ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
6 months isn't a hard timeline. It can probably swing both ways, with it most likely taking longer in the sunny state of Cal.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
6 months isn't a hard timeline. It can probably swing both ways, with it most likely taking longer in the sunny state of Cal.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
no it could be longer. 6 is extremely quick
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
I didn't think it would take that long, that could be a big deal. Inglewood is expected to take like 19-20 months total (Starting in December they said they'd be ready by 2018, meaning August at the latest), I wonder how much that'll weigh in for the decision, since they told St Louis it needed to be ready by 2018 (which I'm still unsure as to why that is).
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Goodell: Tremendous Progress in STL
The NFL Owners meetings wrapped up in San Francisco, CA on Wednesday. Both Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman discussed the possible moves of teams to Los Angeles for the 2016 season, which include possibly the Rams.
Watch Goodell/Grubman Comments
The NFL Owners meetings wrapped up in San Francisco, CA on Wednesday. Both Commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman discussed the possible moves of teams to Los Angeles for the 2016 season, which include possibly the Rams.
Watch Goodell/Grubman Comments
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,620
- Name
- Stu
And that gum was something you got out of a 1 cent gumball machine and you picked it up off someone else's foot.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Demoff strikes conciliatory tone on stadium project
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_76c4e591-794d-5e92-a598-d772ac22ffd3.html
SAN FRANCISCO • Despite what seems to be an obvious preference by the Rams to play their football in Los Angeles starting in 2016, team executive Kevin Demoff found himself in the unusual position Wednesday of updating team owners on the St. Louis stadium situation.
All of the three so-called home markets — St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland — were called upon to provide updates. And with Rams owner Stan Kroenke in attendance, Demoff did the, uh, honors Wednesday.
“Our goal was to update the membership on what’s happening in St. Louis with the task force, how we got to where we are, and the process,” said Demoff, the team’s executive vice president of football operations. “Hopefully we provided them some color around Dave (Peacock) and the group’s efforts.”
Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive, is spearheading the St. Louis effort to build a $985 million riverfront stadium on the north edge of downtown. He and Clayton attorney Bob Blitz comprised the original two-man stadium task force appointed in early November by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.
Their ranks since have swelled with the hiring of numerous consultants, architects, designers and construction firms.
But the purpose of Wednesday’s exercise wasn’t a bells-and-whistles presentation designed to impress owners by three cities trying to prevent their NFL teams from fleeing to Los Angeles.
“It was a completely objective review of what had happened to date in terms of the lease and what the task force has done,” Demoff said. “The other two markets did the same, and hopefully that benefited all 32 owners to get a better understanding of what’s happening in each of the three markets.
“There were no slide shows about stadiums, there were no schematics. This was merely a very matter-of-fact presentation by all three teams of what’s happening in the home markets, really over the last few years. Each team had five minutes, so it was short.”
There also was time provided for questions and answers, but Demoff said he got no questions from club owners after his presentation.
“If you’re living in St. Louis and you’re a Rams fans, you probably know most of what was discussed,” he said. “Obviously, this is a broader audience.”
It was an audience of owners that to a large degree hasn’t followed every step of this process.
“They may be more focused on re-signing their quarterback than knowing the specifics of three task forces,” Demoff said.
When word got out that Demoff would make the St. Louis update, some Rams fans on the Internet message boards and Twitter wondered if he would put St. Louis’ best foot forward.
“There’s this perception that we have an adversarial relationship with the task force,” Demoff told the Post-Dispatch. “I think Dave and Bob would be the first to tell you that’s absolutely not true.
“We have worked with the task force. I really admire the work that they’ve gotten done to date. They’ve done a lot more work in the past few months than we’ve seen in St. Louis in a very long time.”
So after months of silence from the Rams on the entire relocation topic, Demoff struck a more conciliatory tone.
Perhaps the NFL has encouraged the Rams — as well as the Chargers and Raiders — to play nice. Perhaps it’s maneuvering to show that the Rams have cooperated in trying to get something done (for use when the time comes to meet relocation guidelines). Perhaps it’s simply a grudging acknowledgement of the work done to date by Peacock and Blitz.
“It would be disingenuous to say that they haven’t really laid the groundwork towards the first meaningful (stadium) proposal in St. Louis in a very long time,” Demoff said. “That doesn’t necessarily change the fact we’re gonna explore all the options and alternatives that exist, and that we may be on parallel paths in different markets.
“But we have a good core fan base in St. Louis. We’re playing football in St. Louis. We’re not just going to turn our back and say we’re going to dismiss the efforts that the task force has made.
“That wouldn’t be fair to what they’ve done. It’s not fair to Dave and Bob, and it’s not fair to the fans. Nor is it fair to the rest of the NFL. Our job is to be engaged with the task force, to give that proposal the best chance of it being built for us.”
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_76c4e591-794d-5e92-a598-d772ac22ffd3.html
SAN FRANCISCO • Despite what seems to be an obvious preference by the Rams to play their football in Los Angeles starting in 2016, team executive Kevin Demoff found himself in the unusual position Wednesday of updating team owners on the St. Louis stadium situation.
All of the three so-called home markets — St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland — were called upon to provide updates. And with Rams owner Stan Kroenke in attendance, Demoff did the, uh, honors Wednesday.
“Our goal was to update the membership on what’s happening in St. Louis with the task force, how we got to where we are, and the process,” said Demoff, the team’s executive vice president of football operations. “Hopefully we provided them some color around Dave (Peacock) and the group’s efforts.”
Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive, is spearheading the St. Louis effort to build a $985 million riverfront stadium on the north edge of downtown. He and Clayton attorney Bob Blitz comprised the original two-man stadium task force appointed in early November by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.
Their ranks since have swelled with the hiring of numerous consultants, architects, designers and construction firms.
But the purpose of Wednesday’s exercise wasn’t a bells-and-whistles presentation designed to impress owners by three cities trying to prevent their NFL teams from fleeing to Los Angeles.
“It was a completely objective review of what had happened to date in terms of the lease and what the task force has done,” Demoff said. “The other two markets did the same, and hopefully that benefited all 32 owners to get a better understanding of what’s happening in each of the three markets.
“There were no slide shows about stadiums, there were no schematics. This was merely a very matter-of-fact presentation by all three teams of what’s happening in the home markets, really over the last few years. Each team had five minutes, so it was short.”
There also was time provided for questions and answers, but Demoff said he got no questions from club owners after his presentation.
“If you’re living in St. Louis and you’re a Rams fans, you probably know most of what was discussed,” he said. “Obviously, this is a broader audience.”
It was an audience of owners that to a large degree hasn’t followed every step of this process.
“They may be more focused on re-signing their quarterback than knowing the specifics of three task forces,” Demoff said.
When word got out that Demoff would make the St. Louis update, some Rams fans on the Internet message boards and Twitter wondered if he would put St. Louis’ best foot forward.
“There’s this perception that we have an adversarial relationship with the task force,” Demoff told the Post-Dispatch. “I think Dave and Bob would be the first to tell you that’s absolutely not true.
“We have worked with the task force. I really admire the work that they’ve gotten done to date. They’ve done a lot more work in the past few months than we’ve seen in St. Louis in a very long time.”
So after months of silence from the Rams on the entire relocation topic, Demoff struck a more conciliatory tone.
Perhaps the NFL has encouraged the Rams — as well as the Chargers and Raiders — to play nice. Perhaps it’s maneuvering to show that the Rams have cooperated in trying to get something done (for use when the time comes to meet relocation guidelines). Perhaps it’s simply a grudging acknowledgement of the work done to date by Peacock and Blitz.
“It would be disingenuous to say that they haven’t really laid the groundwork towards the first meaningful (stadium) proposal in St. Louis in a very long time,” Demoff said. “That doesn’t necessarily change the fact we’re gonna explore all the options and alternatives that exist, and that we may be on parallel paths in different markets.
“But we have a good core fan base in St. Louis. We’re playing football in St. Louis. We’re not just going to turn our back and say we’re going to dismiss the efforts that the task force has made.
“That wouldn’t be fair to what they’ve done. It’s not fair to Dave and Bob, and it’s not fair to the fans. Nor is it fair to the rest of the NFL. Our job is to be engaged with the task force, to give that proposal the best chance of it being built for us.”
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Can progress in St. Louis overcome LA momentum?
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_c2de5695-84a2-533d-bcb3-b1b7853945a1.html
SAN FRANCISCO • During his annual Super Bowl news conference nearly four months ago, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell talked about “positive developments” on the stadium front in St. Louis.
On Wednesday, as the league wrapped up two days’ worth of owners meetings, Goodell’s praise for the St. Louis effort was turned up a couple of notches.
“There is tremendous progress going on there,” Goodell said, in reference to the work of the stadium task force headed by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz.
There is no doubt that St. Louis’ plan to build a riverfront stadium on the north edge of downtown has gotten the attention of the league. And with time dwindling before a decision on Los Angeles relocation, there is no doubt that St. Louis remains far ahead of the other “home markets” trying to keep their teams from leaving — Oakland and San Diego.
But Eric Grubman, the league executive charged with overseeing LA relocation as well as the home market stadium efforts, has a way of keeping things real. And Wednesday was no exception.
“I would categorize St. Louis as having very capable people working on the project,” Grubman told a throng of reporters. “And I would categorize them as having put some of the pieces in place. We’ve been working with them. We’ve been spending time, and we’ll spend more time as necessary.”
But then came the punch line.
“Getting stadiums done, though, is something that’s very, very hard,” Grubman continued. “It’s very complicated. And you don’t count anything unless it’s fully done and occupied.
“So good effort isn’t enough. We really have to get a project which is viable and gets the support of membership.”
It was a not-so-subtle reminder that St. Louis isn’t there yet despite the “tremendous progress” cited by Goodell. The NFL never plays horseshoes on these matters — coming close counts for nothing, and there are no prizes for “good effort.”
Meanwhile, the momentum for having at least one team in Los Angeles in 2016 continues to build.
As he left the NFL owners meetings Wednesday, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay minced no words when asked about the possibility of pro football’s return to LA.
“It’s not a matter of ‘if,’ ” Irsay replied. “It’s how many.”
As in how many teams.
“I’m certain there’ll be a team there in the next couple years,” Irsay added.
For his part, Goodell wouldn’t go that far — at least not yet.
“There has been significant progress (in Los Angeles), but I don’t think it’s inevitable,” Goodell said. “There is certainly momentum; there are certainly opportunities. I can’t remember the last time we had two facilities that are actually entitled and are being developed. That’s a very positive development ... but a lot more work has to be done.”
Maybe so, but there are increasing signs that LA is going to happen. One example came Wednesday when the league decided to open bidding on Super Bowl 54 (after the 2019 season) to Los Angeles. That’s conditional on a new stadium being ready by 2018 for any team that relocates there.
“If there is a team that relocates to Los Angeles, at that point in time they could submit an application to be considered for the Super Bowl,” Goodell said.
The four current finalists for Super Bowl 54 are Atlanta, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, New Orleans and Tampa.
Additionally, Grubman said the league has “done a lot of work” looking at temporary venues in the LA area such as the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum for a relocated team to use for a couple of seasons while its new stadium is being built.
Another sign is the shortening of the relocation timetable, which would compress the window for filing for relocation by several weeks, and also shorten the time period between the end of the filing period and the actual relocation vote.
As things now stand, the window to file for relocation is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15 of 2016, with a relocation vote at the owners’ meetings in late March. A shortened timetable could move up the start of the relocation filing period to December, and move up a relocation vote by several weeks.
(This shouldn’t affect the St. Louis stadium project; for some time, Peacock and Blitz have been pointing to a fall deadline to finalize their project.)
Goodell noted Wednesday that he has the authority to alter the relocation timetable. (No league vote is needed.) He also indicated that a decision to shorten the timetable would not come soon. Most likely, we’re talking late summer or early fall.
But even with all those signals pointing toward LA, Goodell and Grubman made it clear the league wanted to give St. Louis — and the other two home markets — every opportunity to make their case.
“We’re going to make sure we give (St. Louis) full evaluation and full consideration, and we’ll get back directly to them if we feel that there are any issues that need to be addressed,” Goodell said when asked about the St. Louis financing plan.
Speaking more generally and more expansively on the topic, Grubman said the league’s desire to have a team in Los Angeles has not reached the point where it outweighs the preference of keeping teams in home markets.
“No. I don’t think so at all,” Grubman said. “I feel like our responsibilities are best discharged by giving the home markets the best possible chance to put up a proposal which enables them to keep their team.
“It’s very important to the league. It’s very important to the fans. It’s really important to the fabric of the NFL. At the same time, you have to recognize that sometimes things just can’t get done. And it’s incumbent on all of us to provide help and assistance to a club that doesn’t want to continually fall behind the rest of the league. So we have an obligation to help in both.
“My best outcome is that we produce viable projects in the home markets that compete with LA, and then it becomes quite frankly the problem of the owners to vote and express their judgment.”
• By Jim Thomas
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_c2de5695-84a2-533d-bcb3-b1b7853945a1.html
SAN FRANCISCO • During his annual Super Bowl news conference nearly four months ago, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell talked about “positive developments” on the stadium front in St. Louis.
On Wednesday, as the league wrapped up two days’ worth of owners meetings, Goodell’s praise for the St. Louis effort was turned up a couple of notches.
“There is tremendous progress going on there,” Goodell said, in reference to the work of the stadium task force headed by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz.
There is no doubt that St. Louis’ plan to build a riverfront stadium on the north edge of downtown has gotten the attention of the league. And with time dwindling before a decision on Los Angeles relocation, there is no doubt that St. Louis remains far ahead of the other “home markets” trying to keep their teams from leaving — Oakland and San Diego.
But Eric Grubman, the league executive charged with overseeing LA relocation as well as the home market stadium efforts, has a way of keeping things real. And Wednesday was no exception.
“I would categorize St. Louis as having very capable people working on the project,” Grubman told a throng of reporters. “And I would categorize them as having put some of the pieces in place. We’ve been working with them. We’ve been spending time, and we’ll spend more time as necessary.”
But then came the punch line.
“Getting stadiums done, though, is something that’s very, very hard,” Grubman continued. “It’s very complicated. And you don’t count anything unless it’s fully done and occupied.
“So good effort isn’t enough. We really have to get a project which is viable and gets the support of membership.”
It was a not-so-subtle reminder that St. Louis isn’t there yet despite the “tremendous progress” cited by Goodell. The NFL never plays horseshoes on these matters — coming close counts for nothing, and there are no prizes for “good effort.”
Meanwhile, the momentum for having at least one team in Los Angeles in 2016 continues to build.
As he left the NFL owners meetings Wednesday, Indianapolis Colts owner Jim Irsay minced no words when asked about the possibility of pro football’s return to LA.
“It’s not a matter of ‘if,’ ” Irsay replied. “It’s how many.”
As in how many teams.
“I’m certain there’ll be a team there in the next couple years,” Irsay added.
For his part, Goodell wouldn’t go that far — at least not yet.
“There has been significant progress (in Los Angeles), but I don’t think it’s inevitable,” Goodell said. “There is certainly momentum; there are certainly opportunities. I can’t remember the last time we had two facilities that are actually entitled and are being developed. That’s a very positive development ... but a lot more work has to be done.”
Maybe so, but there are increasing signs that LA is going to happen. One example came Wednesday when the league decided to open bidding on Super Bowl 54 (after the 2019 season) to Los Angeles. That’s conditional on a new stadium being ready by 2018 for any team that relocates there.
“If there is a team that relocates to Los Angeles, at that point in time they could submit an application to be considered for the Super Bowl,” Goodell said.
The four current finalists for Super Bowl 54 are Atlanta, Miami-Ft. Lauderdale, New Orleans and Tampa.
Additionally, Grubman said the league has “done a lot of work” looking at temporary venues in the LA area such as the Rose Bowl and LA Coliseum for a relocated team to use for a couple of seasons while its new stadium is being built.
Another sign is the shortening of the relocation timetable, which would compress the window for filing for relocation by several weeks, and also shorten the time period between the end of the filing period and the actual relocation vote.
As things now stand, the window to file for relocation is Jan. 1 through Feb. 15 of 2016, with a relocation vote at the owners’ meetings in late March. A shortened timetable could move up the start of the relocation filing period to December, and move up a relocation vote by several weeks.
(This shouldn’t affect the St. Louis stadium project; for some time, Peacock and Blitz have been pointing to a fall deadline to finalize their project.)
Goodell noted Wednesday that he has the authority to alter the relocation timetable. (No league vote is needed.) He also indicated that a decision to shorten the timetable would not come soon. Most likely, we’re talking late summer or early fall.
But even with all those signals pointing toward LA, Goodell and Grubman made it clear the league wanted to give St. Louis — and the other two home markets — every opportunity to make their case.
“We’re going to make sure we give (St. Louis) full evaluation and full consideration, and we’ll get back directly to them if we feel that there are any issues that need to be addressed,” Goodell said when asked about the St. Louis financing plan.
Speaking more generally and more expansively on the topic, Grubman said the league’s desire to have a team in Los Angeles has not reached the point where it outweighs the preference of keeping teams in home markets.
“No. I don’t think so at all,” Grubman said. “I feel like our responsibilities are best discharged by giving the home markets the best possible chance to put up a proposal which enables them to keep their team.
“It’s very important to the league. It’s very important to the fans. It’s really important to the fabric of the NFL. At the same time, you have to recognize that sometimes things just can’t get done. And it’s incumbent on all of us to provide help and assistance to a club that doesn’t want to continually fall behind the rest of the league. So we have an obligation to help in both.
“My best outcome is that we produce viable projects in the home markets that compete with LA, and then it becomes quite frankly the problem of the owners to vote and express their judgment.”
dbrooks25
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,119
They said that LA would be able to bid for Superbowl 54 (which is in 2021) if a team is there by 2018. As we all know, a team being there in 2018 vs a stadium being built by 2018 are two different things.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Nope the stadium has to be completed by 2018 to be in play for 2020.
Sam Farmer originally wrote the story.
He has an article I linked below with more details, but the most important thing is the NFL saying that they're likely to award one to LA next year (in the May meetings).
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-la-superbowl-20150520-story.html
_______________________________________________________
Of course that doesn't mean they've already selected Inglewood, they could select one further out if they go with Carson.
I was just taken back that Carson wouldn't be ready by 2018, I thought they took steps and were ready to break ground in December as well and have roughly the same time frame. To hear they wont be ready until closer to 2020 was surprising to me, because I thought they were closer. That's an important detail in my opinion, because I'd guess the NFL wants to be in the temporary homes for as little time as possible, and into the new stadium ASAP.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Bernie Miklasz joins The Fast Lane to discuss the STL/LA developments from the NFL Owner’s Meetings
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Developments
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Developments
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
I think this is could be huge. Whether he's just blowing smoke or really means it is yet to be seen but better believe a lot of cities will be keeping an eye on: a) if the league actually follows their by laws and backs up this message, b)the NFL won't just allow an owner to turn a blind eye to their cities.
Although then again a city actually needs to come up with a viable plan to keep them - something that can actually be put into action the moment the NFL says "go"
Last edited:
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
I don't see how a conciliatory tone can be believed if you're actively involved in trying to move.
I also think that the comment about "meaningful stadium proposal in St Louis in a very long time" is very misleading considering their lease just expired. Had we started say 5 years ago the dome would have been 15 friggen years old.
And JMO here of course, but if you appreciated your good core fan base you wouldn't be pursuing a parallel path in a different market. You've accomplished the goal by getting a hurry up proposal. Put up $250 mil, you can probably break ground by November here. So to me this is a whole lot of nothing.
You don't have to worry about rain delaying construction in Cali... not with the current drought!
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,911
- Name
- Dennis
And I concur from this tone and again JMHO, but it sure seems that Los Angeles was end game all along.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
The Carson breaking ground in December wasn't for the stadium. It was to start the final environmental cleanup. Even if they go with the most aggressive estimate of 18 months for the cleanup and then 6 months for the environmental final review. That's still 2 years and then another 3 for the stadium. That would be if nothing else was found so this timeline could take years longer. The work is more extensive than they had said most of the existing remediation's must be redone to accommodate the building of a stadium. The other issue is that the final plan must be done before the cleanup starts.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Kevin Demoff on Rams Current Priorities, Future
Rams COO Kevin Demoff spoke to News 4 Sports Director Maurice Drummond about the proposed NFL Stadium on the riverfront and when a resolution to the uncertainty surrounding the Rams will materialize.
Watch Demoff Comments
Rams COO Kevin Demoff spoke to News 4 Sports Director Maurice Drummond about the proposed NFL Stadium on the riverfront and when a resolution to the uncertainty surrounding the Rams will materialize.
Watch Demoff Comments
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2013
- Messages
- 39,992
They should have started the moment the Rams won the arbitration on the Dome upgrades. Which was 2 or 3 years ago now?
Also the Rams are one of a few unique teams that has a divided core fan base. With fan bases in both St Louis and Southern California no matter what happens one group will be left in the cold and unsatisfied. If it's the So Cal group it would be a second time for them that the Rams did that to them. No matter what happens this is an unfortunate situation that won't make everybody happy.
dbrooks25
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2014
- Messages
- 1,119
I see, Superbowl 54 will be in 2021 but for the 2020-2021 Season. My bad. I don't think that time frame will make a huge impact on which project they decide to go with if they want to do what's best for the league. I'm sure they won't let a couple of years affect what would be best for them for the next 30 or so years. Just my opinion.
Last edited:
- Status