New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Exactly
Let them build a new stadium in Oregon.

Bite your freaking tongue. We are WAY too sophisticated here to accept that rabble.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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?

I mean having viable plans that are all ready to go as soon as a team signs on. St Louis will have a plan (but I doubt it's the plan Kroenke wants, therefore it's probably a no-go at that point) that a team could easily accept, I don't think that Oakland or San Diego will get that far. I'm assuming St Louis will have their financing secure, and people aren't going to be banging the table for a vote as some are now.

 

[The Ripper]

I mean having viable plans that are all ready to go as soon as a team signs on. St Louis will have a plan (but I doubt it's the plan Kroenke wants, therefore it's probably a no-go at that point) that a team could easily accept, I don't think that Oakland or San Diego will get that far. I'm assuming St Louis will have their financing secure, and people aren't going to be banging the table for a vote as some are now.

Don't count's SD out yet, there's a 2nd tenant in Qualcomm and they have been silent so far. The Aztecs need a home too and if the Chargers leave it's going to put them in a really bad situation.

 

[blue4]

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

I agree that he's going to be favorably looked on in St Louis no matter what for his efforts. I agree that it's a no win for STL. I disagree that he is grandstanding and "playing hero" for the public. Which is what you were initially implying when you said "he's playing to public to admire him for being a hero that gave his all".

 

[blue4]

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.

Only problem is if you don't dump them on STL, we'll have nothing. I doubt they can afford 8 plane tickets a year lol.

 

[iced]

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.

the time the city would to put it to a vote, which isn't a guarantee, wouldn't be til 2016

 

[The Ripper]

the time the city would to put it to a vote, which isn't a guarantee, wouldn't be til 2016

Only if they wait for a general election

 

[iced]

Only if they wait for a general election

according to the article

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.

have heard a lot of repeated versions of this

 

[The Ripper]

according to the article

have heard a lot of repeated versions of this

They could hold a vote in November of this year. The outcome depends on who is voting and for what.

 

[iced]

They could hold a vote in November of this year. The outcome depends on who is voting and for what.

not according to them...

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/what-to-watch-for-in-a-chargers-stadium-deal/

But the NFL has said recently that the city’s timeline for a vote won’t work. The league could be making a decision on relocation to Los Angeles as soon as the end of the year. So June 2016, the next scheduled election, could be too late.

 

[The Ripper]

not according to them...

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/what-to-watch-for-in-a-chargers-stadium-deal/

Yes, it's right in that article. November is sooner.

Will the task force propose a vote next June? Or a special election sooner? Or go so far as to say no vote at all?

 

[ramfaninsd]

not according to them...

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/land-use/what-to-watch-for-in-a-chargers-stadium-deal/

there is talk here in sd that a special election could be held in nov if a vote becomes necessary.

 

[iced]

Yes, it's right in that article. November is sooner.

Will the task force propose a vote next June? Or a special election sooner? Or go so far as to say no vote at all?

that sounds like the writer speculating

And Fabiani on the topic -

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/201...ff-san-diego-shouldnt-give-in-to-the-chargers

Q:That's not an option because the Chargers "need" a resolution in 2015. So, how about a Special Election?

A: "A special election will not lead to a successful result. The turnout in special elections is always extremely low, and the voters who do turn out in special elections in San Diego are inclined to vote against major public projects such as this one."

- Mark Fabiani to BoltBlitz.com 4/24/15

 

[Hacksaw]

If the case can be made that San Diego must wait to give them the best chance to succeed that needs to be considered. If they don't then Carson is what the league has determined it prefers.

 

[iced]

If the case can be made that San Diego must wait to give them the best chance to succeed that needs to be considered. If they don't then Carson is what the league has determined it prefers.

I doubt that'll happen. Spanos can't afford to wait with Kroenke's pressure. The league's already made it clear they're not going to wait by doing the opposite and accelerating the time table

And last the SD proposal was not that well recieved

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2015/04/20/nfl-disapproves-of-san-diego-stadium-proposal/

NFL disapproves of San Diego stadium proposal

By Nick Zobel April 20, 2015

A top NFL executive very deliberately tore apart San Diego’s stadium proposal, suggesting that the city’s efforts to keep its team may be insufficient for the league.

NFL Executive Vice President of Business Ventures Eric Grubman may have indicated the league’s preference for a move to LA by publicly highlighting key issues with the border city’s proposed Mission Valley development plan. This is a major blow to San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s task force, which has been working since January on a new stadium proposal. Though the current plan is lacking in details, it’s reliant on public funding and a yet-to-be-established simultaneous neighborhood development project.

Calling the San Diego proposal “very risky” because it “lacks some key elements so far,” Grubman put serious pressure on the city to accelerate its timeline. Waiting until the regularly-scheduled November 2016 election to conduct a public referendum on stadium financing, for example, is considered an unacceptable delay for the league; neither the league nor the Chargers seem willing to wait that long to find out if the project will even get necessary funding. However, holding a separate election comes at a cost: Los Angeles County spent $15 million on special elections in 2013.

The NFL disapproves of the plan’s reliance on surrounding development projects, with Grubman suggesting that “would just mean another mouth to feed.” This stands in contrast to the Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium, which was added to Stockbridge Capital Groups’ pre-existing development plan.

Grubman also reminded the city that a $200 million stadium pledge from the NFL would go directly to the team, rather than the city, forcing the task force to raise even more funds. This strict stipulation demonstrates the power of the NFL’s bargaining position: it has no need to pay more when San Diego is facing steep competition from two LA proposals. The sudden tightening of the league’s purse contrasts sharply with the approval of a $650 million debt increase for the Falcons to meet the ever increasing costs of their new stadium.

This may also be a personal blow to the Mayor Faulconer, who is up for re-election in 2016. The 2016 election would coincide with the first season the Chargers could conceivably play in Los Angeles, an image that could damage Faulconer’s campaign. This means Faulconer is personally invested and might be more willing to jump through the NFL’s hoops in order to avoid overseeing the team’s departure.

Without the league’s blessing, San Diego will be forced to reevaluate its commitment to the stadium. Even if a new plan meets league specifications, the return on the city’s investment could be severely threatened if the either of the two LA stadiums are approved; the Chargers – and San Diego – would find it difficult to compete with two teams just two hours north

 

[The Ripper]

that sounds like the writer speculating

And Fabiani on the topic -

Fabiani hasn't been truthful about many things during this process and he's the one speculating. The outcome can't be predicted especially since it will determined by what they are voting on and who is voting.

 

[The Ripper]

I doubt that'll happen. Spanos can't afford to wait with Kroenke's pressure. The league's already made it clear they're not going to wait by doing the opposite and accelerating the time table

And last the SD proposal was not that well recieved

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2015/04/20/nfl-disapproves-of-san-diego-stadium-proposal/

The Chargers have to wait for Carson. The stadium can't start construction until the final plan is done and the cleanup that will take at least 18 months if all goes well.


Grubman kept saying up till that point. He was very specific in his wording because up till that point the plan wasn't fully formed. It wasn't specific in terms of the stadium and financing.

 

[blue4]

Since we are in full speculation mode, has anyone ever actually asked Davis or Spanos what they will do if Stan gets LA and chooses the other team to be roommates with in Inglewood? Lots of speculation it will be the Chargers although if it were me I'd take the Raiders. Hard to compete against a team that actually has winning seasons. Harsh I know, but that's reality. Any direct questions to either of these guys if that were to play out?

 

[RamBill]

Three things to watch for Rams at owners meetings
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...e-things-to-watch-for-rams-at-owners-meetings

SAN FRANCISCO -- The spring owners meetings generally don't draw the same amount of attention as the March proceedings but if you're a fan of the St. Louis Rams (or Oakland Raiders or San Diego Chargers), this year's meetings might prove critically important.

While none of those three teams will be relocating to Los Angeles in time for the 2015 season, the possibilities for 2016 are very real. And though this week's meetings don't figure to offer anything definitive for any of the relocation candidates, the ball could get rolling in that direction.

Here's a look at some things to keep an eye on from a Rams and St. Louis perspective this week:

1. No formal presentation from the St. Louis stadium group: Much like the March edition of the meetings, the St. Louis stadium task force will not be making a presentation to the owners here this week. Instead, the task force led by Dave Peacock, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon and St. Louis mayor Francis Slay are planning to meet with Major League Soccer commissioner Don Garber in St. Louis. In that meeting, it's expected the sides will discuss making an MLS expansion team in St. Louis a possibility. The task force has long planned a possible MLS team as part of the pitch for the north riverfront stadium in an effort to guarantee more than the NFL's 10 dates per year for the new venue. Peacock and Co. presented the proposal to the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities in New York City a few weeks ago.

2. Open window?: If there's going to be any "real" Los Angeles-related news to come out of these meetings, chances are that it will come in the form of the approval of an expedited window for teams to file for relocation for 2016. In a normal year, teams are not able to file the paperwork for relocation until after the season. For example, this year, the window was open from Jan. 1 to Feb. 15. Of course, no teams filed because of a directive from the NFL, which was dealing with bigger issues at the time. At the March meetings, the owners and commissioner Roger Goodell discussed the possibility of allowing teams to start filing for relocation this fall. How much earlier that window opens remains to be seen, but it's likely we'll get that question answered in the next three days.

3. Up to speed: Even though the St. Louis stadium group won't be presenting during these meetings, that doesn't mean their proposal won't be seen by the owners. The same is true of both the Inglewood and Carson plans as well as anything that might be stirring in San Diego and Oakland. Although it hasn't been made official, the most likely scenario is the aforementioned Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities and/or an NFL executive like Eric Grubman presents the proposals to the rest of the group. Since they will be present, it's also likely that Rams owner Stan Kroenke will speak on behalf of the Inglewood project in some fashion and representatives from the Chargers and/or Raiders will do the same for the Carsoon project. The Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities was privy to the presentations made in New York City and would provide a logical starting point for getting the rest of the owners up to speed. The owners got a tiny glimpse of what's going on in all four markets in March but should get a much better idea of progress this time around.

 

[Goose]