New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

I heard a little blip on the radio about how the Rams have all their vender contracts end in February. Essentially the guy (no clue who he was) said that he had worked with a lot of different teams among the four major leagues and he's never heard of a team having all their contracts end at the same time. Said it was crazy to do that, and felt it was signaling that Kroenke is more serious about leaving than Spanos and Davis. He also said that if the NFL is serious about "doing LA right" then Kroenke should get extra consideration because he's not treating LA as a consolation prize, like Davis and Spanos when they say they want to stay in their current markets, he's acting in a way that says he wants LA. I don't think the NFL will put a lot of emphasis on that, but it was something I hadn't thought of before.

He also said St Louis should be commended for their work, but stressed they shouldnt have to pay for a stadium. Said that spending hundreds of millions in tax dollars for stadiums that owners can afford to build themselves, then charging over 100 dollars to sit in it, 40 dollars for parking, and 10 dollars for beer was bullshit.

It was interesting, mostly ranting really, but somewhat interesting.

 

[Hacksaw]

I heard a little blip on the radio about how the Rams have all their vender contracts end in February. Essentially the guy (no clue who he was) said that he had worked with a lot of different teams among the four major leagues and he's never heard of a team having all their contracts end at the same time. Said it was crazy to do that, and felt it was signaling that Kroenke is more serious about leaving than Spanos and Davis. He also said that if the NFL is serious about "doing LA right" then Kroenke should get extra consideration because he's not treating LA as a consolation prize, like Davis and Spanos when they say they want to stay in their current markets, he's acting in a way that says he wants LA. I don't think the NFL will put a lot of emphasis on that, but it was something I hadn't thought of before.

He also said St Louis should be commended for their work, but stressed they shouldnt have to pay for a stadium. Said that spending hundreds of millions in tax dollars for stadiums that owners can afford to build themselves, then charging over 100 dollars to sit in it, 40 dollars for parking, and 10 dollars for beer was bullcrap.

It was interesting, mostly ranting really, but somewhat interesting.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/06/03/rams-contracts-hint-at-relocation.html?ana=twt
St. Louis Rams’ annual contracts with some seasonal contractors and advertisers have run from May to May.

But this year, while the team is rumored to be eyeing the Los Angeles market, those contracts have been changed, and now coincide with the National Football League’s deadline to submit relocation bids, according to people familiar with the matter.


IT consulting firm Perficient’s sponsorship contract now runs to the end of February 2016, according to Bill Davis, a company spokesman.

NFL teams have between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 to submit relocation bids. Kroenke appears set to submit such a bid now that he has assembled land and plans to build a stadium as part of a $2 billion development in Inglewood, California.

Rams Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff declined to comment.

Davis said he noticed the changed dates, and asked the Rams about it.

Rams officials told him the team was changing its contracts to coincide with the end of the playing season, according to Davis. The Super Bowl is held in early February.

A Rams contractor who works on an annual contract said it was also changed, and now expires at the end of February 2016.

“To me, right away, it made sense,” said the employee, who asked not to be named for fear of reprisals. “As a business, they have to notify the league in February if they are moving, so why would they want to pay people beyond February? They didn’t say that was why, but I put two and two together.”

 

[den-the-coach]

Taskforce everything wrapped up with a bow on it by August I don't see the Rams leaving.

I don't doubt that you're right Goose never do, however, I don't see expansion because there would have to be two teams and I just don't see two teams. And there would have to be a buyer in St. Louis and IMO they lost that guy in Khan. Now yes maybe somebody else steps up to buy the Rams and keep them in St. Louis, but IMO, no way on expansion not with two teams, but as always JMHO.

 

[The Ripper]

Den you make a good point. There is a lot more to this than any of us will every know and I think we can all agree on that. I 100% believe that Stan will work out his cross ownership as part of a deal. I know the league has said it won't expand but where there is smoke there is fire. There has been chatter that expansion could part of a deal and that it is not off the table. Consider this. The reality is that only way STL builds a new stadium is if the Rams stay. Nixon is on his way out and this really appears to be the only chance to extend the bonds. I would have serious doubts the next Governor would do that. The G4 loan is not available, supposedly, if another teams relocates here. The Raiders and the Chargers do not seem to have any interest in moving here. We have been told that Inglewood is going to get built. Stan wants to build a NFL Mecca. The NFL could award Stan an expansion team. Cut or eliminate fees since he has the deep pockets, land, and stadium plan. He sells the Rams for top dollar and gets his California dream. The STL Task Force is on course to check off every box on the checklist the NFL has provided them. No other city has had State and City officials involved in the process to keep the NFL. It does not appear to be reasonable at all for the NFL to allow a cities team to relocate when they have worked as hard as STL has to achieve what it has take 10+ years for other cities to achieve. I do not think that the LA committee will take that commitment lightly and consider the repercussions if they were to allow the Rams to leave from other cities. Now this is just my opinion if the STL Taskforce everything wrapped up with a bow on it by August I don't see the Rams leaving.

If there's going to be expansion it will be in 2019 or 2020 and those teams will waive the tv money till the next renewal same as the last round of teams. The NFL won't wait till then for an LA team. They want a team now and one that will make the return to LA a success. It's possible an expansion team may go into LA but as the second team. The other thing is Kroenke isn't going to wait 4 or 5 years for a team since he already has one. The more likely spot for an expansion team is St Louis if the Rams leave. Nixon emphasized this week that they wanted St Louis to remain an NFL city. The other thing is that the timing fits with the completion of the Riverfront Stadium.

 

[dieterbrock]

Just curious but what news could come out of Inglewood that we don't already know about? The land is all purchased. The financing is done on the construction. All the necessary zoning, epa studies and legal hurdles needed have been done. Ground is being cleared and they're scheduled to start construction. All the deals with local construction unions and companies are done. There really isn't anything that needs to be said/released about Inglewood that we don't already know. I'm not attacking or criticizing I'm just curious if I've missed something that they need to solve/fix/announce.

Sounds like all they need is a team....

 

[Goose]

I don't doubt that you're right Goose never do, however, I don't see expansion because there would have to be two teams and I just don't see two teams. And there would have to be a buyer in St. Louis and IMO they lost that guy in Khan. Now yes maybe somebody else steps up to buy the Rams and keep them in St. Louis, but IMO, no way on expansion not with two teams, but as always JMHO.

I understand the numbers game but they have made it work in the past. Cleveland was added 99 and Houston wasn't add until 3 years later. Divisions can all so be readjusted to accommodate. I don't know that it will happen but it is an option.

 

[Goose]

If there's going to be expansion it will be in 2019 or 2020 and those teams will waive the tv money till the next renewal same as the last round of teams. The NFL won't wait till then for an LA team. They want a team now and one that will make the return to LA a success. It's possible an expansion team may go into LA but as the second team. The other thing is Kroenke isn't going to wait 4 or 5 years for a team since he already has one. The more likely spot for an expansion team is St Louis if the Rams leave. Nixon emphasized this week that they wanted St Louis to remain an NFL city. The other thing is that the timing fits with the completion of the Riverfront Stadium.

You think they want a team now but only they know what they want. They have also said they don't want to flood the market and have 4 teams there. The NFL has done just fine without a team in LA. If the Rams leave there will be no State or City money without a vote. It will not happen. If the Rams leave there will be no NFL team in STL expansion or otherwise. Does the NFL want to lose that market with public money on the table? Kroenke doesn't have to wait. He can continue to own the Rams in STL. However, if he wants to be in LA the Rams aren't the only way he can get there.

 

[den-the-coach]

I understand the numbers game but they have made it work in the past. Cleveland was added 99 and Houston wasn't add until 3 years later. Divisions can all so be readjusted to accommodate. I don't know that it will happen but it is an option.

That's very true, but again I don't see it happening. It only has happen once I believe and Cleveland was an exception. However, I don't disagree that if the St. Louis gang has everything tied neatly in a bow come August, it will make it difficult for the NFL to grant relocation for the Rams.

 

[Goose]

That's very true, but again I don't see it happening. It only has happen once I believe and Cleveland was an exception. However, I don't disagree that if the St. Louis gang has everything tied neatly in a bow come August, it will make it difficult for the NFL to grant relocation for the Rams.

Just another example of the NFL bending the rules to meet it's own agenda.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I understand the numbers game but they have made it work in the past. Cleveland was added 99 and Houston wasn't add until 3 years later. Divisions can all so be readjusted to accommodate. I don't know that it will happen but it is an option.

I believe that's because they were working to get LA an expansion team at the same time, but after years of different LA billionaires fighting over who would get the team and such, they went and awarded it to Houston instead. That may have been why.

They have also said they don't want to flood the market

Did they say that? Wouldn't that indicate they'd rather the Rams then? Because going from 0 to 2 could do the same thing, especially if you're looking at 4 years in a temporary stadium.

 

[OldSchool]

Did they say that? Wouldn't that indicate they'd rather the Rams then? Because going from 0 to 2 could do the same thing, especially if you're looking at 4 years in a temporary stadium.

Two years for Inglewood. Breaking ground this December and open for the 2018 season. Team would play 2016 and 2017 in the Colisseum.

 

[8to12]

Two years for Inglewood. Breaking ground this December and open for the 2018 season. Team would play 2016 and 2017 in the Colisseum.

Is there something that says they would definitely play at the Colisseum? My understanding was that the Rose Bowl has already cleared all legal hurdles and the new private boxes are complete. And compared the to the Colliseum, they wouldn't have to deal with USC's ownership, so to speak, of that field.

 

[The Ripper]

You think they want a team now but only they know what they want. They have also said they don't want to flood the market and have 4 teams there. The NFL has done just fine without a team in LA. If the Rams leave there will be no State or City money without a vote. It will not happen. If the Rams leave there will be no NFL team in STL expansion or otherwise. Does the NFL want to lose that market with public money on the table? Kroenke doesn't have to wait. He can continue to own the Rams in STL. However, if he wants to be in LA the Rams aren't the only way he can get there.

There's more public money on the table in SD so they either reject both or accept both. The NFL has done well but how much did they lose by not having a team or 2 in LA? It comes up every time the networks renew the contracts and networks want the NFL in LA. There is no other legitimate way for Kroenke to move to LA. Why do they keep talking about keeping St Louis an NFL city if they haven't planned for an alternative option.

 

[RamFan503]

Is there something that says they would definitely play at the Colisseum? My understanding was that the Rose Bowl has already cleared all legal hurdles and the new private boxes are complete. And compared the to the Colliseum, they wouldn't have to deal with USC's ownership, so to speak, of that field.

I haven't been to either venue in quite some time. Memories would make me lean toward the Coliseum. I believe the Rams have only played in the Rose Bowl once and no one wants to remember that outcome. Problem is that the last time I was at the Coliseum it was for a Raiduh game and that area was freaking gang land USA. Maybe the Rams could play in San Diego for a couple years.

Holy shit! OK - This is way out there so don't shoot me. Say SD and the Raiduhs fill the LA spot - Stan decides that the SD proposal is decent but only wants them to pitch in the land and he does the rest and owns the venue. Talk about a surprise ending. Won't happen but we are all throwing out scenarios. How screwed up would that be? This way EVERYONE is pissed off. Fits Goodell to a tee.

 

[iced]

You think they want a team now but only they know what they want. They have also said they don't want to flood the market and have 4 teams there. The NFL has done just fine without a team in LA. If the Rams leave there will be no State or City money without a vote. It will not happen. If the Rams leave there will be no NFL team in STL expansion or otherwise. Does the NFL want to lose that market with public money on the table? Kroenke doesn't have to wait. He can continue to own the Rams in STL. However, if he wants to be in LA the Rams aren't the only way he can get there.

Don't forget that while in one breath he's talking about "waiving Tv money" but forgetting local TV Market revenues are separate (they were part of the reason for a salary cap boost)

 

[DaveFan'51]

FWIW. I just read an article on Yahoo. Written by Michael Cronin @ the Sun Times. In It he reports that an ' Un-Named source', a contractor at the Stadium. Has reported " Contractors and Advertisers at the ED, who's contracts normally run from May to May, Have been advised their contracts will expire 'Feb 2016' instead of May" This is supposedly because of the Time frame the Rams must notify the League of their intent to move!!
This doesn't sound good for St. Louis!
I would have posted the article, But I don't know how to copy it and post it!!
It's on the Yahoo front page now!

 

[OldSchool]

Is there something that says they would definitely play at the Colisseum? My understanding was that the Rose Bowl has already cleared all legal hurdles and the new private boxes are complete. And compared the to the Colliseum, they wouldn't have to deal with USC's ownership, so to speak, of that field.

Pat Haden said he's already agreed to let an NFL team use the Colliseum while an LA area stadium is built. It's also a lot closer to the Inglewood site and what would be their organizational HQ. Plus he's a former Ram so working with him is a natural.

 

[ChrisW]

Some thoughts from Bernie about the hearing tomorrow. This is from Bernie's Press Box on the PD site.

Peacock thinks it's positive that Frawley got to it right away, scheduling the hearing so quickly. Dave thinks it shows Frawley understands the sensitive timing of the stadium issue, and didn't delay.

Peacock doesn't have a read on Frawley, but don't misinterpret that. It doesn't mean he's worried. He's just refraining from making predictions. But he's as calm as ever.

Nixon and Peacock both have told me that the team of lawyers are confident about the outcome of this suit, and the frivolous suit filed by the six legislators in Jeff City. I'm sure a lot of confident lawyers didn't get the outcome they expected.

But with the state bonds, Nixon vetted it with some of the top bond experts in the nation, and they assured him that he was on solid ground. If they bond people thought this was flimsy, they wouldn't have approved. They don't fool around with this stuff.

As for the city ... who knows? But given that the city's share of this would come from ticket taxes and hotel taxes, it's hard for me to believe that the St. Louis Board of Alderman (who can change the existing ordinance) would risk destroying the opportunity to:

Keep an NFL team.

Attract an MLS team (which would become a reality).

Redevelop a blighted, eyesore area on the riverfront.

Provide an enormous number of jobs for local labor -- especially after the labor unions agreed to do the stadium work at a lower cost.

You're going to throw all of that away because you don't want out-of-towners to pay a little extra when they stay in hotels, or have fans that go to games basically pay a surcharge to help fund this project?

I speak as a city resident ... and the logic of blowing all of this up because of a ticket tax and a hotel tax doesn't make sense to me. None of the cost is coming out of my pocket.

Like I keep saying ... people can oppose whatever they want to oppose. But if nothing else, I hope they at least understand what they're opposing.

-B

 

[WillasDad]

The more I think of it, I just don't see how the Chargers will be able to move to LA. Sure, that's what Spanos wants, but outside of a small miracle that allows for the Carson stadium to happen, his only option is Inglewood. And by playing in Inglewood, they'd pretty much run into the same issue the Raiders had before opting not to join the Niners in Santa Clara. They'll be mere tenants. Concerts, non-NFL sporting events, whatever, all that revenue will go to SK and his partners. The best the Chargers get is their own ticket sales and maybe the concession sales....MAYBE parking for their 8 scheduled games, while paying rent to SK. Basically, not a plan that any NFL team owner in their right mind would agree to. I know Spanos wants LA, but I just don't see it happening.

 

[ChrisW]

FWIW. I just read an article on Yahoo. Written by Michael Cronin @ the Sun Times. In It he reports that an ' Un-Named source', a contractor at the Stadium. Has reported " Contractors and Advertisers at the ED, who's contracts normally run from May to May, Have been advised their contracts will expire 'Feb 2016' instead of May" This is supposedly because of the Time frame the Rams must notify the League of their intent to move!!
This doesn't sound good for St. Louis!
I would have posted the article, But I don't know how to copy it and post it!!
It's on the Yahoo front page now!

View: https://twitter.com/RandyKarraker/status/606279892360003586


edit: nevermind. It popped up after.