New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

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

This begs the question of what kind of a lease they will be fighting for. I've always thought the lease was not good for St Louis but how does a new lease plan affect the bottom line? One of the things that keeps coming up is the sweetheart deal the Rams have that makes financial sense for them to stay. Has anyone heard what changes they would be wanting to make? I think it has to happen but I just wonder what kinds of items will be taken off the table or where costs might be increased or...?

Maybe he is only talking about the requirement to maintain a top tier stadium so that it doesn't have to be remodeled or rebuilt every 10, 20, 30 years?

 

[rhinobean]

Read where Coach O posted on ramstalk that the lease ends this month and then it's year to year and that negotiations for another place to play in STL wasn't feasible until this year! Guess that's why nothing has come to light until this month. LA is still being used as the threat by owners it seems. Don't think the folks in STL didn't know they had to step up to keep the Rams here!

 

[Username]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12181391


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLR6urq7puw

 

[Rambitious1]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12181391


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLR6urq7puw

He's an idiot.

 

[Alan]

Rambitious1 thinking he's different:
He's an idiot.

I disagree with that. I've seen him fairly often and just like all the other personalities who rant about various things he's often spot on and often clueless. Pretty much just like most of us. The only thing I don't like about him is his unique speaking style. Some might like it but I wish he'd slow down a little so I can think while I'm listening without missing any of his points.

What did he say that you disagree with? I thought it was jam packed with info I hadn't known about until now. Good stuff IMO.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...se-to-a-one-year-extension-to-coliseum-lease/

Raiders close to a one-year extension to Coliseum lease
Posted by Darin Gantt on January 16, 2015

Getty Images

The NFL has already said no one’s going to Los Angeles in 2015.

But at least the Raiders know they’re staying in Oakland for the time being.

According to the Associated Press, the Raiders areclose to signing a one-year extension to stay at the Coliseum for 2015.

Owner Mark Davis said the agreement has been reached, and just needs to go through the paperwork phase with city, county and league officials.

What the Raiders want is a new building, somewhere. Frankly, their stadium is among the league’s worst, which has led to flirtations with San Antonio and an eye on L.A.

“We want to be here,” Davis said. “We’re not using any other place, city or whatever, as leverage. It’s not that way. It’s known that no matter what we do here, it will not be as valuable or economically as great for the Raiders as if we went somewhere else. That’s known. But we still want to be here.”

Davis also said he’d be willing to spend $500 million on a new stadium — or about half of what one would cost.

This extension is far from a long-term fix, but it kicks the can down the road a year, until another round of tax money chicken begins in earnest.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

They will have plenty of wiggle room with those "rules".. Ultimately Roger and everyone can stomp their feet and fold their arms, but like they said, it's the owners who vote and make the final call. If they vote yes, and Stan has plenty of time to secure the votes, then that's that.

Counting on the NFL to uphold bylaws as we fans think they should is about as good a move as counting on the NFL to look at games and decide to award a different winner of there were bad calls during a game that changed the outcome.

 

[TSFH Fan]

http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=12181391


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OLR6urq7puw

4:15-4:20
Damn Straight!
GKG!

 

[Dagonet]

I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but admins and mods if it has please do your due diligence and accept my humblest apologies. That said..

This is one thing that really sticks in my crawl over all this moving talk. This is not a STL-LA thing either, as I've heard it from fans all over the country. I've heard it here and on FB, and quite frankly it's not fair to the St. Louis region. I always hear talk about how many visiting fans are at the dome. Yet when it comes to other teams, people seem to turn a blind eye to that. I remember a game in Pittsburgh like 2 years back when they were out of playoff contention and half the fans were from the opposing team. My feeble old memory doesn't remember that team, but it was a Thursday or Sunday night game, hence why I had it on.

A brief history on me.. I grew up in the St. Louis region on the Illinois side. I moved back here from Columbus, OH back in late 1989. I've lived in St. Louis County (Manchester) and the Metro East (Fairview Heights). I moved back out to BFE, IL in 1998. I grew up a Big Red/Ram, baseball Cardinal, Blues, and Spirits fan. Yes I was a Ram fan back in the 70's but that's a different subject I can explain later if needed.

I lived in St. Louis when there was no football. People still met on Sunday's in homes to watch, bbq, and drink, and the same thing can be said for sports bars. I did both. To say this is not a football city and/or region is pure poppycock.

I get so sick of hearing this is a "baseball only city". That could not be further from the truth. Besides, if it is such a "hot" baseball city, how many of you here have ever went to a Cub/Cardinals game when the Cubbies are in town? I guess we're not a great baseball city when 15 to 50% of the fans can be Cub fans? Go to a Blues game and see how many Red Wing fans would show up... My point here is fans do travel.

I remember back in the day.. Rich Brooks was HC.. We (the Rams) started off great. We played in Indy.. Hell, half that stadium was full of Rams fans.. Unfortunately, a guy by the name of Marshall Faulk beat us. Rams fans from St. Louis traveled to Indy though.

Hell, if I was a Green Bay fan and had no chance at tickets in GB, I would come to St. Louis to see a game. Really, this nation has turned into the "haves" and "have nots". The middle class is pretty much gone through our exporting of jobs. There're fans in cities who use to be middle class that can't afford to go to games anymore, especially with a crappy product on the field. Many of the "haves" can afford to travel and do so. Nothing against them at all.

I appreciate it if you've made it this far reading.. Thank you for listening to my rant.

The example I give below should show that fans do travel, and even to supposedly football "hot beds". The game I refer to is the Whiners @ Dallas to open the season. Please keep in mind this is "Dallas"... Supposedly football heaven. I don't recall the Dome ever being filled with this many opposing fans.. I could be wrong.

Here's the article..
http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/san-francisco-49ers-fans-take-over-att-stadium.html/


ARLINGTON – The Pittsburgh Steelers and Green Bay Packers have had an impressive following attend games they’ve played at AT&T Stadium. But the San Francisco 49ers faithful might have set a stadium record Sunday afternoon.

It certainly didn’t feel like a Dallas Cowboys home game as the 49ers returned a DeMarco Murray fumble for a touchdown less than a minute into the opening quarter.

The red-clad fans that occupied roughly half of the 91,174 announced attendance erupted during the 35-yard Chris Culliver return. They immediately followed on the next series with an impressive “De-fense!” chant.

A “Let’s go Niners!” chant also made the rounds as San Francisco raced to a 28-3 first-half lead.

“They were there,” Cowboys cornerback Brandon Carr said. “Their team gave them a reason to make noise. We’re still in the process of giving our fans a reason to cheer for us. Once we do that, they’ll be quiet. Take all those factors out, it just comes down to playing football.”

The Cowboys fans were probably at their loudest as the team headed to the locker room and boos filled the stadium.

What did Jerry Jones think of the crowd being about 50 percent 49ers fans?

“Well, I don’t remember there being half of them,” Jones said. “Did you count? Listen, I’m interested in football and what went on with the game. It’s not good when you don’t win – from any perspective, marketing or otherwise.

“I had my eye on those turnovers and was focused on those turnovers. I’m not even sure I know what you are talking about, to tell you the truth.”

Follow Jon Machota on Twitter: @jonmachota

Far more @49ers red than @dallascowboys blue? Let’s go #CowboysNation!! Tweet us your #Cowboys pics @1053thefan pic.twitter.com/MCd1TIaAAU

— 105.3 The FAN (@1053thefan) September 7, 2014

 

[Boffo97]

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.

As I said previously, I think St. Louis needs to assume that the NFL *isn't* going to enforce their bylaws (at least not in any way St. Louis fans would prefer) and be pleasantly surprised if they do.

But I think Stan's going to be making an argument that he is in compliance, and it's not going to be easy to dismiss it.

 

[Boffo97]

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.

The Rams would have to accept lease terms for the new building though before they're bound by any lease to it. Right now the only lease keeping them in St. Louis goes year to year in the next few weeks here because the CVC has rejected the arbitrator's ruling that the Rams' plan for the EJD upgrade was what was needed to be done to bring the Dome into compliance with the top tier clause. In one way of looking at it, the CVC were the ones who elected for the lease to go year-to-year instead (though you can argue they didn't have a choice.)

This is a big reason why I think if Stan DID decide to go rogue and pull a midnight move, the NFL really wouldn't have the power to do anything substantial about it. There'd be nowhere to send the Rams back to.

 

[Dagonet]

The Rams would have to accept lease terms for the new building though before they're bound by any lease to it. Right now the only lease keeping them in St. Louis goes year to year in the next few weeks here because the CVC has rejected the arbitrator's ruling that the Rams' plan for the EJD upgrade was what was needed to be done to bring the Dome into compliance with the top tier clause. In one way of looking at it, the CVC were the ones who elected for the lease to go year-to-year instead (though you can argue they didn't have a choice.)

This is a big reason why I think if Stan DID decide to go rogue and pull a midnight move, the NFL really wouldn't have the power to do anything substantial about it. There'd be nowhere to send the Rams back to.

Cleveland? JK man..

 

[Boffo97]

Cleveland? JK man..

What, is Goodell going to play the role of the "If you're going to fight about it, neither one of you gets it" parent?

 

[Dagonet]

What, is Goodell going to play the role of the "If you're going to fight about it, neither one of you gets it" parent?

Ya never know.. I was just razzing you where the Rams first started out though.

 

[Dagonet]

Hey @Boffo97 . Do you know where the Chicago Bears first started out at? No fair googling either..

 

[Boffo97]

Ya never know.. I was just razzing you where the Rams first started out though.

Yeah... but that's more of a footnote than anything else these days... they've been in St. Louis more than twice as long as they were in Cleveland.

 

[Dagonet]

Yeah... but that's more of a footnote than anything else these days... they've been in St. Louis more than twice as long as they were in Cleveland.

Man I goota ask.. Are you a lousy wagerer? I see you at 242K?

Also please comment on my thread above about St. Louis if you will. be good to hear your opinion and I mean that seriously. I do like you my friend.

 

[Boffo97]

Man I goota ask.. Are you a lousy wagerer? I see you at 242K?

Also please comment on my thread above about St. Louis if you will. be good to hear your opinion and I mean that seriously. I do like you my friend.

I put over $100 million on the Rams to beat the spread in the 2nd game vs. the Cards...

 

[Dagonet]

I put over $100 million on the Rams to beat the spread in the 2nd game vs. the Cards...

I lost my arse on that one too brother so I can relate.. Thank God I had a reserve to bounce back.

 

[Dagonet]

Don't know if this has been posted yet or not.. Mods do due diligence if so.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...louis-builds-a-new-stadium-will-the-rams-stay


The city of St. Louis, though fighting a valiant battle, could end up losing the Rams to Los Angeles. Rams owner Stan Kroenke's intentions to move the team cannot be discounted at this point. He has doubled down on his ownership of land in Inglewood and announced his intent to build a stadium there.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the city of St. Louis will be without professional football at all, or for long, and the recently-revealed plans for a co-funded riverfront downtown stadium have the look of being every bit NFL-worthy. The project is being spearheaded by very driven and capable individuals, with Dave Peacock, a former president of Anheuser-Busch, chief among them.

The downtown stadium project, with or without Kroenke's support, seems quite capable of further shifting the fortunes of a downtrodden part of the city, and Peacock's diligence, resourcefulness, and unwavering civic sense of duty cannot be understated. No one associated with the St. Louis stadium task force -- formed by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon with Peacock and Robert Blitz at the helm -- is willing to concede a future without the Rams staying in their city, but it would be naïve not to plan for such contingencies as well, with the relocation of another franchise at some point perhaps a possibility as well.

That is the tricky terrain that Peacock and his task force must navigate, extending every olive branch to Kroenke and working closely with the league as well, all the while knowing the future is murky and in the end, the Rams fate may be out of their hands. So, they focus on the task at hand, and continuing to galvanize St. Louis and align interests to secure necessary funding for development. And they move forward on a state-of-the-art facility they believe will be ready to go by 2020, and that will ensure the NFL as a fixture in their community for decades to come.

"We are inclusive with the Rams in all of our plans," Peacock said in an interview today, "and the Rams are our team, and that's the team that we want playing here for a long time. But we are also respectful of the role the league serves, and the fact that they may have other perspectives and things going on at the league level that may result in a different scenario."

Make no mistake, 2015 will be a watershed year for the NFL's movement to Los Angeles. Whatever ripples are created in St. Louis or San Diego or Oakland because of it, Peacock's ability to form coalitions between local business and political interests may well secure a future for St. Louis in this league. And that's regardless of whether or not Kroenke, who remains in the shadows during all of this (most likely retreating to his Malibu home) is a part of it. As the city of St. Louis and the state of Missouri positions itself through this transcendent year, they will continue to reach out the Rams each step of the way, though it remains to be seen how willing Kroenke will be to meet them anywhere near half way.

Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build a stadium on land he owns in Los Angeles. (USATSI)




More meetings between the task force and the Rams are planned for this week, Peacock said, though Kroenke is not scheduled to attend. At this point, the stadium group is unsure exactly when Kroenke will directly take part, though they share a good relationship with team president Kevin Demoff, and know that the owner is being well-briefed on all developments.

"We developed our project really without too much support from the Rams, but we have met with them and we got a positive reaction," Peacock said, noting that Kroenke "was well aware of what our plan was even before we announced the details."

Peacock and his group have been working at the project, on and off, for several years, and St. Louis politicians had meetings with Roger Goodell and other league officials about a potential new riverfront stadium dating back to 2013. In the past year, Peacock's group began meeting with architects and designers and also began the arduous mission of trying to create a funding plan that would be feasible from both a public and private standpoint. The task force believes that compromise -- about $130M coming from seat licenses, roughly $400M coming in total public money and about $450M coming from the team's owner and the NFL (with the assumption of about $200M of that total coming from the league's G4 stadium funding plan) -- has merit, though nothing is in stone. "That's obviously fungible, as you know," Peacock said.

Peacock has already "moved mountains," as one person familiar with the project put it, to lay the foundation for a new stadium by spearheading the Arch Grounds project to revitalize the parkland around the Gateway Arch. He has raised hundreds of millions in state and federal money to orchestrate the biggest private/public partnership on park grounds since the Ellis Island project. That already transforms the environment around the waterfront, where this stadium would be constructed, allowing this facility to dovetail nicely with those plans.

"We're very excited about the present redevelopment of downtown already underway with the Arch Grounds," Peacock said, "and this basically continues that effort in an area that defines the word blight, but at the same time is right on our riverfront and gives us a really unique civic opportunity."

In addition to his upcoming meetings with the Rams, Peacock continues the daily chore of remaining on schedule to break ground on the stadium. He must continue assembling the land involved -- about a quarter of it is owned by the city and the rest is privately held -- and lining up funding to acquire that land. "We know there is a favorable environment to move on this," Peacock said. He remains in close contact with the Rams and the NFL to share all aspects of the concepts and gauging their support.

At the owner's meeting in March, Peacock knows the task force must be in position to make this project as tangible as possible, and he would relish the opportunity to formally present in front of the owners.

"We need to demonstrate our process there and being driven to get this done," Peacock said of the spring NFL meeting. "That, to me, is a marker if you will … And obviously the league is not accepting relocation applications until 2016, so conceivably we've got this year to really demonstrate where we are and to line up the funding and to move very quickly to accomplish our mission."

In the meantime, there are no real mysteries with the Rams. Kroenke's silence, as well as his activities, speak volumes. The team has made it clear it is going to move forward with a year-to-year lease in the Edward Jones Dome, and Peacock said Kroenke's recent announcement of partnering to acquire more land in Inglewood and develop a stadium there came as no shocker, either. "When he bought the land a year ago in LA we kind of knew, 'OK, he's going to do something with that land,'" Peacock said. "It was not surprising to us."

Peacock understands the allure of the Los Angeles market, and no one at this point remotely close to the NFL would try to tell you it's not merely a matter of time before teams are there. That is an eventuality. It's just a matter of when. And most are circling 2016. For this task force, its not about competing with LA, but rather stressing the positives of this market, even post-Ferguson, with the Rams.

The team had its highest attendance in six years despite its uncertain future in St. Louis with no lease for 2015, and with it having another losing season and doing so with the area gripped by the events in nearby Ferguson. Peacock will point out the 17 Fortune 1000 companies in the region as well.

He will try to position this stadium project and the city of St. Louis in the best light possible to appeal to the league office and other owners, knowing that the Rams, eventually, might not be the team in town. He will move forward with each incremental step, waiting for the "green light" as he put it from the Rams and the league.

And, is it possible, that green light comes from the NFL, but perhaps not the team currently playing in St. Louis?

"I think anything is possible," Peacock said, "and frankly at this point we recognize the league in their position is the decision-maker as to who plays where. And they have bylaws (on franchise relocations) that we take very seriously."

We'll find out in the coming year if those bylaws, too, are fungible, and if Kroenke is perhaps willing to take his case to federal court to attempt to supersede them if he believes those laws are restricting his rights to run his business as he sees fit. We'll find out whether or not all parties are up for that kind of potentially long and damaging fight. In the meantime, Peacock will continue to canvass his community to try to prepare for whatever the future holds, devoted to keeping the Rams, but with a calling to protect St. Louis' NFL turf, if you will, above all else, not wanting to be without football once again as it was when the Cardinals moved to Arizona.

"From the feedback we've received from the league and the other owners," Peacock said, "I think they like the storyline of an NFL stadium that also contributes to revitalizing one of America's great historic cities." If St. Louis builds it, will the Rams still stay? If they build it, will another owner come? In the next 12 months, we'll very likely find out the answer to at least one of those questions, if not both.

Topics: NFL in Los Angeles, St. Louis Rams, NFL