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.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,830
Name
Stu
I hear ya, but to the people who matter (in this case Grubman), it may have taken longer than they liked but it definitely isn't a too little too late thing which is something that many pro LA people like to throw out there. Grubman even said this. I've said this before, but I think people on each side of the coin sees things the way they want to see them.
Yeah - this whole "too little too late" thing really gets old. I may think that St Louis or Missouri has dragged their heels and should have gotten something done sooner and I may not like the FIRST draft of the plan but that quote IMO is just sound bite BS.

I will say this though. It does appear that there is finally an actual sense of urgency on behalf of the Rams in St Louis reps. Now maybe they will move quickly as Grubman suggests they need to.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
The Chargers and Raiduhs are really a different beast with a whole set of different issues - chief among them the agreement the city made with the Rams to get them to move in to the Ed. It is what it is now but you still can't avoid that promise. As far as the other three teams you mentioned the viqueens might be the closest in relation depending on when you really start the clock ticking. Atlanta actually had a deal in place in one year and started breaking ground the next. SF was probably more contentiously fought than what St Louis is dealing with and the Whiners ended up moving to another city that ponied up $850 million toward the stadium.
How are the Chargers and Raiders really any different?

The only agreement between the Rams and St. Louis in regard to the top tier situation was the length of the lease when considering that ranking. Not top 25% and the lease ended at 20 years...in top 25% lease extends to 30 years. That terminology is specific to the dome, not to the St. Louis market as a whole. The Raiders and Chargers lease has expired with their buildings and are going year to year, so has the Rams.

Arthur Blank was asking for a new stadium as early as 2008. In 2011 they were making a significant push with the local governing body for an open air venue...which as we know is not what is being built now. So hardly were the Falcons getting a stadium in the matter of a couple years. I mean, if we are going to use sentences like "having a deal in place one year and started breaking ground the next"...then I guess if this deal gets done we look back to the history of this project as a start time of when the Rams and St. Louis shake hands?

And hey...if the Rams move an hour from downtown St. Louis (like the 9ers did) I think I'll take that deal. I'm cool with the Wentzville Rams. :banana:
 

rhinobean

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jul 19, 2013
Messages
2,152
Name
Bob
How are the Chargers and Raiders really any different?

The only agreement between the Rams and St. Louis in regard to the top tier situation was the length of the lease when considering that ranking. Not top 25% and the lease ended at 20 years...in top 25% lease extends to 30 years. That terminology is specific to the dome, not to the St. Louis market as a whole. The Raiders and Chargers lease has expired with their buildings and are going year to year, so has the Rams.

Arthur Blank was asking for a new stadium as early as 2008. In 2011 they were making a significant push with the local governing body for an open air venue...which as we know is not what is being built now. So hardly were the Falcons getting a stadium in the matter of a couple years. I mean, if we are going to use sentences like "having a deal in place one year and started breaking ground the next"...then I guess if this deal gets done we look back to the history of this project as a start time of when the Rams and St. Louis shake hands?

And hey...if the Rams move an hour from downtown St. Louis (like the 9ers did) I think I'll take that deal. I'm cool with the Wentzville Rams. :banana:
If Kroenke had said "if you don't agree to redo the dome the way I put forth in the arbitration, I want a new building to play in or I'm moving" it would have been totally negligent of the cvc/city to wait as long as it has! Don't think Kroenke added anything to the dialogue at all until his announcement about Inglewood! Guess the city was hoping the Rams could play a while longer in that 20year old dome with the sweet lease deal until another stadium plan, with some input from Kroenke could could be built! Guess they misjudged the greed and less than honorable intentions of the owner.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,830
Name
Stu
How are the Chargers and Raiders really any different?

The only agreement between the Rams and St. Louis in regard to the top tier situation was the length of the lease when considering that ranking. Not top 25% and the lease ended at 20 years...in top 25% lease extends to 30 years. That terminology is specific to the dome, not to the St. Louis market as a whole.

Arthur Blank was asking for a new stadium as early as 2008. In 2011 they were making a significant push with the local governing body for an open air venue...which as we know is not what is being built now. So hardly were the Falcons getting a stadium in the matter of a couple years. I mean, if we are going to use sentences like "having a deal in place one year and started breaking ground the next"...then I guess if this deal gets done we look back to the history of this project as a start time of when the Rams and St. Louis shake hands?

And hey...if the Rams move an hour from downtown St. Louis (like the 9ers did) I think I'll take that deal. I'm cool with the Wentzville Rams. :banana:
The 25% clause was in relation to incentives to get them to move to St Louis. That has always been in the terms of the contract. The Rams waived the condition the first time around but the CVC knew it was coming around again. It is very much a big part of the picture whether we're talking the Dome or another stadium.

The Chargers and Raiduhs not only have never had such a clause but the Raiduhs have already moved TWICE, and with the Chargers, there has been a proposal on the table for some time but Spanos won't put up his money and the city won't fund it. If Spanos was offering to pay for a stadium in LA, I'm guessing he'd already be there. But he wants to stay in San Diego by all accounts and only wants to block another team from taking part of his market. And I realize that stadium is old and lacks some of the things an owner wants but it is a pretty cool place and has hosted three Superbowls.

Arthur Blank first floated the idea of a stadium to replace the Georgia Dome in 2008 - that much is true. But he apparently started working on the idea in 2010. In this case also, the entire impetus was on Blank. The city was under no obligation to come to him with a proposal. Once he proposed the plan, it moved very quickly. I have a hard time believing that if it was up to the city of Atlanta to propose something, that Blank would have spearheaded the plan. Maybe I'm wrong but that is usually not how things work.

Yeah - I wouldn't have a problem with the Rams moving an hour away if I were in St Louis either. I thought that was potentially a better idea not knowing the city. My point was how contentious the battle got with the Olympic bid, low income housing being proposed along the arteries to the stadium, US Senators proposing legislation to strip them of their name, so on and so forth. That wasn't so much about the time frame as it was really about how the St Louis negotiations aren't abnormally sour. But in that one, the city ponied up and is going to pay off the NFL loan. The Whiners will end up paying something like $300 million for a Superbowl ready stadium.

I don't mean to keep harping on the Superbowl issue but it is something that defines the level of a new stadium these days. Realistically, IMO, that should be kept in mind when considering a new stadium design.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
The 25% clause was in relation to incentives to get them to move to St Louis. That has always been in the terms of the contract. The Rams waived the condition the first time around but the CVC knew it was coming around again. It is very much a big part of the picture whether we're talking the Dome or another stadium.

The Chargers and Raiduhs not only have never had such a clause but the Raiduhs have already moved TWICE, and with the Chargers, there has been a proposal on the table for some time but Spanos won't put up his money and the city won't fund it. If Spanos was offering to pay for a stadium in LA, I'm guessing he'd already be there. But he wants to stay in San Diego by all accounts and only wants to block another team from taking part of his market. And I realize that stadium is old and lacks some of the things an owner wants but it is a pretty cool place and has hosted three Superbowls.

Arthur Blank first floated the idea of a stadium to replace the Georgia Dome in 2008 - that much is true. But he apparently started working on the idea in 2010. In this case also, the entire impetus was on Blank. The city was under no obligation to come to him with a proposal. Once he proposed the plan, it moved very quickly. I have a hard time believing that if it was up to the city of Atlanta to propose something, that Blank would have spearheaded the plan. Maybe I'm wrong but that is usually not how things work.

Yeah - I wouldn't have a problem with the Rams moving an hour away if I were in St Louis either. I thought that was potentially a better idea not knowing the city. My point was how contentious the battle got with the Olympic bid, low income housing being proposed along the arteries to the stadium, US Senators proposing legislation to strip them of their name, so on and so forth. That wasn't so much about the time frame as it was really about how the St Louis negotiations aren't abnormally sour. But in that one, the city ponied up and is going to pay off the NFL loan. The Whiners will end up paying something like $300 million for a Superbowl ready stadium.

I don't mean to keep harping on the Superbowl issue but it is something that defines the level of a new stadium these days. Realistically, IMO, that should be kept in mind when considering a new stadium design.

That's simply not accurate. Those are terms directly related to the lease of the dome.
The dome was what attracted the team to St. Louis but that doesn't mean the lease terms of that building are going to be carried over into every single possible venue the team plays in St. Louis.

The terms are that the lease can expire for the DOME. It doesn't state that once the terms of the dome expire it means that St. Louis no longer is the market for the Rams. The new building will operate under an entirely different lease agreement.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...call-from-goodell-over-comments-on-rams-move/

Jerry Jones gets a call from Goodell over comments on Rams move
Posted by Michael David Smith on January 16, 2015

goodellapril19ap-e1303700845728.jpg
AP

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones was asked to explain himself to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell after saying that the Rams could move to Los Angeles without getting permission from the league office.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that Goodell personally called Jones to find out what Jones meant when he suggested that Rams owner Stan Kroenke won’t need permission to move.

Jones told the New York Times that if Kroenke wants to move his team, “He can if the league says he can’t. . . . Again, there are just certain things that clubs can do.” But NFL executive Eric Grubman says Jones was caught off-guard by a question about the Rams shortly after the Cowboys’ loss to the Packers, and that Jones wasn’t prepared to discuss issues related to the Rams.

“He was in Green Bay, Wisconsin, and he just lost an incredible game. A lot of passion and emotion,” Grubman told the Post-Dispatch. “And he gets hit with that question from an out-of-town reporter. . . . Jerry wasn’t even quite sure what he said beyond acknowledging historically teams have moved without [permission]. So when asked — ‘Did you say that?’ — he wasn’t even sure.”

Grubman said he doesn’t think Jones was saying the owners would back a fellow owner who bucks the rules of the league.

“I’m not going to speak for him. But I’ll hazard a guess on this one, that he would not tell you this could be done without a vote,” Grubman said. “To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that any owner can pick which rules they want to go for a vote and which they don’t want to go for a vote.”

Grubman said Goodell discovered from talking to Jones that Jones was not necessarily saying the Rams can or should leave St. Louis.

“It quickly became obvious that there’s nothing really here,” Grubman said. “Because in the heat of the moment, you had an owner who wasn’t really focused on the issue at hand, and talked about history and remembers that but doesn’t remember much of the detail beyond that.”

This is a sensitive topic to the NFL, which doesn’t want to alienate fans in St. Louis and wants to make sure that when and if a team moves to Los Angeles, the move is handled the right way. Jones briefly went off-message on that subject, and now the NFL wants to clear things up.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,830
Name
Stu
That's simply not accurate. Those are terms directly related to the lease of the dome.
The dome was what attracted the team to St. Louis but that doesn't mean the lease terms of that building are going to be carried over into every single possible venue the team plays in St. Louis.

The terms are that the lease can expire for the DOME. It doesn't state that once the terms of the dome expire it means that St. Louis no longer is the market for the Rams. The new building will operate under an entirely different lease agreement.
I'm not saying it will necessarily be included in a new lease or even a direct requirement of a new stadium. But I can only guess that it will be somewhat of a litmus test for a new venue.

I also don't think you can actually separate the two and think that St Louis is under no obligation to propose something that lives up to the spirit of the 25% clause in the Dome agreement in order to get the league behind the proposal. I just think St Louis would have a real tough case in trying to fight a move if they are proposing a stadium that is not considered in keeping with what got the Rams to move in the first place.

I could be wrong as we all could. But if the city/state is serious about keeping the Rams, I think that is how they need to proceed. I think they still have a very good chance to keep the team. IMO - a top tier stadium is what gets it done.
 

Sum1

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
3,604
I'm not saying it will necessarily be included in a new lease or even a direct requirement of a new stadium. But I can only guess that it will be somewhat of a litmus test for a new venue.

I also don't think you can actually separate the two and think that St Louis is under no obligation to propose something that lives up to the spirit of the 25% clause in the Dome agreement in order to get the league behind the proposal. I just think St Louis would have a real tough case in trying to fight a move if they are proposing a stadium that is not considered in keeping with what got the Rams to move in the first place.

I could be wrong as we all could. But if the city/state is serious about keeping the Rams, I think that is how they need to proceed. I think they still have a very good chance to keep the team. IMO - a top tier stadium is what gets it done.
Right, and I think any new stadium is going to be the cream of the crop.

I am only talking in regard to how it makes this situation any different from the Chargers or Raiders situation. It doesn't. All three now are playing in buildings they have year-to-year leases, all three desire a better stadium than the stadiums they are playing in.

I don't think any of the three teams are going to be happy with just any stadium being thrown up...I mean, it's almost common sense to assume that every new stadium is going to be up to the highest modern standards.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4


Helping Kroenke build the stadium of his choice in whatever location he wants using public tax money 5 yrs ago? Good lord. This just doesn't seem realistic in any city located in the US. I don't see the issue as one of St Louis dragging it's feet purposefully, I see it as Stan buying the team with never any intention other than to move the team somewhere else. As for politicians getting blamed I just don't see that here. Most people understand that there have been serious issues over the last 5 yrs, both local and national, that put talk of a stadium on the side.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,830
Name
Stu
Right, and I think any new stadium is going to be the cream of the crop.

I am only talking in regard to how it makes this situation any different from the Chargers or Raiders situation. It doesn't. All three now are playing in buildings they have year-to-year leases, all three desire a better stadium than the stadiums they are playing in.

I don't think any of the three teams are going to be happy with just any stadium being thrown up...I mean, it's almost common sense to assume that every new stadium is going to be up to the highest modern standards.
Yeah I agree. The one thing that separates them right now in reality is that allegedly, one owner is ready to build a stadium on his own dime.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
There are a lot of issues with that phrasing, but the biggest is that it doesn't reflect the reality of what's going on. Which city is closer NOW is one big question. That would seem indisputedly to be L.A. if their financing is as settled as it seems (as in there will be no public financing so that won't need to be approved). The other big one is "Where does Stan prefer to be?"

1. It only matters if LA is closer at the moment if the NFL has no intention in holding Kroenke to any one of it bylaws.
2. Stan may prefer to be in LA, but he bought a team in STL.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Bernie: Grubman Q-&-A on Rams' future
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_adac3c69-1191-5bf3-89b5-27ae66f6f2bd.html

NFL executive VP Eric Grubman was in St. Louis on Thursday for meetings with STL stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz.

Two Post-Dispatch reporters (Jim Thomas, David Hunn) and one columnist (that would be me) sat with Grubman for a 25-minute interview.

There's a lot of interest in the Rams' stay-or-go story, and Grubman is a key player in the process.

So I transcribed the interview for you; here's about 90 percent of it. I left out some of the extraneous material.

What is your big-picture overview of the current situation in St. Louis?

Grubman: "“This city has a heart and soul. And its got a football team. And it's got a very able (stadium) team trying to put together a plan. Our role is to help them. And that's what we're doing.”

Grubman said he's liked what he's learned about the STL stadium plan so far …

But, "This is the beginning of the process," he added. "And they have a job which in any community is tough to do. These projects are difficult and complicated. And everybody's got to do their part. We're really on the front end of that, and the early signs are encouraging.”

With Rams owner Stan Kroenke trying to build a stadium in Los Angeles, is it a matter of 'too little too late' for St. Louis?

Grubman: "I've heard that speculation, and I have been part of the effort to encourage St. Louis to do things earlier than has been done. But I also recognize that there's a moment in time, and that moment in time has to be right for everyone. Especially public leadership, which is really required. And civic leadership and business leadership. So we're not overly critical of that. That's also a recognition of the fact that there's not a huge amount of time to waste. There are other opportunities, and I don't care to speculate about probabilities, but those are well known, and the club hasn't been secret about looking at those. So it's time to get after it.”

Is the STL stadium plan 'real' in Grubman's mind?

Grubman said it hadn't reached that stage, because so much work has to be done on so many fronts before the project is a go.

"A real plan means that the key steps are all actionable," he said. "There are things that they have to do, and they have a good outline on how to get them done. And they have good experts working in that direction.”

Grubman added, "Our role is to give it the best chance possible. And to aid in that effort."

On the possibility of the Rams' moving to LA, Grubman said the NFL is committed to keeping teams where they are.

“When Roger Goodell was elected commissioner, one of the main planks of his commissionership, which he's emphasized repeatedly in the time he's been commissioner, is 32 teams, strong in their markets," Grubman said. "Not in some other theoretical market, but strong in their markets. So we have an obligation which we take very seriously, to do whatever it takes to give that a chance. If we fail, it won't be for a lack of trying.”

How do you help a city keep it's team at the same time you're looking to get a team back into the LA market? For Los Angeles to get a team, doesn't it mean another city must lose its team?

Grubman: “That (keeping a team) is our first priority for an existing team. In my mind, that's not at odds with developing the Los Angeles opportunity for an unnamed club. Because if you develop the opportunity, that still relies on some other market failing. I don't hope that it happens, and I'll actively work to make sure that doesn't happen, but you have a backup strategy. And that backup strategy is attractive. And I don't see them at odds.”

What would be Grubman's advice to St. Louis?

“Take the plan and get it done," he said.

Grubman added, "But I don't put that all on them. Some of this is up to us, and the club. This is not a scenario where we're going to sit back and say 'Tell us when you're ready.' We're going to come in and do us much as we can to help them. That's why we're here.”

If the stadium plan becomes a reality, is there a scenario in which Kroenke would still be allowed to move the Rams to LA?

Grubman: “That's a great question which I don't know how to answer because that's subject to the twin pillars of relocation guideline and votes. The relocation guidelines are not absolute etched in stone. There's subjective judgments that have to be made. So I can't guess that probability. But on the other hand there's votes, which I don't control. But what's clear is, if a market has a franchise, and that franchise has been supported, and can be supported, and that franchise can enjoy a healthy existence, that's a central plank of Roger Goodell's commissionership. And I don't take that lightly.”

How much of a factor is support for a team in its market?

Grubman said part of the assessment is, "What support can be anticipated in the future,” … and “does the business plan work.”

The Rams have had 11 consecutive non-winning seasons and the league's second-worst record over that time. How does a team's performance factor into the fan support?

Grubman: “That's just on the margin. Passion is what comes from fans. When you go to a stadium and somebody's wearing a bag on their head because the team is winless, that's a demonstration of passion. And hope is what you start out the season with. And a bag is what you end a terrible season with. But if you come back, that's testimony which just has undying passion.”

Grubman said Kroenke hasn't told the NFL that he wants to leave. What has Kroenke said to the league about his intentions?

Grubman: “I'm not going to get into specifics other than he's said he's going to keep his options open and he's looking.”

He added, “The league is preceding on the basis that the St. Louis Rams are the St. Louis Rams. And that we're looking for a solution for the St. Louis Rams, and not for some other team to be the St. Louis Rams.”

Is a new stadium necessary -- a must have for St. Louis?

Grubman: “Yes, but I don't know what kind of stadium other than to say that a team healthy in its market is the prescription. And how to fill that prescription, there's not one way to do that. The way it was pursued over the past couple of years (at the Edward Jones Dome) has failed. The probability that that gets resurrected is zero. Therefore we have to look at a new solution. There is no other stadium to be renovated or retrofitted, ergo the solution set involves a new stadium.”

Is NFL expansion an option?

Grubman: “Expansion has not been talked about. So to my knowledge it has not been on the table, and to my knowledge it's not anticipated to be on the table.”

What is the league's opinion on Kroenke's stadium initiative in Inglewood, near LA? Is it appealing to the NFL, and does it fulfill the league's vision for the market?

Grubman: “There are multiple sites that at this stage appear attractive. And there are multiple clubs interested in those different sites. So I don't know how to put a probability on any one site versus another or any one team versus another.”

Is the Kroenke LA stadium plan further ahead than the St. Louis plan?

Grubman: “I would not say that …is one ahead of the other, I don't look at it that way. I look at the scenario here in St. Louis, and those controllables that can be controlled by St. Louis. Can you assemble the site, can you assemble the financing, and can a business plan be put together collectively by all of us that's attactive. Those things are generally in our collective control. And we just have to get that done.”

Initial thoughts on STL stadium plan?

“I think it's too early to grade the plan. The location on the waterfront is terrific. An urban stadium is terrific. But you really have to get deeper into it. You have to get more certainty around the costs, and then the revenues that are going to come about to determine whether that's attractive. And we're just too early.”

On Dallas Cowboys' owner Jerry Jones' comments that Kroenke can move team if he wants, even if NFL tries to stop him...

Grubman played down Jerry's comments – he said Jones was speaking off the top of his head, in an emotional state, after a tough loss at Green Bay. Grubman said that Goodell called Jones to get a clarification on the comments.

“In the heat of the moment (Jones) wasn't really focused on the issue at hand," Grubman said. "He talked about history (of teams moving) and he remembers that, but doesn't remember much of the detail beyond that.”

Grubman added, “I'll hazard a guess on this one _ (Jones) would not tell you that this can be done without a vote. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that any owner can pick which rules they want to go for a vote and not want to go for a vote. That's prescribed. It's very clear what needs to be voted. “

How much teeth are is in the NFL relocation rules?

Grubman: “I don't know how to gauge the probability of votes, but since I've been associated with the league, the league has made some tough calls to keep teams in their markets and to do things that are quite extraordinary to keep teams in their markets. And that's ended in their success.

(Grubman mentioned Minnesota, New England and New Orleans as teams that the NFL kept in their current markets when potential moves were contemplated.)

If Kroenke bolts in defiance of the league would the league go as far to try and strip the team from him?

Grubman: “I have no idea what the league would do. But I do know there are tremendous tools available. There's a charter and bylaws and there's ample authority in the commissioner's office to make sure that everybody follows the rules. That's what we are, we're a league of rules. Having something which is a subjective judgment subjected to a vote is very different than having a league without rules.

"We're going to follow the rules, all the clubs are going to follow the rules. There are subjective judgments that are going to be made, there are going to be recommendations that are analyzed and then made, but everybody's going to follow the rules.”

Has Kroenke said he'll follow the rules?

Grubman: “Oh, yes. And he has followed the rules. Not on this because there's never been any suggestion that he wouldn't.”

Is Kroenke committed to follow the rules in this situation?

Grubman: “Again, that's such a hypothetical question. That's to suggest that anyone had any doubt that he would. Here's the better example. We've prescribed guidelines for how to approach the LA market, any club that was interested. Including keeping the league staff informed. All of the clubs that have been acting in that regard have been doing that including the St. Louis Rams.

"Everybody's going to follow the rules.”

About the St. Louis future. If the Rams move, is there another path for St. Louis? With a commitment for a new stadium could another team relocate here?

Grubman: “I view that as such an undesirable path to take that I haven't even thought about the probabilities. Because you not only have to do all the hard work that you already have, then you're going to have to convince somebody that this is the market that they want to go to as opposed to some other market or some market that they could stay in.

"The objective is, to give the St. Louis Rams the best opportunity of being healthy in this market.”

Is St. Louis a good football market?

Grubman: “This is a great sports market. It's been a terrific football market. But I don't know what this project is going to yield. It's not just about how many fans went to the games the past few years. It's about what the cost is for the stadium, and what's the economic yield out of that project.”

How much time does STL have to make the stadium happen?

Grubman: “I won't put any lines in the sand, but our normal cycle includes a variety of meetings where we have the owners together to vote. What we've talked about is, we really ought to be assembling this plan this calendar year, which doesn't mean Dec. 31st.

"We need to get this project to the point where it's actionable this calendar year.”

Beyond Dec. 31st, would it be too late?

Grubman: “I don't know whether it's too late. But my objective is to do things in the here and now, not some artificial point of time in the future.”
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4

Again, there's not going to be any pleasing Stan in St Louis. What you suggested earlier was to essentially give Stan a blank check full of tax money and let him do whatever he wants, whenever he wants.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Peacock aiming for 'forever' stadium on St. Louis riverfront
• By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_59cf65c3-b206-5db2-b2df-7cfb781fcb7c.html

ST. LOUIS • An open-air stadium on the north riverfront wouldn’t be a throw-away model, but the city’s “first-ever forever” football facility, planners said on Friday.

“That’s a skyline change,” former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock said he told National Football League officials. “We don’t do that lightly. So if we do, it’s permanent.”

Peacock said the league’s executives understood — local leaders aren't interested in building a stadium that gets discarded in 30 years, in favor of newer, sleeker models.

Peacock and FleishmanHillard Senior Vice President Jim Woodcock met with the Post-Dispatch editorial board on Friday morning.

Peacock was one of two appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon in November to author a stadium plan that could keep an NFL team in St. Louis, following years of nonexistent negotiations between St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and officials in charge of the Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams now play.

Nearly two weeks ago, Kroenke announced plans to build a stadium in Los Angeles.

Four days later, Peacock and Blitz revealed plans for a new 64,000-seat stadium on the Mississippi River just north of downtown St. Louis.

Some locals quickly criticized any move to discard the Edward Jones Dome.

In Friday’s meeting with the editorial board, Peacock said he understood the complaints. “I think we’re a community that doesn’t want to build a stadium every 30 years,” he said.

But the Edward Jones Dome is “suboptimal,” he said. It was constructed as an addition to the city convention center. That’s how it was sold to the public, and why the economics made sense then. It didn’t have much NFL input in its design, he said. And it wasn’t built to accommodate renovation and growth.

“And the lease is not good for us,” he added. “Why are we fighting for it?”

Outdoor facilities — Lambeau Field in Green Bay, Soldier Field in Chicago and Arrowhead Stadium in Kansas City — have lasted longer and proven easier to renovate, he said.

Moreover, the plan doesn’t dump the Jones Dome, Peacock said. Convention center leaders have said they will sell far more conventions without the Rams.

“Many conventions won’t book knowing there’s an NFL game going on next to them,” he said.

The NFL is committed to St. Louis, he said.

“They feel a real obligation to do everything possible to keep a team in St. Louis,” Peacock said.

But keeping a team requires building a new facility, he said.

“Our money is effectively conditional on private money,” Peacock said. “This is a public-private initiative.

“Without a support of league/team, we’re not building this stadium.”
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
NFL executive Eric Grubman talks Rams, relocation
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-executive-eric-grubman-talks-rams-relocation

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- NFL executive Eric Grubman, the man charged with handling league relocation to Los Angeles and franchise retention in current NFL cities, stopped through St. Louis on Thursday and took some time to chat with local media outlets.

Grubman was in town to meet with Rams and St. Louis city officials about their recently released stadium proposal in St. Louis. He spoke to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and local radio station KMOX.

The many pertinent questions that need to be asked of a representative of the league were asked. The answers were about as clear as mud.

For example, when asked about the comments of Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones earlier this week that the Rams could pretty much do whatever they want, Grubman told KMOX that Jones made the comments in the heat of the moment after his team lost to the Green Bay Packers and emphasized that there are rules in place that have to be followed.

"There’s no question that new locations, new leases, modified stadiums, renovated stadiums – all of those things are subject to a vote," Grubman told KMOX. "I said to somebody earlier today, whether a team leaves or stays, it needs a vote. We are a league of rules and the rules are followed.”

But how closely are those rules followed and can they be bent to the whims of the league? That has been my contention this whole time, and I still believe it to be true after seeing what Grubman told St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz when he asked if there was a scenario in which Stan Kroenke could move the Rams with a St. Louis stadium in place.

“That’s a great question which I don’t know how to answer because that’s subject to the twin pillars of relocation guideline and votes,” Grubman told Miklasz. “The relocation guidelines are not absolute etched in stone. There’s subjective judgments that have to be made.

“So I can’t guess that probability. But on the other hand there’s votes, which I don’t control. But what’s clear is, if a market has a franchise, and that franchise has been supported, and can be supported, and that franchise can enjoy a healthy existence, that’s a central plank of Roger Goodell’s commissionership. And I don’t take that lightly.”

As Miklasz points out, the use of the phrases "not absolute etched in stone" and "subjective judgments" allows for plenty of wiggle room on matters such as these.

Grubman's overall tone both on the radio and in print were mostly positive about keeping the Rams in St. Louis. He makes it clear that the Kroenke hasn't specifically said he wants to move to Los Angeles though he also acknowledged that Kroenke has said he's "keeping his options open." He also made it clear that for St. Louis to keep the Rams, they must see the stadium plan through to completion (which we already knew). He also told Miklasz he doesn't believe it's "too little, too late" for this stadium plan to keep the Rams and that the league has helped other markets keep their teams.

But let's be realistic here, despite the overall positive tone of any and all comments Grubman made on behalf of the league, he committed to absolutely nothing, nor would you expect him to. He's simply doing his job. But it doesn't take a direct answer to know that ultimately the league and its owners will do what they believe is best for business.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.