Inglewood appears to check those boxes.

How it shakes out, no clue, but I'm still under the impression the best plan wins, and right now Inglewood has the lead.

 

[beej]

Well for all intents and purposes, Kroenke is 1/32 OF the NFL, whereas Peacock and group arent....

....yet!

 

[bluecoconuts]

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

Yikes

I hate when they say that kind of stuff, seems like a bit of a middle finger to Stan, and that doesn't seem smart.

 

[dieterbrock]

I hate when they say that kind of stuff, seems like a bit of a middle finger to Stan, and that doesn't seem smart.

I just havent had the feeling that the opinion of Stan desiring LA was out there like that. Sure there's been tons of speculation, but to come right out and say it, just wow.
I agree, daring the man who owns the team and has the financial resources to move them isnt exactly the brightest move

 

[tonyl711]

Okay. You're right. I imagine you have Stan's limo bugged. Lol.

Anyway.. I'll go with the pros on this one. There's consensus he wants to move, the question remains as to whether he actually will.

why go with these so called "pro's"? do they have Stans limo bugged?

 

[tonyl711]

Well... If you don't believe the people covering the team... I got nothing.

Btw...
Sam Farmer wrote, of Stan;
"his intentions seem clear.."
On March 21.

by the way Stan has been quoted as saying he worked to get the Rams in St Louis and he will step up again for St Louis, im sure Bernie thought his intentions were clear too. guess what, Stan isnt telling any reporters his intentions, its all a guessing game.

 

[ChrisW]

I hate when they say that kind of stuff, seems like a bit of a middle finger to Stan, and that doesn't seem smart.

It could just be a shot at him for being distant for so long. Remember, that Peacock said the only meeting he had with Stan himself was a chance meeting a super bowl party. This was before the pitch at the NFL offices.

He's essentially saying, "F U, Stan. We are working with the team and with the NFL to keep the Rams here. You can do what you want in LA as long as the Rams remain in St. Louis. And I'm going to make sure that happens."

 

[iced]

Maybe not, but its not as if Davis is poor. I can see him having problems coming up with a billion dollars, but he should be able to get half of that.

I doubt he can even come up with $500 million. Hell he only offered $300 million of his share + the G4 loan from the NFL for a $800 million stadium...

Cost of moving + relocation fee's + $450 million (No G4) = no way.

I don't think you can really compare Green Bay to other small markets, there's a lot of different factors that go into that, including history and being the only show in town.

Just like you can't really say that a small market won't generate big revenue...

Everyone knows Winning = dollars.. Wonder where St.Louis ranked in revenue from 1999 to 2004...

That being said, I'm not in the opinion that keeping Oakland over St Louis is good either, but without knowing everything, the NFL could determine that its an acceptable loss if they feel Inglewood is better. Ultimately I believe the first thing they do is select the stadium they feel is best for them, and then go from there. If they feel Inglewood is better, I don't believe they will turn it down because they want to leave Oakland and not St Louis.

I don't see why they'd cut so many breaks and make things complicated by moving the rams, moving the raiders, interchanging the divisions...when all they have to do is keep it simple allow the raiders and chargers to move, and stan gets his new stadium..

Good faith doesn't mean you have to accept whatever proposal even if its not what you want. Even if Grubman says good faith is necessary, it doesn't mean that's going to be the big debate. First, he has to say that, its his job. Second the NFL can simply say they believe Stan did work in good faith. Sure people in St Louis may not agree, but that's not their concern ultimately.

I so hate that statement because its such bull crap. No, he doesn't have to say that. He doesn't have to say anything.

I guess we'll have to disagree here - if you're pushing for a stadium and a city that offers you one that meets or exceeds NFL standards, hard to call that good faith...especially when you're the only owner getting that deal.

That wasn't just a wild theory, that was from the Fabiani himself. When asked in an interview if it was possible that Carson was a bluff and Spanos will go with Kroenke to Inglewood he said yes it was a possibility. So I'm going to file that under its a possibility.

I never said it was impossible, I said it wasn't likely.

"This would require Kroenke and Spanos to reach agreement to share a stadium something they have not shown a willingness to do.

my quote:
Remember reading on here before about theories and revenue splits being an issue...but whatever the reason is, that pairing does not appear likely.

The other cities don't have the same lease, you can't really compare them, and I think its foolish to expect the NFL to do the same.

Oh please - they've been wanting stadiums but have refused to use Public money for years... For more than a decade. And they acted just like the CVC - I never compared their leases, I compared their actions. They never made any sincere offers because they never thought they would move, just like the CVC.

In the end the NFL has said one of the biggest things they want is to make sure LA is done right. While Kroenke was a bit bullish initially it seems he's playing ball now. If the NFL doesn't think the Raiders can get Oakland to work, why put them in LA? If they're so concerned about making sure LA is done right with long term stability, then Inglewood appears to check those boxes.

How it shakes out, no clue, but I'm still under the impression the best plan wins, and right now Inglewood has the lead.

I'm not sure how Rams in LA offers more stability than the Chargers and Raiders... I would image two teams offers more stability than one.

I don't think its about the best plan - I think it's about the most money, which is being in the most markets. 2 teams in LA is more revenue than one team, plus St.Louis Market, and SF still has the bay area while the Chargers draw SD faithful...

 

[Hacksaw]

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

Yikes

Those is all Peacocks words and aspirations. Not the NFL's.
He knows that it's unlikely all his effort will mean squat if the Rams leave town and this dude is out to win. But to challenge the owner,, even going as far as to say 'see ya just leave your team here' pushed it IMO. .. I believe his frustration about something is showing.
The last line doesn't make sense unless he's threatening Stan that he's working with the league to make his previous sentence happen..
Unless Kroenke is in discussions, this type of public talk will backfire.

 

[Hacksaw]

He's essentially saying, "F U, Stan. We are working with the team and with the NFL to keep the Rams here. You can do what you want in LA as long as the Rams remain in St. Louis. And I'm going to make sure that happens."

Exactly !

 

[blue4]

I hate when they say that kind of stuff, seems like a bit of a middle finger to Stan, and that doesn't seem smart.

Why? It's been (IMO) obvious that he wants to move. Even at the beginning I knew that, I just thought the bylaws fight would make it a fight not worth fighting. We've said from the first that ST Louis is a NFL city, everyone from the Gov to Peacock. We've said we what to be an NFL city, and Peacock has mentioned different ownership of the Rams before. What difference does it make now to kiss Stan's ass, except to give him more satisfaction? The man really wants to leave. Compared to the "coincidental" TC preseason in SoCal, Peacock's statement here isn't even close to being confrontational. I for one am glad that we seem to be aware of how the situation lies and are starting to talk publicly about options that do not include Stan Kroenke.

 

[Young Ram]

I think we can now stop with the 'nobody knows what Kronke wants to do'. Its plainly obvious he wants LA.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It could just be a shot at him for being distant for so long. Remember, that Peacock said the only meeting he had with Stan himself was a chance meeting a super bowl party. This was before the pitch at the NFL offices.

He's essentially saying, "F U, Stan. We are working with the team and with the NFL to keep the Rams here. You can do what you want in LA as long as the Rams remain in St. Louis. And I'm going to make sure that happens."

I'd rather him be quiet than take a page out of Spanos' book and trash everything the task force does. He's playing nice now, for the most part, I don't like giving him reasons to stop.

I doubt he can even come up with $500 million. Hell he only offered $300 million of his share + the G4 loan from the NFL for a $800 million stadium...

Cost of moving + relocation fee's + $450 million (No G4) = no way.

Just because that's what he offered, that's not what he had, he may be more willing to do spend more in another place. I just don't see him be able to come up with close to a billion in LA, then that same cost of moving and a much higher relocation fee.

Just like you can't really say that a small market won't generate big revenue...

Everyone knows Winning = dollars.. Wonder where St.Louis ranked in revenue from 1999 to 2004..

I don't know, but it goes to show you can't expect a team to be a winner every year. So how do you get fan support when the team isn't good? How do you get fans to go to a game instead of sitting at home and watching from the comfort of their couch? Offer the complete package.

I don't see why they'd cut so many breaks and make things complicated by moving the rams, moving the raiders, interchanging the divisions...when all they have to do is keep it simple allow the raiders and chargers to move, and stan gets his new stadium..

If the Rams move, they don't need to do anything with division realignment, that only happens if the Raiders and Chargers share LA.

I so hate that statement because its such bull crap. No, he doesn't have to say that. He doesn't have to say anything.

I guess we'll have to disagree here - if you're pushing for a stadium and a city that offers you one that meets or exceeds NFL standards, hard to call that good faith...especially when you're the only owner getting that deal.

Because if that's not the deal he wants its not what he wants. San Diego is offering deals to the Chargers, but Spanos is saying not to even bother because its not downtown, meaning its not what he wants. So why is that good faith but Kroenke not? Because its been longer? So all the times Spanos has told San Diego to try again is okay, but if Kroenke says no he HAS to accept the deal? I don't see it.

And Grubman saying that the bylaws are important is his job. He can't come out and say "Well the owners will pick what they want, and the efforts of the city won't be a huge factor."... Because that doesn't send a good message. Its easier to spin their vote as it works with the bylaws if you maintain they mean something, even if ultimately they don't.

I never said it was impossible, I said it wasn't likely.

I dunno, when the pointman of one project is saying they may latch on to another project, I think it means something. That doesn't mean that definitely happens, but he could have said they weren't exploring that option at the time.

I'm not sure how Rams in LA offers more stability than the Chargers and Raiders... I would image two teams offers more stability than one.

I don't think its about the best plan - I think it's about the most money, which is being in the most markets. 2 teams in LA is more revenue than one team, plus St.Louis Market, and SF still has the bay area while the Chargers draw SD faithful...

Going from zero to two teams has left some expressing doubt's. Going from zero to one to two might be better.

But either way, Inglewood isn't going to ONLY house the Rams unless Oakland and San Diego figure things out and keep their teams, which then it doesn't matter. Inglewood has the ability to house two teams, so if the Chargers can't fix things in San Diego they can go there. Ultimately they give up a large majority of his fanbase in San Diego, who won't want to root for an LA team on principal.

Why? It's been (IMO) obvious that he wants to move. Even at the beginning I knew that, I just thought the bylaws fight would make it a fight not worth fighting. We've said from the first that ST Louis is a NFL city, everyone from the Gov to Peacock. We've said we what to be an NFL city, and Peacock has mentioned different ownership of the Rams before. What difference does it make now to kiss Stan's ass, except to give him more satisfaction? The man really wants to leave. Compared to the "coincidental" TC preseason in SoCal, Peacock's statement here isn't even close to being confrontational. I for one am glad that we seem to be aware of how the situation lies and are starting to talk publicly about options that do not include Stan Kroenke.

I'm more talking about the "Kroenke won't own the Rams." notion.. If Kroenke isn't looking to sell that's kind of a "screw you, we're gonna try to take your team." Which might bring him to the conclusion of "I'll hit yoi with a smear campaign to cripple your chances and let me leave."

Or he's thinking about selling or trading and he's pissed they're talking about it.

I just don't think it's smart to say stuff that might piss him off, because he doesn't have the ability to make it a lot harder.

 

[blue4]

I'd rather him be quiet than take a page out of Spanos' book and trash everything the task force does. He's playing nice now, for the most part, I don't like giving him reasons to stop.



Just because that's what he offered, that's not what he had, he may be more willing to do spend more in another place. I just don't see him be able to come up with close to a billion in LA, then that same cost of moving and a much higher relocation fee.



I don't know, but it goes to show you can't expect a team to be a winner every year. So how do you get fan support when the team isn't good? How do you get fans to go to a game instead of sitting at home and watching from the comfort of their couch? Offer the complete package.



If the Rams move, they don't need to do anything with division realignment, that only happens if the Raiders and Chargers share LA.



Because if that's not the deal he wants its not what he wants. San Diego is offering deals to the Chargers, but Spanos is saying not to even bother because its not downtown, meaning its not what he wants. So why is that good faith but Kroenke not? Because its been longer? So all the times Spanos has told San Diego to try again is okay, but if Kroenke says no he HAS to accept the deal? I don't see it.

And Grubman saying that the bylaws are important is his job. He can't come out and say "Well the owners will pick what they want, and the efforts of the city won't be a huge factor."... Because that doesn't send a good message. Its easier to spin their vote as it works with the bylaws if you maintain they mean something, even if ultimately they don't.



I dunno, when the pointman of one project is saying they may latch on to another project, I think it means something. That doesn't mean that definitely happens, but he could have said they weren't exploring that option at the time.



Going from zero to two teams has left some expressing doubt's. Going from zero to one to two might be better.

But either way, Inglewood isn't going to ONLY house the Rams unless Oakland and San Diego figure things out and keep their teams, which then it doesn't matter. Inglewood has the ability to house two teams, so if the Chargers can't fix things in San Diego they can go there. Ultimately they give up a large majority of his fanbase in San Diego, who won't want to root for an LA team on principal.



I'm more talking about the "Kroenke won't own the Rams." notion.. If Kroenke isn't looking to sell that's kind of a "screw you, we're gonna try to take your team." Which might bring him to the conclusion of "I'll hit yoi with a smear campaign to cripple your chances and let me leave."

Or he's thinking about selling or trading and he's pissed they're talking about it.

I just don't think it's smart to say stuff that might pee pee him off, because he doesn't have the ability to make it a lot harder.

Well, we certainly know what screw you I'm taking the team feels like.

End of the day it doesn't matter. If Stan stays it will be because he is forced to.