New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Hacksaw]

All I know is Carson looks to be the front runner to LA as it stands. Just my .02

Welcome back.

Why ?

 

[RamFan503]

I thought Captain Kangaroo was a national show, or was he LA local like Soupy Sales, Romper Room and Hobo Kelly?

I see Megan in Encino... and ...

Yeah - not sure if it was national. It played kinda hand in hand with Mr. Rogers if I recall right so probably.

 

[The Ripper]

I thought Captain Kangaroo was a national show, or was he LA local like Soupy Sales, Romper Room and Hobo Kelly?

National and so was Romper Room

 

[Hacksaw]

National and so was Romper Room

No kidding. Thought it was local. No wonder I like Do Bee's. lol

 

[mr.stlouis]

Just curious but in your .02 what makes Carson a front runner to Inglewood?

I'm not looking for a debate, but I will state some of the reasons to ease your curiosity. This issue is on all of our minds, after all.


-Carson solves all three stadium issues. This looms large in the eyes of the owners. If Inglwood were to happen, the Raiders would likely be left out in the cold. NFL doesn't want that. They wouldn't been haven't the first to share a stadium.

- "California solution." It works.

- Spanos and Davis have the votes. They have gone through the process the right way, have waited much longer than Stan, and didn't alienate their fan base on top of it.

- All three teams still have legit fan bases in LA, that's a wash. Im not sure which has the strongest. If I had to guess I'd say they Chargers. That's like a two hour drive for what I hear. I'm not saying they are the same market, but I drive over three hours to STL. Plus it's in the same state. Much different story for OAK, but it still makes sense.

- I don't think SD will come through on the sweetheart deal like STL is looking more and more to give. Just from breezing that deal, it's over 700 million dollars out of the Chargers's pocket. I've read it's up towards a billion in the fine print. If SD wanted to pay for their own stadium to stay, this would not be an issue.

-Spanos does not want Stan in LA because his team would be in bad shape. 33% of his fan base/money comes from LA. That's very dangerous for him if Stan takes over that market.

-A fourth team in CA makes no sense when two out of three teams are struggling with their home markets. There will be at most 2 teams in LA.

-Spanos was seen with Davis eating dinner with high ranking brass. There was only one thing that particular group had in common.

-Kroneke does not have more money than Goldman Sachs. I only say that because some say "bet on the money." It was never my belief, but if u believe that then that's a big deal.

Over the coming months you will see the Carson train only picking up steam. The only thing Inglwood has on it is it's timeline of being built. It could be up faster, I believe.

And that's a nice sum of my reasons, not all of them. Hope that eased your curiosity.

 

[den-the-coach]

-Carson solves all three stadium issues. This looms large in the eyes of the owners. If Inglwood were to happen, the Raiders would likely be left out in the cold. NFL doesn't want that. They wouldn't been haven't the first to share a stadium.

It does not solve all three stadium issues if Stan Kroenke wants to leave St. Louis, if the NFL informs Kroenke to take the St. Louis deal, it would be like telling Mark Davis to share Levi Stadium with the 49ers which he's stated he will not do.

Look I understand what you're posting, but San Diego IMO wants to stay in San Diego, Oakland truly wants to stay in Oakland and Kroenke wants to move to Los Angeles so you could actually post that the Carson project really solves none of the stadium issues, could you not?

 

[tonyl711]

I had no idea about this. Also confirms my experiences...STL is a sports town.

just because a city supports a sports team well doesnt mean thats the only sport that city will support. by that way of thinking LA is a basketball town,

 

[OldSchool]

I'm not looking for a debate, but I will state some of the reasons to ease your curiosity. This issue is on all of our minds, after all.


-Carson solves all three stadium issues. This looms large in the eyes of the owners. If Inglwood were to happen, the Raiders would likely be left out in the cold. NFL doesn't want that. They wouldn't been haven't the first to share a stadium.

- "California solution." It works.

- Spanos and Davis have the votes. They have gone through the process the right way, have waited much longer than Stan, and didn't alienate their fan base on top of it.

- All three teams still have legit fan bases in LA, that's a wash. Im not sure which has the strongest. If I had to guess I'd say they Chargers. That's like a two hour drive for what I hear. I'm not saying they are the same market, but I drive over three hours to STL. Plus it's in the same state. Much different story for OAK, but it still makes sense.

- I don't think SD will come through on the sweetheart deal like STL is looking more and more to give. Just from breezing that deal, it's over 700 million dollars out of the Chargers's pocket. I've read it's up towards a billion in the fine print. If SD wanted to pay for their own stadium to stay, this would not be an issue.

-Spanos does not want Stan in LA because his team would be in bad shape. 33% of his fan base/money comes from LA. That's very dangerous for him if Stan takes over that market.

-A fourth team in CA makes no sense when two out of three teams are struggling with their home markets. There will be at most 2 teams in LA.

And that's a nice sum of my reasons, not all of them. Hope that eased your curiosity.

Ok so just your opinion not basing it on anything to do with the stadiums or financing just your feelings. Got it I am not looking to debate you on anything as you don't want to debate. I was curious at your wording since the Carson stadium at best will break ground in 2 years and Inglewood is able to break ground in 6 or 7 months. The time frame doesn't imo describe Carson as a front runner so I was curious if I'd missed anything.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Ok so just your opinion not basing it on anything to do with the stadiums or financing just your feelings. Got it I am not looking to debate you on anything as you don't want to debate. I was curious at your wording since the Carson stadium at best will break ground in 2 years and Inglewood is able to break ground in 6 or 7 months. The time frame doesn't imo describe Carson as a front runner so I was curious if I'd missed anything.

Absolutely, Inglewood can be up faster. I don't debate that. But is that a deal breaker? It's my belief it is not. Why would they buy the land and pay a lead man if the timeline made it unviable? It is a factor, though.

 

[tonyl711]

I wonder if St Louis folks know who that is.

yes captain kangaroo was on here too.

 

[tonyl711]

I thought Captain Kangaroo was a national show, or was he LA local like Soupy Sales, Romper Room and Hobo Kelly?

romper room was on here too.

 

[RamFan503]

yes captain kangaroo was on here too.

Good. At least you got to suffer just like us.

 

[OldSchool]

Absolutely, Inglewood can be up faster. I don't debate that. But is that a deal breaker? It's my belief it is not. Why would they buy the land and pay a lead man if the timeline made it unviable? It is a factor, though.

They haven't bought the land in Carson. They've reached an agreement with the property owner giving them first right to buy in case they're able to build the stadium. But that deal is being contested because the property owner owes the city a few million dollars, which would easily be paid off. They put a $250,000 down for this deal.

 

[mr.stlouis]

They haven't bought the land in Carson. They've reached an agreement with the property owner giving them first right to buy in case they're able to build the stadium. But that deal is being contested because the property owner owes the city a few million dollars, which would easily be paid off. They put a $250,000 down for this deal.

Makes all the sense. Sounds like they are waiting on the votes just like Stan.

 

[RamFan503]

They haven't bought the land in Carson. They've reached an agreement with the property owner giving them first right to buy in case they're able to build the stadium. But that deal is being contested because the property owner owes the city a few million dollars, which would easily be paid off. They put a $250,000 down for this deal.

Huh. I thought there was a report that the title change was recorded and then recorded again to essentially title it back to a Carson stadium authority of some sort. Didn't happen?

 

[OldSchool]

Huh. I thought there was a report that the title change was recorded and then recorded again to essentially title it back to a Carson stadium authority of some sort. Didn't happen?

http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...s-complete-move-to-secure-carson-stadium-land

A quote from the article:

The key part of the complex land swap transfers the 157-acre parcel near the San Diego (405) Freeway and Del Amo Boulevard to a “joint powers authority” controlled by the city of Carson. Under the stadium proposal, the authority will own and control the land, then lease it to a separate stadium authority.

If the stadium is not ultimately built, the city would retain control of the property at no cost to the city, Fabiani said.

 

[mr.stlouis]

just because a city supports a sports team well doesnt mean thats the only sport that city will support. by that way of thinking LA is a basketball town,

Agree with this. I believe winning cures all in most every city.

Blues and Cards are doing well. But if they performed like the Rams over the past seven years, it would be a much different story. Few cities, if any, pack the stadium for consistent losing records. Rams took that to a new NFL level where they won like 17 games in five years , or something. They're just getting back to contention. That's another reason im really excited to see this year kick off. I think we have a great team!

 

[bluecoconuts]

-Kroneke does not have more money than Goldman Sachs. I only say that because some say "bet on the money." It was never my belief, but if u believe that then that's a big deal.

Goldman Sachs is securing financing for them, and might put some of their own, but I don't see them trying to buy votes or anything like that. Kroenke is putting more money into it (not only in terms of his own money, but the stadium itself is more expensive) and the overall project is even more than that.

Saying that Goldman Sachs has more money suggests that they are putting up the entire bill, including relocation fees, and any buying of votes or anything like that, and there's nothing to suggest that's the case.

The Carson mayor tried to make the same connection, and I believe it's pretty misleading. Goldman Sachs has a limit to what they're investing, because they have profits to make. If Kroenke wants, his limit is higher.

 

[OldSchool]

Goldman Sachs is securing financing for them, and might put some of their own, but I don't see them trying to buy votes or anything like that. Kroenke is putting more money into it (not only in terms of his own money, but the stadium itself is more expensive) and the overall project is even more than that.

Saying that Goldman Sachs has more money suggests that they are putting up the entire bill, including relocation fees, and any buying of votes or anything like that, and there's nothing to suggest that's the case.

The Carson mayor tried to make the same connection, and I believe it's pretty misleading. Goldman Sachs has a limit to what they're investing, because they have profits to make. If Kroenke wants, his limit is higher.

Not only that but it ignores Stan's wife and business partners plus his own real estate development company. Bottom line is there is a metric ton of money involved in these 2 LA area stadiums. Nobody is going to lose out because of a lack of funds.

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...s-complete-move-to-secure-carson-stadium-land

A quote from the article:

Screwy at minimum but what it sounds like is that the land has been "purchased" by the joint venture and in order to get through some financing and tax loopholes, they deeded it back to a pseudo municipal entity (ala Santa Clara). Thus the land is "owned" by the authority that will operate the stadium. If the stadium is not built the land would somehow revert to the city.

I don't really get the deal either. This sounds like Spanos and Davis bought the land and agreed to donate it to the city if a stadium was not built. I have no idea what they paid for it or what the wording was in the transfer. It seems to me that if they actually paid for the land, they are very sure of building the stadium. Otherwise, it is a purely paper transaction. I can't see Spanos or Davis paying millions of dollars for land and then just gifting it to the city of Carson.

Anyone see any details of what was paid and to whom?

I would think that if there was this lawsuit about monies promised that the money generated to the city from the sale of the land would be used to pay that obligation. So confused.