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.

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
One team in LA keeps the leverage for SD to get something done. This just in...

Vincent Bonsignore‏@DailyNewsVinny 1:25 PM - 16 May 2015
Details still to come obviously, but I'm hearing announcement for San Diego stadium plan for #Chargers is coming on Monday.

What's your take regarding Toronto - NFL - Argonauts?
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I'd be shocked if the Chargers agree to the proposal unless San Diego really just bent over to them. However it'll be interesting if they take a page from the St Louis playbook and offer something that is good enough to make it hard to leave. It wont be easy to justify leaving one city and not another if they both have offers that meet NFL standards.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I'd be shocked if the Chargers agree to the proposal unless San Diego really just bent over to them. However it'll be interesting if they take a page from the St Louis playbook and offer something that is good enough to make it hard to leave. It wont be easy to justify leaving one city and not another if they both have offers that meet NFL standards.

Good enough is between 55% to 60% in public money anything less will be rejected in both cities
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/16/st-louis-task-force-co-chair-hints-at-new-owner-for-rams/
St. Louis task force co-chair says new owner of Rams is possible
"Is it possible for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move to L.A. and his team to stay in St. Louis? Apparently it is.

Via Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock suggested that scenario this week.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the [Rams] because I think [Kroenke] is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast. “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.”

In other words, the folks in St. Louis would like to see Kroenke sell the Rams, buy another team, and move that team to Los Angeles. A team like, say, the Raiders.

The more ominous portion of Peacock’s comment is this: Kroenke is really committed to Los Angeles. So unless he can be persuaded to sell the Rams (and unless Mark Davis can be persuaded to sell Kroenke the Raiders), it’s just a matter of time before Kroenke moves the Rams to L.A."

I didn't know whether to put this here or start a new thread.
 
Last edited:

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Yeah, I'm not sure how they ran the projections, if they included what would go back to investors or not.

Yea I think that's just for the city

Yeah, 500 million for LA, assuming if they 'quote' that to Kroenke, they'd need to do it for the Raiders and Chargers. While I know they give themselves flexibility, if it was that large of a gap it could cause Stan to call foul. I don't imagine St Louis would demand that type of money though.

You would think - but that's why they also left their wiggle room. I agree that all teams will be getting a relocation fee and it won't be cheap (anything besides LA will have a lower fee but don't expect it to be waived or less than $100 million, imo) - curious to see how it plays out with the language they left in..

The relocation policy also gives the Commissioner discretion to adjust the transfer free based on the NFL’s interest in encouraging the move or discouraging the move.


Yeah, so if they can get the 500 million for the stadium, then help for the cost of moving/relocation. I don't know how much it costs to move everything, but it shouldn't be that much more than LA. Unless Goldman Sachs is paying for that too, but I can't imagine that the Raiders are essentially going to move cost free. I know it's multiple investors most likely, but it still seems plausible they could get investors for St Louis too. There was murmurs that they were going to get some to help pay for the Riverfront stadium already.

Levi's stadium uses about 200ish million from the Public though.

I'm not saying it costs anymore or less to move a team to LA or STL - but it's still a cost,and not a low one at that. Another sum to add to the total


That's kind of what the 49ers offered, but the Raiders didn't want to be tenants, which is part of why I don't think a Raiders/Rams split would work (it also makes me doubt a Rams/Chargers split too, I think Spanos would rather pay for half of Inglewood than be a tenant, but Kroenke would need convincing)... It's going to be complicated and egos will need to be set aside either way.

Honestly - i don't think the NFL would really allow them to be with the culture of violence surrounding the two. They're not allowed to play in the preseason anymore either - especially after that last blood bath in the parking lots

Dig deeper. What you read is not always correct. King County got an injunction against the Seahawks for breaking the lease which prevented the team from playing anywhere else. The talks for the sale of the team started at the end of February. The price was set 2 weeks before the owners meeting. The NFL threatened a lawsuit in February and by the time of the threat of fines the team was already in the process of moving back. The fines threatened were minimal and if they could get out of the lease the NFL would have approved the move. Behrens case fell apart before the owners meeting and would have lost in court. They didn't have a lease to play in So Cal or a lease for a practice facility. John Shaw negotiated the deals and he didn't believe that the team was serious.

Was there any benefit to the NFL in their bid for an antitrust exemption by preventing the Seahawks move? The answer is no. The NFL was still pushing congress for the antitrust exemption. They wanted this settled in court and they knew that the Seahawks would lose because the team had a rock solid lease that prevented the team from playing anywhere else.

Will do - and ain't that the truth, look at the PFT article I was talking about as a good example of the national media. Always love one man's opinion becomes someone else's fact lol
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
You would think - but that's why they also left their wiggle room. I agree that all teams will be getting a relocation fee and it won't be cheap (anything besides LA will have a lower fee but don't expect it to be waived or less than $100 million, imo) - curious to see how it plays out with the language they left in..

Just like all their other rules, written in a way that lets them do whatever the hell they want.

Honestly - i don't think the NFL would really allow them to be with the culture of violence surrounding the two. They're not allowed to play in the preseason anymore either - especially after that last blood bath in the parking lots

Yeah, that's why I thought it was weird when Goodell was suggesting they could play there last year. Ultimately the Raiders were the ones who said no because they didn't want to play second fiddle. Yet they seem content with letting the Chargers do everything with Carson, which while they'll split things 50/50, it still seems like a Chargers stadium.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
When? Where? Again. Show your work.
.

He never directly said it - it was quoted as "sources close to him"

I've seen it in the past, and saw it again last night - meant to link it for you, forgot
 

D L

Rookie
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
237
Name
Dylan
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/16/st-louis-task-force-co-chair-hints-at-new-owner-for-rams/
St. Louis task force co-chair says new owner of Rams is possible
"Is it possible for Rams owner Stan Kroenke to move to L.A. and his team to stay in St. Louis? Apparently it is.

Via Bernie Miklasz of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock suggested that scenario this week.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the [Rams] because I think [Kroenke] is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast. “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.”

In other words, the folks in St. Louis would like to see Kroenke sell the Rams, buy another team, and move that team to Los Angeles. A team like, say, the Raiders.

The more ominous portion of Peacock’s comment is this: Kroenke is really committed to Los Angeles. So unless he can be persuaded to sell the Rams (and unless Mark Davis can be persuaded to sell Kroenke the Raiders), it’s just a matter of time before Kroenke moves the Rams to L.A."

I didn't know whether to put this here or start a new thread.

Stan selling the Rams just sounds too good to be true.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Just like all their other rules, written in a way that lets them do whatever the hell they want.

Yup - and not sure how much this means as far as owners go, but Davis ain't worth but $500m

http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/How-Much-Is-Each-NFL-Owner-Worth-10-206-847

Yeah, that's why I thought it was weird when Goodell was suggesting they could play there last year. Ultimately the Raiders were the ones who said no because they didn't want to play second fiddle. Yet they seem content with letting the Chargers do everything with Carson, which while they'll split things 50/50, it still seems like a Chargers stadium.

yea i think it more to do with them not being able to play... i can't see goodell banning all pre-season games together but then sharing a stadium...
 

Alan

Legend
Joined
Oct 22, 2013
Messages
9,766
Lot of big ifs in that supposition. Sounds somewhat less than probable to me.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
He never directly said it - it was quoted as "sources close to him"

I've seen it in the past, and saw it again last night - meant to link it for you, forgot

We know that, he was saying that Kroenke said it, which he didn't because he hasn't said squat. Those who know him well have speculated he won't.

Kroenke and his former longtime partner have sued each other a few times though, so he's certainly not afraid to take it there.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
NFL owners' agenda at meetings includes Deflategate, L.A. situation
By Sam Farmer

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-la-nfl-meetings-20150517-story.html

While much of the NFL world has been obsessed with deflated footballs, backers of competing Los Angeles-area stadium proposals are focused on moving the ball forward.

The league undoubtedly will address both topics this week at the annual May meetings.

Team owners will arrive at a downtown San Francisco hotel Tuesday evening, and are expected to wrap up their talks by midday Wednesday. Media interest will be particularly high in regard to the New England Patriots situation, a week after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell suspended quarterback Tom Brady for four games, fined the franchise $1 million, and stripped it of two draft picks — a first-rounder next year and a fourth-rounder in 2017 — over allegations that two team staffers deflated footballs to make them easier to grip in January's AFC championship game.

Owners are expected to vote on potential changes to the extra-point rules, and will hear about cities vying to play host to future Super Bowls.

The ongoing L.A. soap opera will be in the spotlight, too. There are no votes scheduled on the competing proposals in Inglewood and Carson, and there will be no presentations from those cities or other outside groups.

The ownership will hear from St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, backing the Inglewood project, and representatives of the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers, who are jointly proposing the Carson stadium. Those stadium sponsors will not make presentations of their projects to the membership, but will make brief comments about what they see happening in their home markets. League staff will also give a progress report that addresses the home market situations in St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego.

"This is an important meeting," said NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, who is overseeing the L.A. process. "We've made a tremendous amount of progress, and we really need to lift the veil on the key process steps, so that membership can go into the summer comfortable with where this might be headed."

Perhaps most important to the membership, the league will give better insight to the timing of a stadium decision, possibly including compressing and moving up the window for relocation applications in order to give a potential relocating team more time to do so. The current application window is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15, although that's likely to be moved to December or perhaps even earlier. It's not inconceivable that the league could add more owners meetings to the schedule, maybe one this summer.

There are three PAT proposals under consideration. One involves moving the line of scrimmage for the extra-point kick to the 15-yard line to make more challenging what is now a gimme. Another makes the same proposal on kicks, but adds the wrinkle that the defense can return a turnover for two points. And a third incorporates a kick from the 15, two points for a successful return by the defense, and moving the line of scrimmage for a two-point conversion up a yard to the one-yard line, making that option more enticing.

The next three Super Bowls will take place in Santa Clara, Houston and Minneapolis. The league recently asked teams if their cities had an interest in submitting bids to host a Super Bowl in the next block of available years (2019-2023). Those expressions of interest were submitted May 1, and will be officially revealed to owners at these meetings.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The next three Super Bowls will take place in Santa Clara, Houston and Minneapolis. The league recently asked teams if their cities had an interest in submitting bids to host a Super Bowl in the next block of available years (2019-2023). Those expressions of interest were submitted May 1, and will be officially revealed to owners at these meetings.

Wonder if Inglewood and Carson are in on this. Gotta think they are.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
We know that, he was saying that Kroenke said it, which he didn't because he hasn't said squat. Those who know him well have speculated he won't.

Kroenke and his former longtime partner have sued each other a few times though, so he's certainly not afraid to take it there.

kinda pisses me off considering his original statement

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_3b49e97d-2799-50aa-8b7b-5a82bf5d5a4b.html
"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."

"There's a track record," Kroenke said. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."

"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."

Kroenke said, "I'll do my damnedest," to secure the Rams' future in St. Louis.

Yea, bull shit...If he were living up to this I would have expected more commitment, let alone picking up the phone and working with Peacock. Actions speak louder than words.

Guess it's irony - LA got the shaft from Georgia, looks like Kroenke might be giving it right back.


edit: on a separate note, we both know that Fabiani works for Spanos/the Chargers.... however, I just figured out tonight (kinda sad i didn't notice it before) that he's actually their lawyer... That tends to make take any legal talk a little more seriously
 
Last edited:

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
edit: on a separate note, we both know that Fabiani works for Spanos/the Chargers.... however, I just figured out tonight (kinda sad i didn't notice it before) that he's actually their lawyer... That tends to make take any legal talk a little more seriously

Yeah, he's just his lawyer as far as I can tell, I was initially confused on why he got the job pushing the Carson stadium.
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
Yeah, he's just his lawyer as far as I can tell, I was initially confused on why he got the job pushing the Carson stadium.

Fabiani is a political lawyer specializing in spin and crisis management. He worked for Bill Clinton during many scandals and then on Al Gore's campaign. He and Chris Lehane were known as the Masters of Disaster.

Fabiani's political background and aggressive PR campaign is one reason a lot of people, including myself, think Carson is most likely a bluff...
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,714
Stan selling the Rams just sounds too good to be true.
Relying on Peacock's grandstanding and Bernie backing him up isnt exactly a ringing endorsement.
This article is just a rehash of what was reported last week, Bernie was just a bit late to the party.
As usual
Personally, I dont know what's better for Peacock, if the Rams stay, or leave. IMO he's playing the public to admire him for being a hero that gave it his all....
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Relying on Peacock's grandstanding and Bernie backing him up isnt exactly a ringing endorsement.
This article is just a rehash of what was reported last week, Bernie was just a bit late to the party.
As usual
Personally, I dont know what's better for Peacock, if the Rams stay, or leave. IMO he's playing the public to admire him for being a hero that gave it his all....

It's funny because the story of Stan selling originally came from Bernie, so he's essentially backing up himself.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
[QUOTE="dieterbrock, post: 562830, member:
Personally, I dont know what's better for Peacock, if the Rams stay, or leave. IMO he's playing the public to admire him for being a hero that gave it his all....[/QUOTE]

Have to say I completely disagree with this statement. He hasn't been grandstanding whatsoever. He made one comment. One that he has alluded to about a dozen times before and that everyone in STL was perfectly in tune with. But now for some reason, everyone suddenly wants to weigh in on it like it's breaking news.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,714
[QUOTE="dieterbrock, post: 562830, member:
Personally, I dont know what's better for Peacock, if the Rams stay, or leave. IMO he's playing the public to admire him for being a hero that gave it his all....

Have to say I completely disagree with this statement. He hasn't been grandstanding whatsoever. He made one comment. One that he has alluded to about a dozen times before and that everyone in STL was perfectly in tune with. But now for some reason, everyone suddenly wants to weigh in on it like it's breaking news.[/QUOTE]
Well put it this way, if the Rams go to LA is Peacock going to be viewed as a failure?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.