New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
As much as I love seeing all the info and knowledge passed around on this, I think it might be time to close it to updates only. Nobody is getting anywhere on this. And I don't want to see people getting banned or leaving because of something they can't control. Just my opinion, of course.
That's exactly what I was thinking!

I bounce into this thread every couple of days or so and I've noticed what I percieve as an uptick in the "passion" on both sides.

It's not likely that the members that consistently debate this topic will ever convince their counterparts so see their view. And, as you said, it's the same stuff being repeated now... not much new information is coming out lately.

Just my opinion as well but I agree that it might be time to shut it down to only updates.

If I've offended any of the debaters, I apologize... carry on if it stays open.
:D
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,627
Name
Stu
This story seems to make the most sense regarding Kroenke's end game.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...e-Chargers-Future-in-San-Diego-305735491.html

So who will own the L.A. Rams in a few years?
Yet more guessing games. Nevermind that Pat is setting up a trust for his heirs to own the Broncos. Will they want to sell? Who knows. But Stan's past dealings with dad won't likely weigh in to the point of them making him some kind of great deal to buy. If they sell, they will want every penny they can get.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
This story seems to make the most sense regarding Kroenke's end game.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/spo...e-Chargers-Future-in-San-Diego-305735491.html

So who will own the L.A. Rams in a few years?

I feel like if the Rams are in LA, Kroenke will be the owner. If the estimates of the potential value increase of your team by sticking them in LA is true, why move the Rams there, just to sell them for the Bronco's which are valued at 1.4 billion? Even if the Rams double, and estimates say it could be more, they're still more valuable than 1.4 billion.

Plus all that matters on the Bronco's actually being put up for sale.
 

RAMbler

UDFA
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
75
I feel like if the Rams are in LA, Kroenke will be the owner. If the estimates of the potential value increase of your team by sticking them in LA is true, why move the Rams there, just to sell them for the Bronco's which are valued at 1.4 billion? Even if the Rams double, and estimates say it could be more, they're still more valuable than 1.4 billion.

Plus all that matters on the Bronco's actually being put up for sale.

Yes, it will depend on the Bowlen's selling. But if Stan doubles the value (probably more) of his team, sells it, buys the Broncos, while making even just a small profit..... He becomes king of the Rockies.

I've personally feel that SK has had this idea for a long long time. To own all of the major sports franchise in 1 market..... namely Colorado.

Who knows if it plays out that way..... but it does make sense. If he continues being the Rams owner in L.A. then he still has the cross-ownership thing to deal with.
 

-X-

Medium-sized Lebowski
Joined
Jun 20, 2010
Messages
35,576
Name
The Dude
Carson Claims There Are Literally Zero Records of Plan to Build Chargers/Raiders NFL Stadium

There's been a lot of impressive wheeling and dealing and multi-agency coordination over the past few months as the city of Carson works with the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders on a proposed joint stadium in the city, battling it out with a potential Inglewood stadium to bring an NFL team (or two) back to Los Angeles. But perhaps the most incredible feat, according to Carson officials, is that the negotiations to bring a two-team stadium to the LA suburb were done without ever writing anything down. Anyway, that's what they told Voice of San Diego, a news organization based in the Chargers' current home, when VoSD filed two separate public records requests to try and look into the stadium proposal talks. VoSD is skeptical and is now suing the city of Carson.

The Carson stadium's road to construction has so far included the successful orchestration of a complicated land deal for the stadium site, a $50-million debtto finance the last stage of cleanup on the property (a former landfill), and a ballot initiative that helped it skirt California's tough environmental review law. Before all that happened, though, "Team officials said they'd been secretly negotiating with Carson leaders for at least a month prior to the announcement [of the planned stadium]," VoSD says (the announcement was made in February, shortly after St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced his plan to build a stadium in Inglewood). But in the two instances that VoSD attempted to get documents regarding those negotiations, they were shot down by lawyers for Carson, who—after requesting several extensions—told them both times that there were no such records.

As VoSD notes, Carson isn't saying that they don't want to turn these records over, or that they are exempt from public records laws; they are instead trying to say that these documents straight-up do not exist. No emails. No memos. No written or digital documents of any kind. Not even a text! If what Carson says is true, a $1-billion stadium deal and multiple, complex land sales were all conducted based entirely on handshakes and gentlemen's agreements, as if this were a deal to have Carson's kid mow the Chargers' lawn this summer. Terrifying.

VoSD is now suing the city of Carson in an attempt to get them to produce documents relating to the deal.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Yes, it will depend on the Bowlen's selling. But if Stan doubles the value (probably more) of his team, sells it, buys the Broncos, while making even just a small profit..... He becomes king of the Rockies.

I've personally feel that SK has had this idea for a long long time. To own all of the major sports franchise in 1 market..... namely Colorado.

Who knows if it plays out that way..... but it does make sense. If he continues being the Rams owner in L.A. then he still has the cross-ownership thing to deal with.

He's supposed to lay out a plan to fix the cross ownership by June and have it fixed later this year. If that happens, I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say he's going to look to fix the cross ownership before asking for votes to move. It'll probably be hard to get them otherwise.
 

WillasDad

Rookie
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
147
Name
WillasDad
This conversation is a bit of a head scratcher for me. You have a chance to own an NFL franchise in one of the largest most wealthy cities in the world, which if managed and marketed right could bring you so much more business opportunities and more fortune, both from LA and potentially from international markets, particularly China, and people think he'll sell so he can dominate Denver? I guess anything is possible....
 

Rmfnlt

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jun 3, 2014
Messages
5,342
Carson Claims There Are Literally Zero Records of Plan to Build Chargers/Raiders NFL Stadium

There's been a lot of impressive wheeling and dealing and multi-agency coordination over the past few months as the city of Carson works with the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders on a proposed joint stadium in the city, battling it out with a potential Inglewood stadium to bring an NFL team (or two) back to Los Angeles. But perhaps the most incredible feat, according to Carson officials, is that the negotiations to bring a two-team stadium to the LA suburb were done without ever writing anything down. Anyway, that's what they told Voice of San Diego, a news organization based in the Chargers' current home, when VoSD filed two separate public records requests to try and look into the stadium proposal talks. VoSD is skeptical and is now suing the city of Carson.

The Carson stadium's road to construction has so far included the successful orchestration of a complicated land deal for the stadium site, a $50-million debtto finance the last stage of cleanup on the property (a former landfill), and a ballot initiative that helped it skirt California's tough environmental review law. Before all that happened, though, "Team officials said they'd been secretly negotiating with Carson leaders for at least a month prior to the announcement [of the planned stadium]," VoSD says (the announcement was made in February, shortly after St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced his plan to build a stadium in Inglewood). But in the two instances that VoSD attempted to get documents regarding those negotiations, they were shot down by lawyers for Carson, who—after requesting several extensions—told them both times that there were no such records.

As VoSD notes, Carson isn't saying that they don't want to turn these records over, or that they are exempt from public records laws; they are instead trying to say that these documents straight-up do not exist. No emails. No memos. No written or digital documents of any kind. Not even a text! If what Carson says is true, a $1-billion stadium deal and multiple, complex land sales were all conducted based entirely on handshakes and gentlemen's agreements, as if this were a deal to have Carson's kid mow the Chargers' lawn this summer. Terrifying.

VoSD is now suing the city of Carson in an attempt to get them to produce documents relating to the deal.
Wow!!

There's a member on another board who lives like 2 blocks from the Carson site (and has lived there for something like 60 years).

His description of what went on there for 55 years makes it sound like there was no way anyone was going to be building a stadium on that site any time soon. Benzene, tolulene, PCPs... toxic waste seeping out of the ground. The clean up sounds like it would take years. Even then, not sure whatever soil that would be left would support a stadium. I can tell you this much: If it got built? I wouldn't go.

I trust his intelligence on the site and, coupled with this information, it makes me feel like there is no deal of any serious nature concerning the Carson stadium.

Looks like the VofSD is going to force the truth out of Carson.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
He's supposed to lay out a plan to fix the cross ownership by June and have it fixed later this year. If that happens, I don't know, but if I had to guess I'd say he's going to look to fix the cross ownership before asking for votes to move. It'll probably be hard to get them otherwise.

I think it is suppose to be June 15th. If June passes and we don't hear anything I think that may be telling.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I think it is suppose to be June 15th. If June passes and we don't hear anything I think that may be telling.

Could be, but with how everything else has gone, I wouldn't read too much into it. For all we know he already told them his plan. Ultimately we probably won't know for sure until its time to file.

Wow!!

There's a member on another board who lives like 2 blocks from the Carson site (and has lived there for something like 60 years).

His description of what went on there for 55 years makes it sound like there was no way anyone was going to be building a stadium on that site any time soon. Benzene, tolulene, PCPs... toxic waste seeping out of the ground. The clean up sounds like it would take years. Even then, not sure whatever soil that would be left would support a stadium. I can tell you this much: If it got built? I wouldn't go.

I trust his intelligence on the site and, coupled with this information, it makes me feel like there is no deal of any serious nature concerning the Carson stadium.

Looks like the VofSD is going to force the truth out of Carson.

There certainty are a lot of issues, and I believe they can't actually start construction of the stadium for an additional two years due to the cleanup needed. To me everything seems bad, from the land to the location. However if they want it bad enough they can certainly get it done. These issues are part of why I think most in the NFL would much rather Inglewood happen, but the efforts of St Louis make it harder to allow it to happen hassle free. If that actually stops them, hard to say.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Made sure to listen to this.

Basically, the Governor said the lawsuit was a bunch of bewl by 6 out 194 legistlators. He also threw shots by saying these guys were clappig during Chiefs games.

Still tho, I'm concerned about this lawsuit. All the progress may as well be halted in light of this.

So what he's saying is that those 6 legislators are doing this for political clout rather than hoping it sticks. I heard it was a non starter because the legislation failed to shoot it down when they put together the budget, and that a court won't touch it for state credit reasons.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/06/02/nixon-stadium-lawsuit-is-factually-incorrect.html

Nixon: Stadium lawsuit is ‘factually incorrect’
Jun 2, 2015, 2:54pm CDT Updated Jun 2, 2015, 3:25pm CDT
Brian Feldt
St. Louis Business Journal

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon on Tuesday called a lawsuit against him and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) a “publicity stunt.”

The suit, filed earlier this month in the Circuit Court of Cole County by six lawmakers, said public money is being spent illegally on the National Football League stadium proposed for St. Louis’ north Mississippi riverfront. The suit alleges state appropriations to the RSA are limited to “debt service and maintenance” for the Edward Jones Dome.


“It’s factually incorrect,” Nixon said in an interview with the Business Journal. Nixon also called the lawsuit “amateur” and said, “It’s nothing but an attempt to waste time.” Nixon said the RSA has the authority to spend money on the proposed stadium, which would be located on 90 acres north of Lumière Place.


The lawmakers listed as plaintiffs in the suit include Sen. Rob Schaaf and Reps. Rob Vescovo, Jay Barnes, Mark Parkinson, Eric Burlison and Tracy McCreery.

“I don’t hear Sen. Schaaf complaining about us investing in the Kansas City Chiefs’ practice facility in St. Joseph or Rep. Parkinson upset about the Family Arena near his district,” Nixon said.

Nixon said he doesn’t anticipate that the lawsuit will hinder progress made on the proposed $1 billion stadium, which would be funded using a $250 million extension of the state’s and city of St. Louis’ bonds, originally issued to build the Edward Jones Dome, and more than $150 million in tax credits and other public funding mechanisms. He said the lawmakers who filed the suit were looking to change the law after they failed to pass such measures during the state’s legislative session that recently ended.

Separately, Nixon told the Business Journal he has not spoken with St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke in a year and a half, though Nixon has been in continual contact with other Rams officials.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
Could be, but with how everything else has gone, I wouldn't read too much into it. For all we know he already told them his plan. Ultimately we probably won't know for sure until its time to file.

I think I should have add a bit more to my post. For a while now I've have thought that the cross ownership might be a carrot to dangle if Stan doesn't get LA. I think if he is going to get LA there is no way he gets to keep cross ownership. Though you're probably right.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Missouri Governor Jay Nixon tells The Fast Lane a recently-filed lawsuit over financing of the St. Louis stadium plan is just a move by lawmakers to to create attention for themselves. Nixon says the suit hasn’t slowed progress of the plan.

Listen to Nixon Talk STL Stadium

===========

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon tells The Fast Lane NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has encouraged him to continue to pursue plans for an NFL stadium in St. Louis. Nixon also discusses the economic impact of the stadium’s construction.

Listen to Nixon Interview
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
This conversation is a bit of a head scratcher for me. You have a chance to own an NFL franchise in one of the largest most wealthy cities in the world, which if managed and marketed right could bring you so much more business opportunities and more fortune, both from LA and potentially from international markets, particularly China, and people think he'll sell so he can dominate Denver? I guess anything is possible....

If it was that easy to move to LA every team would be trying to get there. The fact is that NFL owners cannot move to LA just increase the value of their own franchise. The NFL has to decide that it's good for them as a whole.

The reason Denver comes up is because it would solve all of Stan's cross ownership problems. Also, the current owner is down on his health, and could pass in a couple of years. And there's some question as to whether his children would want to keep the franchise or not. Basically, it's a small possibility that may happen, but has a better chance of not happening.
 

mr.stlouis

Legend
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
6,454
Name
Main Hook
Great post @bluecoconuts !!
The only wild card I can see tbh is Mrs Davis selling the interest of the Raiders to Kroenke and they get another owner for STL other than at this point I don't see a point of no return TBH. Stan is full steam ahead in owning a franchise in LA regardless who that is with a brand new stadium to hold SB's IMO. This wild card theory check marks everything, gets the Davis family out the NFL, NFL in LA with SB caliber stadium, new owner and team stays in STL where fan base is happy with new stadium and NFL gets maximum penetration. Out of the 3 cities I see Oakland losing out.



Unfortunately I agree with you man... :(
It's very obvious with the most likely scenario.
:sneaky:

I don't think you caught my drift. Bluecocoanuts thinks they're moving, I think Carson is the #1 option barring SD and OAK don't settle in their home markets. But yeah, it's not debatable. I know I'm right. :LOL:
STL has the public money, Carson has the votes, and it's all gonna come together.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
A Way to keep St. Louis involved in NFL to Los Angeles saga
Posted on June 2, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...st-louis-involved-in-nfl-to-los-angeles-saga/

I wrote a column yesterday explaining ways the NFL and the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams can be flexible in working out a Los Angeles relocation solution in which all three teams are satisfied with the outcome.

The beginning premise is Rams owner Stan Kroenke having his heart set on moving to Los Angeles – no matter what local leaders in Missouri offer in terms of public assistance on a new stadium in St. Louis – and San Diego and Oakland not delivering new stadium plans for the Chargers and Raiders.

Not saying that is how it will play out, but my educated guess is the Rams absolutely want to move to Los Angeles. And where there is a will there is usually a way.

But it will take compromise.

Long story short, it would involve the Rams and either the Raiders or Chargers teaming up in Inglewood on a mutually beneficial deal, and the Rams and their Inglewood partner directing part of their relocation fees and other short-term profits to either the Raiders or Chargers to help them build a new stadium in Oakland or San Diego.

In my scenario, the team most likely to stay put is the Raiders – with a little bit of help from the NFL, the Rams and Chargers and Bay Area leaders.

Predictably, the reaction was mixed, although I think it might surprise some fans who would actually be on board with this type of solution.

In any case, the reaction from St. Louis was a mixture of anger, distress and disappointment. Understandable considering St. Louis would be left out in the cold, despite working with state leaders to potentially come up with financing to help the Rams build a stadium in downtown St. Louis.

In any event, maybe there’s a way to keep NFL hopes a live in St. Louis.

As I mentioned in my column, the Rams, Chargers and the NFL would direct funds to the Raiders to help build a new stadium on the land on which their current home stands.

The potential problem is, the city of Oakland and Alameda County still have to kick in land and infrastructure costs to help the project along, and perhaps contribute some financing.

Considering how the Oakland A’s stadium needs could complicate what Bay Area leaders do with the land, and how difficult it is extracting taxpayer money for professional sports venues in California, it’s not a given the Raiders get the local help needed.

If not, maybe St. Louis can remain an NFL city after all.

Here is how: Borrowing from the premise of my column, what if the NFL gave the opportunity to win the extra resources to both Oakland/San Diego and St. Louis — and then challenged both to come up with a deal that either kept or attracted the Raiders/Chargers?

St. Louis could at least stay in the game. And they might even have the advantage.

Granted, the Raiders and Chargers have given no indication they’d be on board with a move to St. Louis. In fact, the Raiders have been emphatic in shooting down any notion they’d ever be open to that possibility.

If they hold firm, this is a moot suggestion.

But if I’ve learned anything covering the 20-year NFL to Los Angeles saga, things can absolutely change.
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 Sportsbook Champion
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
11,921
:sneaky:

I don't think you caught my drift. Bluecocoanuts thinks they're moving, I think Carson is the #1 option barring SD and OAK don't settle in their home markets. But yeah, it's not debatable. I know I'm right. :LOL:
STL has the public money, Carson has the votes, and it's all gonna come together.
LMAO.... ohhhh sorry. Sorry broski I got to side with blue on the chances haha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.