New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Isn't Policy the same guy who cooked the books in San Fran back in the day and got fined $1mm bucks for it? I guess he is famous and seems like an apt and appropriate figurehead for anything that is Raiders,,,,,


or will put him on the map again.

He also tried to keep the Rams and Raiders in LA before. He does have some experience though, not a bad hire since he helped bring the Browns back to Cleveland. I'm not really sure what exactly he'd be doing other than begging the league to pick them.

Riverfront stadium in MLS configuration.

I'm assuming they're not going to change the seats out for these games, so are they planning on doing those colors? Interesting how they selected the original Stallions colors.


Also when scrolling for a second I thought they had the Raiders logo on the top, before I looked again and saw it was the MLS logo.

 

[ChrisW]

I'm assuming they're not going to change the seats out for these games, so are they planning on doing those colors? Interesting how they selected the original Stallions colors.


Also when scrolling for a second I thought they had the Raiders logo on the top, before I looked again and saw it was the MLS logo.

Yea, you're reading too much into things. The seat color choices are just to make the seats stand out. They wanted to show that the seating can be reconfigured into this for MLS games. Also, the Stallions have no bearing when it comes to the MLS. The original renderings shown to the NFL have Rams colored seats.

FWIW the above is the USL STL soccer team colors. So they aren't even appealing to this team to make the basis of the MLS team. Maybe it could in the future, though.

 

[Hacksaw]

So a Rams representative and employee of Stan Kroenke is going to give the other league owners the dope on what StL is up to?

I have noticed that whenever the 'league officials' speak about STL, they are all about what a great job they are doing but when it comes to SD or Oak not so much. Perhaps that should just be taken at face value, and it is at the very least, consistent. Why do you suppose the vibe is different?
And you just don't hear about anything Rams related. Why do you suppose that is? Not just the Silent Stan thing...

 

[ChrisW]

So a Rams representative and employee of Stan Kroenke is going to give the other league owners the dope on what StL is up to?

I have noticed that whenever the 'league officials' speak about STL, they are all about what a great job they are doing but when it comes to SD or Oak not so much Perhaps that should just be taken at face value, but it is at the very least, consistent. Why do you suppose the vibe is different?
And you just don't about anything Rams related. Why do you suppose that is? Not just the Silent Stan thing...

I suppose because Peacock is well known in NFL circles. So he knows the way the business works. He went straight to them and asked them what they wanted.

They've been humming along checking box after box...hell they even went above and beyond and came to angreement to have the construction crews work 24 hours a day to cut the timeline and cost.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yea, you're reading too much into things. The seat color choices are just to make the seats stand out. They wanted to show that the seating can be reconfigured into this for MLS games. Also, the Stallions have no bearing when it comes to the MLS. The original renderings shown to the NFL have Rams colored seats.

I'm not really suggesting anything, I just thought it was interesting that they changed around the colors when they didn't need to.

 

[RamBill]

For now at least, Raiders owner saying 'no' to St. Louis
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_71ad642f-2ab1-5499-93ea-c71bdbdad840.html

SAN FRANCISCO • Raiders owner Mark Davis was as blunt as could be Tuesday on the possibility of moving his franchise from Oakland to St. Louis, as has been widely rumored.

“Absolutely no interest,” Davis said. “No. That’s just not where the Raiders belong. It’s not gonna be St. Louis.”

Two months ago in Phoenix at the NFL’s March owners meetings, Davis at first issued a similar reply when asked about St. Louis. But later during the same March conversation, he said: “We’ll listen to anybody.”

He left no such wiggle room Tuesday. Whether he was posturing or not remains to be seen.

“We’re working as hard as we can to stay in Oakland,” Davis said Tuesday.

That’s obviously option No. 1. Option No. 2 is Southern California, more specifically the Carson area of Los Angeles. The Raiders and San Diego Chargers have teamed up in an attempt to share a stadium there. On Monday night, the Chargers and Raiders gained control of the land in Carson to build a stadium.

Additionally, former longtime San Francisco 49ers executive Carmen Policy has been hired to spearhead the Carson plans and serve as a spokesman on that front for both the Chargers and Raiders.

With Policy working on Carson, Davis said he can concentrate on trying to get a stadium built in Oakland and Chargers ownership can do the same in San Diego.

Davis called the Carson project a parallel path for the Raiders, giving them an option if attempts to get a new stadium built in Oakland fail to reach fruition.

Davis said he’s willing to put up $500 million, a total that includes $200 million from the NFL’s G4 stadium fund, to build a new facility on the site of the Oakland Coliseum (now known as O.co Coliseum).

City and county officials there have until June 21 to come up with a financing plan for the rest of the money needed for a new stadium, and most observers don’t think that will happen.

Davis also left open the possibility of moving to San Antonio, although it’s hard to see Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones or Houston Texans owner Robert McNair going along with that.

The Raiders are easily the most financially strapped team among the three teams considering relocation to Los Angeles. And it’s thought the team could be fodder for sale in the near future anyway.

Davis said Tuesday he plans to own the Raiders as long as he’s alive, and said he sees no situation in which he would sell the franchise. However, he may not have a choice.

The same estate tax issues that forced Chip Rosenbloom and sister Lucia Rodriguez to sell the Rams after their mother, Georgia Frontiere, passed away, could impact the Raiders when Carol Davis — the wife of late Raiders owner Al Davis — passes away.

Beyond that, if the Raiders somehow get left out of the Los Angeles sweepstakes and get stuck in Oakland without a new stadium, St. Louis could look a lot more enticing.

LA RAMS FANS AT MEETINGS

Representatives of fan groups hoping to get the Rams back in Los Angeles, and keep the Raiders in Oakland and Chargers in San Diego, held a rally outside the Ritz-Carlton Hotel — site of the league meetings.

Davis briefly went out to speak to Raiders fans, telling them he was doing everything he could to keep the team in Oakland.

Representing the “Bring Back the Los Angeles Rams” fan club were twin brothers Dennis and Tom Bateman. They had a large “fathead” sign of Rams owner Stan Kroenke and a fan club banner.

BARKSDALE TO CHARGERS

Rams free-agent right tackle Joe Barksdale signed a one-year deal with the San Diego Chargers on Tuesday. Initial reports said it was a veterans’ minimum deal, with some incentives.

It became clear after the Rams drafted four offensive linemen, including two right tackles, that Barksdale’s tenure in St. Louis was over, although the team maintained contact with Barksdale and his agent post-draft.

“Your goal is always to retain your players, but I think Joe was always looking to go through the (free agent) process, making sure he found the best fit,” Rams executive vice president Kevin Demoff said. “Obviously in the draft we prepared for a number of possible options.”

GARCIA HIRED BY RAMS

Former Pro Bowl quarterback Jeff Garcia, who interviewed for the Rams’ quarterback coach job in February, has been hired as an offensive assistant.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So a Rams representative and employee of Stan Kroenke is going to give the other league owners the dope on what StL is up to?

I have noticed that whenever the 'league officials' speak about STL, they are all about what a great job they are doing but when it comes to SD or Oak not so much. Perhaps that should just be taken at face value, and it is at the very least, consistent. Why do you suppose the vibe is different?
And you just don't hear about anything Rams related. Why do you suppose that is? Not just the Silent Stan thing...

It's not like they can just openly lie, but it'd be foolish of the owners to not get team input. The owners will know what they want and they should have a good pulse on their market when they're not trying to impress people, so I don't think it's too bad. St Louis has been good about being pretty focused in their efforts, and it's put them ahead of the other cities in terms of progress. They have a few things going for them that help as well (cheaper stadium, funding loophole, etc) that are big boosts and helped give them extra momentum, NFL should be pleased with the progress though,.

 

[Hacksaw]

Davis admits that he and the Chargers want to stay in their current markets so LA is obviously being used as leverage again but will do as a back up plan.
Or they are trying to be the nice guys in the view of the league owners.
The backhand at StL puts an end to that speculation. At least as long as he is the majority owner. When his mom passes things could change and perhaps the team could come up for sale, if the other 9 owners can all agree too, or don't but Davis out first.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Davis admits that he and the Chargers want to stay in their current markets so LA is obviously being used as leverage again but will do as a back up plan.
Or they are trying to be the nice guys in the view of the league owners.
The backhand at StL puts an end to that speculation. At least as long as he is the majority owner. When his mom passes things could change and perhaps the team could come up for sale, if the other 9 owners can all agree too, or don't but Davis out first.

I always got the feeling Davis wants to stay, not so much with Spanos. In fact I think he'll go at it alone if Davis backs out if Goldman Sachs will backroll him. There are questions about the profitability of that though, especially if Kroenke goes ahead with Inglewood anyway.

I don't think the other minority Raiders owners would try to do much, from what I've read they're pretty disconnected from the team, mostly widows and children of founders and such, with a few businessmen sprinkled in. However I don't think they have much desire to sell either. Carol Davis is in pretty good health too isn't she? Early 80's if I recall correctly, she could live another 15-20 years honestly, who knows what'll happen by then.

 

[beej]

You're joking right? You really think that the NFL should cater to gang members? Who again, are the minority, and not the ones who buy season tickets, or boxes, or probably even single game tickets?

Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying. It sounded to me like you were saying there is hardly any gang activity in la. I missed the earlier portion of that conversation.

 

[Goose]

I'm not really suggesting anything, I just thought it was interesting that they changed around the colors when they didn't need to.

The colors are blue and yellow. Check the tint setting on your monitor. They have indicated that the MLS team will have the same colors as the Rams.

 

[Hacksaw]

I always got the feeling Davis wants to stay, not so much with Spanos. In fact I think he'll go at it alone if Davis backs out if Goldman Sachs will backroll him. There are questions about the profitability of that though, especially if Kroenke goes ahead with Inglewood anyway.

I don't think the other minority Raiders owners would try to do much, from what I've read they're pretty disconnected from the team, mostly widows and children of founders and such, with a few businessmen sprinkled in. However I don't think they have much desire to sell either. Carol Davis is in pretty good health too isn't she? Early 80's if I recall correctly, she could live another 15-20 years honestly, who knows what'll happen by then.

If Davis drops out I think Carson loses some luster. Do you really think Spanos would go it alone? Do you think the league would vote for the Carson project over Inglewood if it was only the Chargers? I don't know.
I guess it all depends on what Peacock can pull of and what Stan might do as a result of that action or inaction.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If Davis drops out I think Carson loses some luster. Do you really think Spanos would go it alone? Do you think the league would vote for the Carson project over Inglewood if it was only the Chargers? I don't know.
I guess it all depends on what Peacock can pull of and what Stan might do as a result of that action or inaction.

I think he would try, especially if they were to try to keep the Rams in St Louis. However since the NFL has stressed doing LA right, I think they would really rather Inglewood happen if the Raiders dropped out. I think they would still rather Inglewood happen at this point, but are at least comfortable with Carson. With the Raiders out, that probably goes away though.

 

[Moostache]

Assuming anything at this point is probably silly, but for the sake of argument, what if:

1) NFL approves Carson and the Chargers and Raiders DO end up in LA
2) Inglewood ends up being a mixed use development with no stadium
3) Rams stay in St. Louis

What if Kroenke were to turn around and say, "Fine. But I am not paying anything for a new stadium. I am staying in the year-to-year ridiculously owner friendly lease until I can move to London, Toronto or Tijuana (the San Diego market, abandoned by the Chargers and added to the Tijuana and Mexican markets would be almost as lucrative as Los Angeles, maybe more so if football in Mexico were to really take hold and the country had no other team) or until I buy the Broncos and sell the Rams."

Under that scenario, the Riverfront Stadium never happens, and the Rams stay in the dome until it really IS falling apart and I doubt St. Louis would revive the Riverfront plan if it gets shot down out of spite. They also remain as the worst kind of lame duck - one with a dickish owner out to extract pay back for being foiled by under-estimating the ability of St. Louis to avoid stepping on its own member as readily as San Diego and Oakland.

Its not enough to have the Rams forced to stay. The only way this works long term is to have the Rams stay AND to have them playing in a new stadium...anything else that keeps the team in St. Louis and Kroenke as owner spells long term trouble. Its got to be Rams in Riverside Stadium or Rams in St. Louis without Kroneke or the relocation talk will be endless.

We would hear rumors of the Biloxi Rams or the Birmingham Rams or the London Rams or the Toronto Rams or the Tijuana Carneros...

 

[ChrisW]

Assuming anything at this point is probably silly, but for the sake of argument, what if:

1) NFL approves Carson and the Chargers and Raiders DO end up in LA
2) Inglewood ends up being a mixed use development with no stadium
3) Rams stay in St. Louis

What if Kroenke were to turn around and say, "Fine. But I am not paying anything for a new stadium. I am staying in the year-to-year ridiculously owner friendly lease until I can move to London, Toronto or Tijuana (the San Diego market, abandoned by the Chargers and added to the Tijuana and Mexican markets would be almost as lucrative as Los Angeles, maybe more so if football in Mexico were to really take hold and the country had no other team) or until I buy the Broncos and sell the Rams."

Under that scenario, the Riverfront Stadium never happens, and the Rams stay in the dome until it really IS falling apart and I doubt St. Louis would revive the Riverfront plan if it gets shot down out of spite. They also remain as the worst kind of lame duck - one with a dickish owner out to extract pay back for being foiled by under-estimating the ability of St. Louis to avoid stepping on its own member as readily as San Diego and Oakland.

Its not enough to have the Rams forced to stay. The only way this works long term is to have the Rams stay AND to have them playing in a new stadium...anything else that keeps the team in St. Louis and Kroenke as owner spells long term trouble. Its got to be Rams in Riverside Stadium or Rams in St. Louis without Kroneke or the relocation talk will be endless.

We would hear rumors of the Biloxi Rams or the Birmingham Rams or the London Rams or the Toronto Rams or the Tijuana Carneros...

The thing is, Kroenke won't do anything to jeopardize the well being of the other owners. Things like forsaking the St. Louis fans would drive down his ticket sales, and TV ratings. This hurts the pockets of all the owners.

If he decides to hold up in the dome as his Alamo. The owners will get together and call for him to make a decision regarding his cross ownership. Other than that, I'm not sure any language in by laws exists to push him out of ownership.

The above is worst case scenario. I'm sure Kroenke would take the Riverfront stadium, because it's a pretty sweet deal considering how other stadiums are being built with revenue generated from the stadium.

LA is all about the market. If he loses out on it, he'll resign here. This is all IMO, of course.

 

[The Ripper]

The thing is, Kroenke won't do anything to jeopardize the well being of the other owners. Things like forsaking the St. Louis fans would drive down his ticket sales, and TV ratings. This hurts the pockets of all the owners.

If he decides to hold up in the dome as his Alamo. The owners will get together and call for him to make a decision regarding his cross ownership. Other than that, I'm not sure any language in by laws exists to push him out of ownership.

The above is worst case scenario. I'm sure Kroenke would take the Riverfront stadium, because it's a pretty sweet deal considering how other stadiums are being built with revenue generated from the stadium.

LA is all about the market. If he loses out on it, he'll resign here. This is all IMO, of course.

The stumbling block could be the revenues and cost overruns. Look how the SD plan was picked apart. Kroenke could use the same arguments to get more revenues and get a bigger subsidy in order to stay.

 

[Angry Ram]

The colors are blue and yellow. Check the tint setting on your monitor. They have indicated that the MLS team will have the same colors as the Rams.

I'm really, REALLY hoping this will become reality. I would finally have a pro team in each sport that is closest to "local": STL Rams, Cards, Blues, MLS + OKC Thunder.

 

[Moostache]

I'm really, REALLY hoping this will become reality. I would finally have a pro team in each sport that is closest to "local": STL Rams, Cards, Blues, MLS + OKC Thunder.

No love for the Bulls? Chicago is closer than OKC to the STL...so is Memphis...
The Grizzlies had a pretty decent team this year too...

PLEASE no return to the Canary Yellows!!! If the team is going to rebrand in a new stadium, then pick a whole new color scheme and retain the Horns...

These colors are nice:

but probably way too close to the Seachickens...
unless we are not in the same division much longer...

 

[The Ripper]

No love for the Bulls? Chicago is closer than OKC to the STL...so is Memphis...
The Grizzlies had a pretty decent team this year too...

PLEASE no return to the Canary Yellows!!! If the team is going to rebrand in a new stadium, then pick a whole new color scheme and retain the Horns...

.

I think the decision has already been made to change the uniforms back to the old ones and that could have been the reasoning behind the color scheme of the stadium. Saint Louis FC definitely has great colors and if they continue to draw that might be the MLS team

 

[bluecoconuts]

Assuming anything at this point is probably silly, but for the sake of argument, what if:

1) NFL approves Carson and the Chargers and Raiders DO end up in LA
2) Inglewood ends up being a mixed use development with no stadium
3) Rams stay in St. Louis

What if Kroenke were to turn around and say, "Fine. But I am not paying anything for a new stadium. I am staying in the year-to-year ridiculously owner friendly lease until I can move to London, Toronto or Tijuana (the San Diego market, abandoned by the Chargers and added to the Tijuana and Mexican markets would be almost as lucrative as Los Angeles, maybe more so if football in Mexico were to really take hold and the country had no other team) or until I buy the Broncos and sell the Rams."

Under that scenario, the Riverfront Stadium never happens, and the Rams stay in the dome until it really IS falling apart and I doubt St. Louis would revive the Riverfront plan if it gets shot down out of spite. They also remain as the worst kind of lame duck - one with a dickish owner out to extract pay back for being foiled by under-estimating the ability of St. Louis to avoid stepping on its own member as readily as San Diego and Oakland.

Its not enough to have the Rams forced to stay. The only way this works long term is to have the Rams stay AND to have them playing in a new stadium...anything else that keeps the team in St. Louis and Kroenke as owner spells long term trouble. Its got to be Rams in Riverside Stadium or Rams in St. Louis without Kroneke or the relocation talk will be endless.

We would hear rumors of the Biloxi Rams or the Birmingham Rams or the London Rams or the Toronto Rams or the Tijuana Carneros...

I don't think he would look to relocate the Rams to another city if he was shut out of LA, unless the St Louis market was that bad, but if that was the case then why force him to stay there? I think if he doesn't go to LA, but the Chargers and Raiders both do, then he'll work on a long term deal to keep the team there.

However the part about the lease is a good point, and I'd be shocked if the riverfront stadium got started on right away, I don't think he'd be in any rush to change up the lease, because it is so owner friendly. I also think that he would probably start over on the stadium and build it to how he wants it, not how the city wants it with some of his input. The problem is that can completely change the dynamics of things...

He'll be under obligation or rush to leave the lease, so his argument will probably include something along the lines of "Look, that shit isn't gonna get done, I'm not going to rush into a worse lease than I have, nobody here would do that either. So who knows what the situation is going to look like then, but if I don't leave I'm stuck, and you're not going to have the cash in LA that only I can bring you, which means there's less security there, and greater long term risk ."

If the NFL agrees or not we'll have to see. Either way, I'm not holding my breath on that stadium starting construction next year.