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.

rams2050

Starter
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
588
I have to agree with dieterbrock. Not grandstanding, imho, but rather preparing fans for every eventuality. Which is just good PR and planning. What I hope he is able to pull off is some kind of sale of the Rams -- with Kroenke, perhaps, somehow getting the Broncos OR another CA team. . . Raiders, anyone? Unlikely, I know, but from watching and reading about Peacock's machinations he seems the type to have every possible scenario already laid out and plans in place to try to make each happen, beginning with the outcome that he would most like to see (keeping Rams here).

He's worked so hard, though, and for nothing (monetarily, that is) that I'm beginning to think that whichever team winds up here will win my support simply because of Dave Peacock. And I am a 50+ year Rams' fan. I will ALWAYS love the Rams, but if they go they may be second in my affections. . .

Gawd! I always thought I'd have to kill myself if I became a Raiders' fan. YIKES!
 

den-the-coach

Fifty-four Forty or Fight
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Messages
22,920
Name
Dennis
He's worked so hard, though, and for nothing (monetarily, that is) that I'm beginning to think that whichever team winds up here will win my support simply because of Dave Peacock. And I am a 50+ year Rams' fan. I will ALWAYS love the Rams, but if they go they may be second in my affections. . .

Gawd! I always thought I'd have to kill myself if I became a Raiders' fan. YIKES!

Now I love Peacock too, but has Stan Kroenke not worked as hard? He was able to purchase the Rams from the jaws of Shad Khan who never saw it coming.

He also has positioned himself like or not to increase the value of his franchise and with the stadium he wants to build include Super Bowls as well plus a stadium that will be the toast of tinsel town. Granted he's been silent and St. Louis fans dislike they way he's gone about it, but you have to appreciate all he's done and if he's successful bringing professional football back to the Golden State he'll be revered by more people than detested IMHO.

Just trying to compare apples to apples and again I think everybody knows how I feel on this issue.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Big week for NFL, Rams, Raiders, Chargers
Posted on May 17, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/05/17/big-week-for-nfl-rams-raiders-chargers/

As NFL owners gather this week in San Francisco for their annual May meetings, and with Los Angeles relocation one of the primary points of emphasis, news is already beginning to bubble to the surface.

In San Diego, the word I’m getting is Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s advisory committee is preparing to announce a stadium plan for the Chargers, perhaps as early as Monday afternoon.

I’ve heard from a couple of sources the number $1.5 billion dollars being bandied about, and if that’s accurate it will be interesting to see how much of that $1.5 billion is devoted to the stadium and how much is committed to the bigger picture aspects of the Mission Valley development plan.

It will also be interesting to find out what the task force plan is to deal with the financing and timing issues, two huge concerns relative the the Chargers and NFL.

If the stadium is part of a bigger development, that means a lengthy entitlement process and financing elements of which the Chargers and NFL have expressed long-time concerns.

Between the time consuming entitlement process and the necessity for a public vote next year – and no guarantee of a favorable outcome – the Chargers would be taking a huge gamble it all plays out in their favor.

The danger is the St. Louis Rams filing for relocation to Los Angeles sometime in the next six months – and getting NFL approval – resulting in the Chargers stadium plans in Carson falling by the wayside and Los Angeles vanishing as a fall-back plan.

For San Diego Chargers fans, the hope is Mayor Faulconer’s task force heeded the advice of NFL vice president Eric Grubman, who met with some members last month and urged them to come up with a plan that meets the Chargers and NFL’s financing and timing needs.

Otherwise, San Diego is in great danger of losing the Chargers.

Meanwhile, up in Oakland things are looking bleaker by the day. According to a story in the San Francisco Chronicle, “the deal to build the Raiders a new stadium in Oakland “is gurgling blood” — the only question being when it’s going to be declared dead, according to one Coliseum official close to the talks.

Three big problems stand in the way, according to the Chronicle story: “The cost of the stadium, the cost of the land for the stadium and the future of the A’s.”

According to a Chronicle source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the Raiders want free land,something elected officials in Oakland and Alameda County say they can’t deliver.

As for the money for the stadium, “the Raiders and the NFL have about $500 million between them,” the source told the Chronicle.

That’s about half what the stadium is likely to cost. So barring the emergence of big-bucks investors, someone — i.e., the public — will have to come up with a cool $500 million.

If, as the Chronicle story suggests, the Raiders are in a non-winnable fight as it relates to the current plan being considered, they are as vulnerable as the Chargers.

And that creates a huge problem for the NFL, as it seems Rams owner Stan Kroenke has his heart set on Los Angeles and believes he has strong justification for relocation even if state leaders in Missouri come up with a plan to help build him a new stadium in downtown St. Louis.

If Kroenke truly wants Los Angeles, no matter what Missouri offers, and the Raiders and Chargers have no viable stadium plans on the table from Oakland and San Diego, how does the NFL sort out the dilemma of two teams needing Los Angeles and one team wanting Los Angeles?

And what happens to the hopes of Los Angeles NFL fans for the return
of pro football if the entire situation devolves into a standoff, with the Chargers and Raiders mustering the votes of seven other owners to prevent Kroenke from achieving the three-fourths majority he needs to relocate?

At the risk of being an alarmist, that almost seems bound to happen.

And it leave fans and analysts and even people involved coming up with ideas to piece together a complicated puzzle.

Everything from the Kroenke selling the Rams and buying the Raiders to the Rams moving to Inglewood, where they will be joined by the Chargers, and the Raiders moving into the new St. Louis stadium.

In fact, just the other day St. Louis stadium task force head Dave Peacock threw out the possibility of an ownership change with the Rams that enables Kroenke to get his wish.

While speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast, Peacock said the following:

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles. 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.”

A few thoughts.

After doing some poking around here is how I’d categorize some of the possibilities being discussed:

Kroenke selling the Rams and buying another team to move to L.A.: Low.

The Raiders moving to St. Louis: Extremely low.

The Chargers and Raiders in Carson: Decent chance

The Rams and a fellow team in Inglewood: High

The Raiders moving to Levi Stadium: Extremely low

The Rams staying in St. Louis: Low

San Diego coming up with a viable Chargers stadium: Low

Oakland/Alameda coming up with a viable Raiders stadium: Low

However, I will say all of this is a reminder of all possible permutations and outcomes still at play.

Short of this situation figuring itself out naturally, which I’m growing more and more pessimistic of, the NFL and the teams involved will have to get creative and flexible in satisfying everyone’s needs and wants.

To that end, I’m working on a story that forwards some ideas on how the NFL might solve the Rams and Chargers needs and keep the Raiders in the Bay Area, which should be ready to roll next week.

So stay tuned.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
"After doing some poking around here is how I’d categorize some of the possibilities being discussed:

Kroenke selling the Rams and buying another team to move to L.A.: Low.

The Raiders moving to St. Louis: Extremely low.

The Chargers and Raiders in Carson: Decent chance

The Rams and a fellow team in Inglewood: High


The Raiders moving to Levi Stadium: Extremely low


The Rams staying in St. Louis: Low


San Diego coming up with a viable Chargers stadium: Low
"


So the difference between 'High" and Done Deal = Decent chance? But StL keeping Rams = "Low". Something seems off even in the generalities.
 

Moostache

Rookie
Joined
Jun 26, 2014
Messages
290
So the difference between 'High" and Done Deal = Decent chance? But StL keeping Rams = "Low". Something seems off even in the generalities.

Have to agree...the math does not add up in those "predictions"...

According to those scenarios, Oakland is A) Not getting a new stadium, B) NOT moving to Santa Clara, C) NOT moving to St. Louis but has a decent chance of moving to Carson?
And yet the Rams and Chargers (presumably the "fellow team in Inglewood") is a high probability.

Just for fun re-rank his options from "high" to "low":
  1. The Rams and a fellow team in Inglewood: High
  2. The Chargers and Raiders in Carson: Decent chance
  3. The Rams staying in St. Louis: Low
  4. San Diego coming up with a viable Chargers stadium: Low
  5. Kroenke selling the Rams and buying another team to move to L.A.: Low
  6. Oakland/Alameda coming up with a viable Raiders stadium: Low
  7. The Raiders moving to Levi Stadium: Extremely low
  8. The Raiders moving to St. Louis: Extremely low.
If that is not a man pulling things completely out of his ass then I am the Queen of England!
So, the Rams, Raiders AND Chargers all have the highest probability of playing in LA and NONE of them has a chance of staying in their current market?
THREE teams in LA?

Yeah...I'm sure that will happen...
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
It works if the Rams and Raiders (other team) go to LA and Chargers go to San Diego.. But I'd say that's low to extremely low as well.
 

Pancake

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,204
Name
Ernie
I can't see SK even considering selling his more valuable team with a long storied history. Then buying a less valuable team that is a mess and mainly associated with gangs and violence.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
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.
Well put it this way, if the Rams go to LA is Peacock going to be viewed as a failure?[/QUOTE]

No. The game has been rigged from the start.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
According to a Chronicle source who spoke on the condition of anonymity, the Raiders want free land,something elected officials in Oakland and Alameda County say they can’t deliver.

As for the money for the stadium, “the Raiders and the NFL have about $500 million between them,” the source told the Chronicle.

That’s about half what the stadium is likely to cost. So barring the emergence of big-bucks investors, someone — i.e., the public — will have to come up with a cool $500 million.

If, as the Chronicle story suggests, the Raiders are in a non-winnable fight as it relates to the current plan being considered, they are as vulnerable as the Chargers.

That pretty much solidifies my belief on no way in hell Raiders move to St.Louis

It works if the Rams and Raiders (other team) go to LA and Chargers go to San Diego.. But I'd say that's low to extremely low as well.

I agree - simply because of time on San Diego's part. They don't have it, and public funding of course but time is the big killer right now
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
So who benefits the most from the shortened timeline? Or should I say which league agenda is best served?

Chargers - StLouis - Oakland = harder to get a loan / last ditch plans together making Carson more realistic as a result ?

Inglewood = financing a non-issue and plans further ahead making a yes vote more easily explained as the others probably won't be ready yet ?

St Louis = Peacocks effort has put StL ahead of the other relocating teams so the shortened time line locks the team in MO giving the Carson project no opposition from the Rams ?

Or is it what they say, the relocating team(s) will get extra time to set up shop in LA?
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,621
Name
Stu
That pretty much solidifies my belief on no way in hell Raiders move to St.Louis



I agree - simply because of time on San Diego's part. They don't have it, and public funding of course but time is the big killer right now
Why don't they have time? They are playing in a stadium that has hosted Superbowls in San Diego. If I'm Spanos - I want to stay put - albeit in a new stadium. But there's rarely a bad day to play in San Diego.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,621
Name
Stu
So who benefits the most from the shortened timeline? Or should I say which league agenda is best served?

Chargers - StLouis - Oakland = harder to get a loan / last ditch plans together making Carson more realistic as a result ?

Inglewood = financing a non-issue and plans further ahead making a yes vote more easily explained as the others probably won't be ready yet ?

St Louis = Peacocks effort has put StL ahead of the other relocating teams so the shortened time line locks the team in MO giving the Carson project no opposition from the Rams ?

Or is it what they say, the relocating team(s) will get extra time to set up shop in LA?
Yes. :whistle:
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
That pretty much solidifies my belief on no way in hell Raiders move to St.Louis



I agree - simply because of time on San Diego's part. They don't have it, and public funding of course but time is the big killer right now

I actually meant the Chargers go to St Louis (the one prediction he didn't make)... Typo.. Don't know if you got what I was trying to say. I'm starting to turn on the Raiders to St Louis thing, unless they award them the G4 loan, or they are able to secure investors to help out.

So who benefits the most from the shortened timeline? Or should I say which league agenda is best served?

Chargers - StLouis - Oakland = harder to get a loan / last ditch plans together making Carson more realistic as a result ?

Inglewood = financing a non-issue and plans further ahead making a yes vote more easily explained as the others probably won't be ready yet ?

St Louis = Peacocks effort has put StL ahead of the other relocating teams so the shortened time line locks the team in MO giving the Carson project no opposition from the Rams ?

Or is it what they say, the relocating team(s) will get extra time to set up shop in LA?

I'd say the NFL in general. If they select Carson it's easy to say that San Diego and Oakland couldn't get it done in time. If they select Inglewood they can say the same thing about St Louis. If St Louis has everything secured or close to it, it's easy for them to throw in a wrench at the last minute and say they couldn't do it, or say they didn't get it done with enough time for them to go through everything to make sure it was right. Plus if numbers are down attendance wise for any city they can point to that, essentially the NFL has put them in a situation that they can spin things any which way they want. Added to previous comments they've made about each situation, they're essentially clear to justify anything they need.

Barring any major changes I can't see San Diego or Oakland having anything ready in time for a December relocation though.
 

Mikey Ram

Hall of Fame
Joined
Oct 20, 2014
Messages
3,402
Name
Mike
Taking the troubled parts of the city out of the equation, I don't really see the fans in St louis liking the ridiculous antics of the Raidah "fans"...They strike me more of a silly group that enjoys Halloween coming 8 more times during the year...Of course I can't speak for the St Louis fans, as I'm not from there..
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,714
No. The game has been rigged from the start.

Gotcha. So he's in a no win situation? Looks like you're agreeing with me then. Really no way for peacock to come out this less than a hero
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,621
Name
Stu
Taking the troubled parts of the city out of the equation, I don't really see the fans in St louis liking the ridiculous antics of the Raidah "fans"...They strike me more of a silly group that enjoys Halloween coming 8 more times during the year...Of course I can't speak for the St Louis fans, as I'm not from there..
Not sure I would classify what goes on at Raiduh games as "antics" or just some silly Halloween jokers. The guys all dressed up are not the problem. It's all the thugs in the cheap seats. The last Raiduh game I went to, there was more action going on in the upper endzone seats than on the field. I have never in my life seen that kind of police presence at any sporting event I have ever been to. Every five or ten minutes a sea of blue would engulf a sea of black. It was nothing short of ridiculous. I hope the Raiduhs stay put. Don't dump them on St Louis and keep them the hell out of LA.
 

snackdaddy

Who's your snackdaddy?
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
11,665
Name
Charlie
I think I can sum this up:

People in St. Louis: "We've been working hard and we like our chances of keeping the Rams".

LA people: "We've been working hard and we like our chances of getting the Rams".

Other than that nothing's for sure.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
11,124
Name
Scott
Not sure I would classify what goes on at Raiduh games as "antics" or just some silly Halloween jokers. The guys all dressed up are not the problem. It's all the thugs in the cheap seats. The last Raiduh game I went to, there was more action going on in the upper endzone seats than on the field. I have never in my life seen that kind of police presence at any sporting event I have ever been to. Every five or ten minutes a sea of blue would engulf a sea of black. It was nothing short of ridiculous. I hope the Raiduhs stay put. Don't dump them on St Louis and keep them the hell out of LA.
Exactly
Let them build a new stadium in Oregon.:p
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
11,124
Name
Scott
I think I can sum this up:

People in St. Louis: "We've been working hard and we like our chances of keeping the Rams".

LA people: "We've been working hard and we like our chances of getting the Rams".

Other than that nothing's for sure.
The irony of this whole mess is, the 2 most realistic
Stadium proposals are both for the Rams.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
Barring any major changes I can't see San Diego or Oakland having anything ready in time for a December relocation though.
By not 'ready' to relocate you are referring to what? Are you referring to arrangements to play in temporary stadiums in LA? Financially ready do get Carson done? I am fairly certain the best that could be expected in sD or Oak would be agreeing to locations and new stadium plans.
Not so sure financing in either of those locations would be up to speed though. And why can't Goldman Sachs line up the funding in SD?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.