New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Pretty funny. With the obvious attitude Randy approaches this with and the previous interviews he's done, he is somehow surprised they are not granting him an interview? C'mon Randy - I like you for the most part but seriously?

With all that time to review the law in place and change it, lawmakers instead decided to not do their job.

They chose to try and derail the future of the Rams in St. Louis through legal channels.

Um.... Randy... Ever heard of a veto?

1) If this is important enough to file a lawsuit about, why didn’t lawmakers do something about it during the legislative session?

Again - vetoes are pretty tough to over ride. Not sure why taking another avenue is not doing their job unless the case is frivolous. Guess we'll see on that.

2) If you want a vote, you’ve hopefully canvassed your constituents to find out what they think. What has the response of the people who voted for you been?

Randy is assuming they haven't here.

3) As you’ve performed your due diligence before filing…talking to the Governor and his task force…you certainly know that time is of the essence to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Why obstruct the stadium now?

Couldn't the reverse be said as well? If they wait and try to go through the process of proposing legislation only to have the veto that everyone would know is coming, even if they beat the veto, is it in time to stop the Governor from taking action? And isn't it the Governor and his task force that is trying to fast track this thing by looking for every side angle to jam it through?

I'm not faulting Nixon on trying what he is. But it occurs to me that if this was such a political death nail that he couldn't do anything until after the elections, does that say anything about whether or not it would pass the electorate? Does it indicate that both sides know how the citizens would vote? I don't know but it seems to walk like a duck.

And if not, why didn't he get the ball rolling earlier when it could have gone through normal channels? Is the legislature really at fault for trying to stop him from jamming it through when the Governor is the only one immune to political fall out? Should the legislature now just watch it happen? I used to think that it was just a few opposition members trying to make political hay. But the recent revelations that the suit is not only bi-partisan but also comprised of legislators from St Louis itself is a bit hard to ignore.

9) The plan calls for the biggest private contribution, $450 million, for a project in St. Louis history. Why would you want to turn that down?

Is the public contribution also the largest in St Louis history? I don't know. Is it?

Regardless, the plan calls for it. That doesn't mean that is the way it will all come down.

12) There are 2,400 game day employees and more than 100 full time employees at Rams Park that will lose their jobs if the team relocates. What’s your message to those people and their families who would lose their livelihood if you win this lawsuit?

13) I bought PSL’s 20 years ago so that my kids could experience the NFL like I did with my dad. What reason can you give to people who did the same to remove the team from the region? It’s no different than depriving them of the Zoo, parks, and other forms of entertainment.

14) If you win and the Rams leave, this will be your legacy. If the Los Angeles Rams win a Super Bowl, you will be the local names and faces of their departure. How does that make you feel?

#12 - will all the 100 employees at Rams Park lose their jobs? Doubtful. Does he realize that 2400 game day employees equals 11.53 FTEs if they are working a full 8 hour shift? Still not something I would wish for those 2400 people but not something any city doesn't experience 100 fold in the ebb and flow of business.

#13 - bad comparisons are just bad comparisons.

#14 - I'm sure none of them have thought of that.

Sorry guys but this BS really sets me off. I get that Randy potentially loses his job and the city loses the Rams in all this. I can't express how much I think the latter sucks for any fan that doesn't have a vested interest in the Rams returning to LA. But seriously Randy? Acting like the Legislature is going to be the reason this stadium issue fails is really rich. I think there is plenty of blame to go around in this deal.

I wonder how much head way could have been made if someone besides Dierdorf was banging his shoe on the table several years ago urging people to act. The Inglewood deal may have blindsided most but the stadium issue has been there since the Rams signed on the dotted line.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Pretty funny. With the obvious attitude Randy approaches this with and the previous interviews he's done, he is somehow surprised they are not granting him an interview?

I was going to say the exact same thing. Coming across like that, how can someone be shocked nobody wants to talk to them?

 

[snackdaddy]

Makes you wonder where they would be in all of this if they didn’t wait so long to get the ball rolling. Did they think Kroenke was bluffing before the Inglewood announcement?

 

[RamFan503]

Makes you wonder where they would be in all of this if they didn’t wait so long to get the ball rolling. Did they think Kroenke was bluffing before the Inglewood announcement?

I don't know that there was a bluff or not to disbelieve or not. I really wonder what talk or correspondence went on before and after arbitration. Was it just a matter of nothing happening that forced Kroenke's hand toward Inglewood? Was Inglewood or some other LA location in Kroenke's mind from the get go? Is Inglewood a bluff? Has it always been option B or option A? So many questions that I don't know we will ever get the answers to.

One thing to think about is that Stan had nowhere near his current wealth when he bought into the team and also was trying to get an expansion team in the Lou AND BTW was trying to buy the patsies. He was worth an estimated $400 - 500 million then. It seems to me that LA probably wasn't even on his radar for NFL ownership.

I wonder when, if, and why that changed. Money? Possibly being dissed by the CVC and city? Simple inaction by the city? Discovering the power of his new ultra-rich position? Being soured on the market he probably knows better than any other? Owning Arsenal and becoming possibly the biggest fish in sports ownership?

All I can assume is that things happened that we will never really know about and we apparently are on a need to know basis and will forever be treated like mushrooms - keep us in the dark and feed us shit.

 

[iced]

Not really. It benefits teams like the Broncos, Colts and Chargers where there are multiple family members. The 5% is for the majority control but the family still needs to retain 30%. Plus the other changes that apply to trusts doesn't matter since according to Jason Cole 47% of the team is in Marks name and his mother only has 3% and it wouldn't apply since there are other partners that aren't family members

http://cover32.com/raiders/2015/05/...les-make-it-easier-for-davis-to-keep-raiders/

When Al Davis died, there was a lot of talk about how the Oakland Raiders might need to be sold if his son Mark Davis could not afford the estate taxes that would come along with it. What most people missed at that time was the fact that Al’s wife, Carol would take ownership of the team thus negating many of the tax impacts.

Now that Carol is getting older, the same conversation continues to creep up. Will Mark Davis be able to afford the taxes that will come when she passes? Well, not it looks like he may no longer have to.

This is a very big deal for the Davis family and the Oakland Raiders. Though the details have not been revealed, being able to put the team in an irrevocable trust will take it out of the estate tax realm. This is how many families deal with estate taxes. Basically, the owner of property or money takes that property and places it into a trust while they are still alive. The property then belongs to the trust with the person (in this case Carol Davis) remaining in control by being named the trustee of the trust with Mark Davis being named the successor. When Carol passes, Mark becomes the trustee, thus becoming what is basically the owner of the Raiders without needing to pay taxes on them.

 

[Corbin]

Is this a gut feeling or do you have a reason for your confidence?

Its both tbh

All signs point to Kroenke moving TBH, there is absolutely no reason to think there is any other option for him not to move now.

 

[blue4]

Pretty funny. With the obvious attitude Randy approaches this with and the previous interviews he's done, he is somehow surprised they are not granting him an interview? C'mon Randy - I like you for the most part but seriously?


Um.... Randy... Ever heard of a veto?


Again - vetoes are pretty tough to over ride. Not sure why taking another avenue is not doing their job unless the case is frivolous. Guess we'll see on that.


Randy is assuming they haven't here.


Couldn't the reverse be said as well? If they wait and try to go through the process of proposing legislation only to have the veto that everyone would know is coming, even if they beat the veto, is it in time to stop the Governor from taking action? And isn't it the Governor and his task force that is trying to fast track this thing by looking for every side angle to jam it through?

I'm not faulting Nixon on trying what he is. But it occurs to me that if this was such a political death nail that he couldn't do anything until after the elections, does that say anything about whether or not it would pass the electorate? Does it indicate that both sides know how the citizens would vote? I don't know but it seems to walk like a duck.

And if not, why didn't he get the ball rolling earlier when it could have gone through normal channels? Is the legislature really at fault for trying to stop him from jamming it through when the Governor is the only one immune to political fall out? Should the legislature now just watch it happen? I used to think that it was just a few opposition members trying to make political hay. But the recent revelations that the suit is not only bi-partisan but also comprised of legislators from St Louis itself is a bit hard to ignore.



Is the public contribution also the largest in St Louis history? I don't know. Is it?

Regardless, the plan calls for it. That doesn't mean that is the way it will all come down.



#12 - will all the 100 employees at Rams Park lose their jobs? Doubtful. Does he realize that 2400 game day employees equals 11.53 FTEs if they are working a full 8 hour shift? Still not something I would wish for those 2400 people but not something any city doesn't experience 100 fold in the ebb and flow of business.

#13 - bad comparisons are just bad comparisons.

#14 - I'm sure none of them have thought of that.

Sorry guys but this BS really sets me off. I get that Randy potentially loses his job and the city loses the Rams in all this. I can't express how much I think the latter sucks for any fan that doesn't have a vested interest in the Rams returning to LA. But seriously Randy? Acting like the Legislature is going to be the reason this stadium issue fails is really rich. I think there is plenty of blame to go around in this deal.

I wonder how much head way could have been made if someone besides Dierdorf was banging his shoe on the table several years ago urging people to act. The Inglewood deal may have blindsided most but the stadium issue has been there since the Rams signed on the dotted line.

I don't feel any of those questions are bullshit. I get that we've all seen this coming but you forget one thing.

Stan Kroenke has never asked for a new stadium.
He wants to move.

Plain and simple. The fact that there are people like Dierdorf who believe we should have just started a process and presented a new stadium to Stan like a big Xmas present is what sets me on edge. People act like Stan asked for a plan and we failed. Shouldn't any person wanting taxpayers money have to fricking ask for it first before we fall over ourselves to give it to him? And this is a public issue. So don't give me the whole "but Stan's a quiet man and maybe could be he asked quietly behind some closed door." He hasn't shown any interest in staying here, to me it's seems obvious. It's quite possible he planned it from when he bought the rest of them.

 

[iced]

Its both tbh

All signs point to Kroenke moving TBH, there is absolutely no reason to think there is any other option for him not to move now.

Except if the NFL tells him he can't? And if that were the case, we'd be hearing a lot more about litigation by now - which a lot of people have reported that by all indications he won't fight the NFL on their decision (Which makes sense, considering the Backlash the NFL could do in return)

 

[iced]

Plain and simple. The fact that there are people like Dierdorf who believe we should have just started a process and presented a new stadium to Stan like a big Xmas present is what sets me on edge. People act like Stan asked for a plan and we failed. Shouldn't any person wanting taxpayers money have to fricking ask for it first before we fall over ourselves to give it to him? And this is a public issue. So don't give me the whole "but Stan's a quiet man and maybe could be he asked quietly behind some closed door." He hasn't shown any interest in staying here, to me it's seems obvious. It's quite possible he planned it from when he bought the rest of them.

I'm with you - this is the most ridiculous thing i've heard, and people act like LA has never been used as leverage before..when in fact, time and time again, it has been.

And if the NFL approves Kroenke moving to LA, then I really can't wait to see the backlash - because you know the lesser known cities are looking at this and watching. "Oh you wanna move to a bigger market but want our public money? How do we know whats enough money? St.Louis offered atleast $400 millionin public funds yet you still moved and privately funded your own stadium (4th most at $400, at $450 the 2nd most in past 20 years). That's twice as much as Atlanta ($200 million), and nearly 4x as much as Santa Clara ($114 in "Public money")... Carson, Inglewood? All mostly "private" funding. So why should the city be on the hook for millions of dollars when you're willing to let a team leave the city, especially when they're stuck paying the bill after they leave?"

I'm sure the other owners in smaller markets would loving losing leverage

And there's what, 6 or 7 teams possibly looking at stadium upgrades within the next 5-10 years? I know Bucs are one, and I think Panthers are..can't remember the others...

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm with you - this is the most ridiculous thing i've heard, and people act like LA has never been used as leverage before..when in fact, time and time again, it has been.

And if the NFL approves Kroenke moving to LA, then I really can't wait to see the backlash - because you know the lesser known cities are looking at this and watching. "Oh you wanna move to a bigger market but want our public money? How do we know whats enough money? St.Louis offered atleast $400 million in public funds yet you still moved and privately funded your own stadium. That's twice as much as Atlanta ($200 million), and nearly 4x as much as Santa Clara ($114 in "Public money")... Carson, Inglewood? All mostly "private" funding. So why should the city be on the hook for millions of dollars when you're willing to let a team leave the city, especially when they're stuck paying the bill after they leave?"

I'm sure the other owners in smaller markets would loving losing leverage

And there's what, 6 or 7 teams possibly looking at stadium upgrades within the next 5-10 years? I know Bucs are one, and I think Bengals are..can't remember the others...

There's a pretty big difference in parking your team jet at LAX, or talking about maybe moving, and doing what Stan is doing. I'd say he's beyond leverage at this point.

I also don't see how him going to LA destroys owner leverage. If the argument is based off of "Well there would be a team there!" its faulty because Carson would put two teams there. That also assumes that LA is the only city that could hold an NFL team, and that's false. If LA is taken, owners would use another city. Toronto would be a perfect example, they could hold a team. If the Rams leave and another team doesn't occupy St Louis, then that's another city that could be used.

Owners will always find a way.

 

[iced]

There's a pretty big difference in parking your team jet at LAX, or talking about maybe moving, and doing what Stan is doing. I'd say he's beyond leverage at this point.

It's not about Leverage for stan

I also don't see how him going to LA destroys owner leverage

Its for other owners in smaller markets that have upcoming issues...

You got 3 teams willing to move in/to california, and all willing to privately fund their stadiums without public money..why should other gov'ts give in when the NFL is willing to rip a City of a team and leave them on the hook to pay off the public debt? (if the Rams leave)

 

[RamFan503]

I don't feel any of those questions are bullcrap. I get that we've all seen this coming but you forget one thing.

Stan Kroenke has never asked for a new stadium.
He wants to move.

Plain and simple. The fact that there are people like Dierdorf who believe we should have just started a process and presented a new stadium to Stan like a big Xmas present is what sets me on edge. People act like Stan asked for a plan and we failed. Shouldn't any person wanting taxpayers money have to fricking ask for it first before we fall over ourselves to give it to him? And this is a public issue. So don't give me the whole "but Stan's a quiet man and maybe could be he asked quietly behind some closed door." He hasn't shown any interest in staying here, to me it's seems obvious. It's quite possible he planned it from when he bought the rest of them.

I completely disagree.

First of all, Dierdorf was saying that St Louis needed to start working on things back in '05 - '07. He wasn't saying the city needed to pony up everything but that the tax man was coming and we better make ready. He wasn't advocating for flat out building Stan some new Taj Mahal. But the CVC apparently wasn't interested in talking to Georgia/Shaw about getting there so do you really think they were asking for meetings with Kroenke?

Second - Stan has put what he wanted at the time on paper and won in agreed upon arbitration after the two sides agreed that there would be a waiving of the 2005 requirement as long as certain requirements were met. Those requirements were not met again and it went to arbitration. People involved might not like it but those are about the only facts we know. At that point, it is really incumbent on those who lost in arbitration to make the next step as it was in '05 when they failed to meet the top 25%.

You may be right that he planned it when he bought the rest of the team. I frankly don't know. But everything and I mean everything indicates that was not the plan when he bought minority ownership. We've gone over that history ad nauseum.

So what changed? The LA market has always been open. The Rams have had this ridiculous lease since '95. The SD situation hasn't changed. The Oak situation hasn't changed.

Do you know that Stan or his people haven't put forth ideas or plans? Do you know that his calls were maybe not returned back when the CVC and the city felt they had the power - ala Spanos and Al Davis' attempts early on? Do you think Stan is anything but a student of negotiations?

I'm not giving anyone a pass in this. Stan may indeed have planned this all along. The city and the CVC may indeed have screwed with the wrong dude. The Governor may indeed have put politics above everything else including keeping the Rams.

I guess I'm just a little dismayed by the whole procedure as you are I'm sure. I was disgusted by it in the 90s and I'm no less disgusted by it now. Regardless of what happens, Stan will win, useless politicians will win, lawyers will get paid, and the Governor will retire as someone who at least "tried" to keep the Rams in St Louis. Hell - even Peacock will win as he is probably the lone person in all of this giving his best effort and everyone will acknowledge at least that.

 

[RamFan503]

It's not about Leverage for stan


Its for other owners in smaller markets that have upcoming issues...

You got 3 teams willing to move in/to california, and all willing to privately fund their stadiums without public money..why should other gov'ts give in when the NFL is willing to rip a City of a team and leave them on the hook to pay off the public debt? (if the Rams leave)

Um... because they know they are not LA or NY or Chicago? Y'know - maybe a city looks at it and thinks, "I better up the ante even more. $400 million couldn't keep a team in St Louis and the owner put up his own money instead."

 

[iced]

Um... because they know they are not LA or NY or Chicago? Y'know - maybe a city looks at it and thinks, "I better up the ante even more. $400 million couldn't keep a team in St Louis and the owner put up his own money instead."

it's not even about that - it's as simple as the threat of moving to a larger market (Think Oakland to San antonio for example).

$400 million is one of the highest offers from a public city. If the NFL is willing to give a city the finger and go fund their own public stadium, why should another gov't be willing to pony up? Do you really think the NFL wants to go through another relocation era like the 90's?

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's not about Leverage for stan


Its for other owners in smaller markets that have upcoming issues...

You got 3 teams willing to move in/to california, and all willing to privately fund their stadiums without public money..why should other gov'ts give in when the NFL is willing to rip a City of a team and leave them on the hook to pay off the public debt? (if the Rams leave)

So that happens regardless if it's Inglewood or Carson? If that's the case owners can just say "Look what happens when you don't step up your game."

And if they want to leave, then it makes it easier for them.

 

[iced]

So that happens regardless if it's Inglewood or Carson? If that's the case owners can just say "Look what happens when you don't step up your game."

And if they want to leave, then it makes it easier for them.

Not sure how you make the comparison to San diego and Oakland - Oakland has already said they are not going to give public money for a stadium, period. San Diego's plan is contingent on many other things happening, including finding a buyer to sell their land $225 million. That doesn't sound realistic in any sense, and contingent on finding someone to buy it at that price - you know dam well if that were part of the riverfront deal you or many others would be ripping it apart based on that alone.

And if other teams want to play hopscotch they can - although i sincerely doubt they will, considering how stubborn owners are in getting public money for stadium... although i'm not gonna assume a zebra will change its stripes.

And last I checked - San Diego wasn't offering anything near what St.Louis is offering.. So no, its not the same thing; not even remotely close.

 

[blue4]

I completely disagree.

First of all, Dierdorf was saying that St Louis needed to start working on things back in '05 - '07. He wasn't saying the city needed to pony up everything but that the tax man was coming and we better make ready. He wasn't advocating for flat out building Stan some new Taj Mahal. But the CVC apparently wasn't interested in talking to Georgia/Shaw about getting there so do you really think they were asking for meetings with Kroenke?

Second - Stan has put what he wanted at the time on paper and won in agreed upon arbitration after the two sides agreed that there would be a waiving of the 2005 requirement as long as certain requirements were met. Those requirements were not met again and it went to arbitration. People involved might not like it but those are about the only facts we know. At that point, it is really incumbent on those who lost in arbitration to make the next step as it was in '05 when they failed to meet the top 25%.

You may be right that he planned it when he bought the rest of the team. I frankly don't know. But everything and I mean everything indicates that was not the plan when he bought minority ownership. We've gone over that history ad nauseum.

So what changed? The LA market has always been open. The Rams have had this ridiculous lease since '95. The SD situation hasn't changed. The Oak situation hasn't changed.

Do you know that Stan or his people haven't put forth ideas or plans? Do you know that his calls were maybe not returned back when the CVC and the city felt they had the power - ala Spanos and Al Davis' attempts early on? Do you think Stan is anything but a student of negotiations?

I'm not giving anyone a pass in this. Stan may indeed have planned this all along. The city and the CVC may indeed have screwed with the wrong dude. The Governor may indeed have put politics above everything else including keeping the Rams.

I guess I'm just a little dismayed by the whole procedure as you are I'm sure. I was disgusted by it in the 90s and I'm no less disgusted by it now. Regardless of what happens, Stan will win, useless politicians will win, lawyers will get paid, and the Governor will retire as someone who at least "tried" to keep the Rams in St Louis. Hell - even Peacock will win as he is probably the lone person in all of this giving his best effort and everyone will acknowledge at least that.

I just completely disagree. As you said, we've been over it before. There are certain base things we just are not going to agree on.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not sure how you make the comparison to San diego and Oakland - Oakland has already said they are not going to give public money for a stadium, period. San Diego's plan is contingent on many other things happening, including finding a buyer to sell their land $225 million. That doesn't sound realistic in any sense, and contingent on finding someone to buy it at that price - you know dam well if that were part of the riverfront deal you or many others would be ripping it apart based on that alone.

And if other teams want to play hopscotch they can - although i sincerely doubt they will, considering how stubborn owners are in getting public money for stadium... but hey i'm not gonna ask a zebra to change its stripes

If Oakland loses their team then that's that. You didn't see governments suddenly turning away from negotiation tables when the Rams moved to St Louis, which was an owner doing whatever they wanted to get a quick buck, or when the Titans moved from Houston. Why would this suddenly be the straw that broke the camels back?

If the Chargers leave then wouldn't the message be "it doesn't matter what you do, if you don't accept every demand he will just drag out the process long enough and trash any attempt that not only will they leave anyway, but your political career might be ruined as well."? If the Rams leave why isn't the message " its not about simply offering money, its about making a project that they want and get excited about, and then helping with the funding"?

I just don't see other cities refusing to work with owners because of this. If they didn't care when LA or Houston were ditched, why would they care about St Louis?

 

[RamBill]

After months of politics and posturing the Chargers and local government leaders are headed to the bargaining table tomorrow over a new stadium proposal. San Diego's NBC 7’s Gene Cubbison has the story.

Watch San Diego Negotiation Story

 

[iced]

If Oakland loses their team then that's that. You didn't see governments suddenly turning away from negotiation tables when the Rams moved to St Louis, which was an owner doing whatever they wanted to get a quick buck, or when the Titans moved from Houston. Why would this suddenly be the straw that broke the camels back?

You can't compare where we're at today to 30 years ago - completely different era

If the Chargers leave then wouldn't the message be "it doesn't matter what you do, if you don't accept every demand he will just drag out the process long enough and trash any attempt that not only will they leave anyway, but your political career might be ruined as well."? If the Rams leave why isn't the message " its not about simply offering money, its about making a project that they want and get excited about, and then helping with the funding"?

You act like San Diego has given a viable stadium plan, which they haven't. Public Funding has always been their biggest issue, and continues to be. Do not even try to compare Riverfront to their stadium.

I just don't see other cities refusing to work with owners because of this. If they didn't care when LA or Houston were ditched, why would they care about St Louis?

I see them losing leverage with the smaller markets - obviously the big markets like Dallas, NY, Greenbay, etc. will be fine... its the smaller ones that I'm thinking about that will be getting the shaft.