New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

Peacock? No. Me either.


Two different things. The ordinance isn't what is being challenged by the 6 legislators. The ordinance is what I am most pissed about. The Stadium Authority and those involved in the Riverfront Stadium plan are suing to have it thrown out because it stands in their way - period. They know what the voters wanted and simply don't give a damn. The extension of the bonds is something the courts will have to look at to see if the wording fits the governor's interpretation of it. If it indeed allows for the extension of the bond for use on another stadium then it does. It seems to fit that the voters passed a bond that essentially was to bring the NFL to St Louis. I wouldn't think they intended to only bring them there temporarily.

The problem I have with the other is that the voters clearly saw this as a possibility that at some future time, the government would try to spend tax dollars on building another stadium. It is painfully obvious that they were saying, "not without a vote, you're not."

Totally agree

 

[bluecoconuts]

Especially since its only 6 legislators, out of 200'ish, that take issue with it - including those from KC who renovated their own stadiums through funds

I don't think it's about funding the stadium so much as going around the voters and the legislature to do it. By extending the bonds the way the Governor wants to do, he's essentially taking away power from the legislature, and that's probably where their biggest gripe is. It's all about the balance of power between those two branches of government. I know at least one of the 6 said he'd vote for the stadium, I'm sure most of the others would to. They just want to be the ones to make that call.

 

[RamBill]

Will the Nixon-Goodell Relationship Play A Role in Saving the Rams?

How strong is the Jay Nixon and Rodger Goodell relationship, and will it impact the NFL in STL? Bernie Miklasz talks to Randy and D’Marco. Bernie says that the NFL acknowledges that Nixon has worked harder than any other Governor in a stadium issue and trying to save a team….there is a lot of respect for Nixon in the league offices. Nixon has developed a really good rapport with Goodell and there is a lot of mutual respect. Will that matter or would the NFL walk away from STL if everything is in place here for a new stadium? Bernie has an article expanding on this in Sunday's PD.

Listen to Bernie Talk Nixon-Goodell

Nixon-Goodell Discussion Starts at 9:35

 

[iced]

Interesting.. Found an audio clip on Why Spanos isn't willing to work with Kroenke

http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/6/2/8701493/do-the-chargers-really-want-to-stay-in-san-diego

People in San Diego have every reason to be dubious.

Despite the Chargers' insistence they wanted to remain in San Diego, their flirtation with AEG's Farmer's Field project, the possibility of a partnership with Kroenke in Inglewood apparently gone bad (relevant audio is from 09:00 - 21:50), and now news that the Chargers started the Carson project as early as 2013 all convincingly argue otherwise.

(38 megs)
http://download.podcast.play.it/med...&+Recreation&callsign=KFWBAM&market=las-vegas

 

[OldSchool]

So Spanos is butt hurt because he and Kroenke talked about Hollywood Park/Inglewood together. But how is he butt hurt when this article says Spanos started the Carson site in 2013. Kroenke started the Inglewood site in 2014. What does he have to be upset about? He talks with another owner about a site, he dumps that site to do a plan with another team. And now he's pissed at Kroenke because he went with something other than the one they talked about?

Sounds like Spanos has some issues in the cabesa.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm willing to bet any owner will work with any owner if they really want LA bad enough and are told that's the only way it happens with NFL consent.

 

[WillasDad]

I'm willing to bet any owner will work with any owner if they really want LA bad enough and are told that's the only way it happens with NFL consent.

If the NFL told SK that he would have to share ownership of the Inglewood stadium with Spanos in order for the Rams to be "allowed" to play in LA, do you think SK would consent to that? I don't see that happening under any circumstances.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If the NFL told SK that he would have to share ownership of the Inglewood stadium with Spanos in order for the Rams to be "allowed" to play in LA, do you think SK would consent to that? I don't see that happening under any circumstances.

If he wants LA bad enough, and that's his only option? I think he would. It wouldn't be a 50/50 split, but I think he would consider some sort of split. I suppose he could try and fight it in court, but he can probably negotiate something. Spanos chips in a few hundred million into the stadium, gets his own cut from Charger games, can coordinate his own events, and isn't considered a tenant. That's essentially what Spanos is doing with Davis and Carson, it's not a 50/50 split, he would just be on the other end.

However that assumes the NFL actually wants a split in LA rather than a tenant, but if I had to take a guess, they probably don't really give a shit, and why would they? They didn't care about the Raiders being a tenant in Levi's stadium when they were discussing that. They may say that to get Kroenke to negotiate more with Spanos, but if push came to shove, I don't think that issue would rank very high on their list.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So Spanos is butt hurt because he and Kroenke talked about Hollywood Park/Inglewood together. But how is he butt hurt when this article says Spanos started the Carson site in 2013. Kroenke started the Inglewood site in 2014. What does he have to be upset about? He talks with another owner about a site, he dumps that site to do a plan with another team. And now he's pissed at Kroenke because he went with something other than the one they talked about?

Sounds like Spanos has some issues in the cabesa.

They could have been talking about it for a while, maybe Kroenke just got sick of Spanos waiting around and decided to just go for it. That would fall in line with the idea that when Kroenke wants something he typically gets it. This would suggest he wanted LA and decided to go for it instead of waiting. If Spanos and Kroenke were talking about a split before, even if it went sour, that means the NFL could get them talking again. Unless the talks was Spanos saying "Lets make a split" and Kroenke went "Nah, fuck you" which doesn't seem likely, the NFL can sit them together and tell them to figure it out.

Kroenke strikes me about being very much so about money, but not some Mr Burns evil guy who refuses to ever work with anyone and only accept 100%. Say Spanos invests 500 million into Inglewood, he gets all revenues from Charger home games (parking, concessions, etc) and 25% of the overall cut, with Kroenke getting 75%, since he invested 75%.

Maybe there's a way that open dates, Spanos is able to schedule events in the stadium as well, but I can't imagine that it's impossible for Spanos and Kroenke to be friends and business partners. These guys became rich by making partnerships and developing real estate, even with soured relationships in the past, bridges can be rebuilt.

 

[OldSchool]

They could have been talking about it for a while, maybe Kroenke just got sick of Spanos waiting around and decided to just go for it. That would fall in line with the idea that when Kroenke wants something he typically gets it. This would suggest he wanted LA and decided to go for it instead of waiting. If Spanos and Kroenke were talking about a split before, even if it went sour, that means the NFL could get them talking again. Unless the talks was Spanos saying "Lets make a split" and Kroenke went "Nah, freak you" which doesn't seem likely, the NFL can sit them together and tell them to figure it out.

Kroenke strikes me about being very much so about money, but not some Mr Burns evil guy who refuses to ever work with anyone and only accept 100%. Say Spanos invests 500 million into Inglewood, he gets all revenues from Charger home games (parking, concessions, etc) and 25% of the overall cut, with Kroenke getting 75%, since he invested 75%.

Maybe there's a way that open dates, Spanos is able to schedule events in the stadium as well, but I can't imagine that it's impossible for Spanos and Kroenke to be friends and business partners. These guys became rich by making partnerships and developing real estate, even with soured relationships in the past, bridges can be rebuilt.

I get what you're saying and I agree. What I was referring to is this notion that Spanos is pissed at Kroenke and has spent time insuring he can block him to Inglewood. This article and the radio discussion gives us a timeline that makes Spanos look like the bad guy.

Spanos and Kroenke discuss a joint venture in Inglewood in 2012.
Spanos and the Raiders in 2013 start working on Carson together.
2014 Kroenke buys into the Inglewood site and 2015 launches that stadium site, seemingly as a solo venture.
2015 Spanos announces the Carson site.
2015 Spanos says he's pissed at Kroenke because they talked about Inglewood together.

So they worked together on a site and Spanos then goes behind Kroenke's back and works with another team at a different site. Kroenke says ok and goes forward with Inglewood on his own. Spanos announces the Carson site and it's mad at Kroenke. I just don't get from that article how Spanos has anything to be pissed at Kroenke for.

 

[den-the-coach]

So Spanos is butt hurt because he and Kroenke talked about Hollywood Park/Inglewood together. But how is he butt hurt when this article says Spanos started the Carson site in 2013. Kroenke started the Inglewood site in 2014. What does he have to be upset about? He talks with another owner about a site, he dumps that site to do a plan with another team. And now he's pissed at Kroenke because he went with something other than the one they talked about?

Sounds like Spanos has some issues in the cabesa.

Only thing worse than a JackAss is a broke Jackass!

 

[The Ripper]

Only thing worse than a JackAss is a broke Jackass!

That's it.

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: Nixon puts his trust in Goodell
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_8bd87920-3cbf-5f86-8759-5de89f98ad26.html

In championing the effort to build a new stadium in St. Louis to preserve the city’s at-risk NFL membership, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has undoubtedly made new enemies.

For instance, a suit recently filed by six Missouri lawmakers challenges Nixon’s authority to extend existing stadium bonds to fund a portion of the controversial $985 million project. Nixon calls the suit “frivolous” and says he won’t be deterred.

As Nixon’s enemies list expands, he’s also been working to cultivate new friends.

And that list features a prominent name: NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.

The Governor took the lead role in this NFL endeavor by creating the stadium task force and appointing Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz to lead it. But Nixon’s work isn’t done.

Nixon continues to make a direct appeal to Goodell.

I’ve covered the NFL since the early 1980s. And I’ve reported on three previous NFL franchise relocations, and I’ve seen my share of stadium controversies.

But I’ve never seen a sitting state Governor so involved in engaging the NFL. When other states have tried to complete controversial stadium deals — most recently Minnesota — the fracas usually goes down to the wire. The NFL usually tries to enter the fray late in the game to push negotiations along and apply pressure on the politicians.

This hasn’t been necessary with St. Louis and Nixon.

Early on, Nixon initiated communication with Goodell and has kept the dialogue going. Nixon traveled to New York for a comprehensive face-to-face meeting. He’s followed up with phone calls. He will make more calls, and do whatever else is necessary to gain the league’s support.

In his conversations with Goodell, Nixon has explained and reviewed the funding mechanism for the planned stadium. Nixon has repeatedly made appeals to the commissioner, making sure the NFL respects the intense effort being made to keep St. Louis in the 32-team league.

Nixon has received guidance from Goodell and has asked to be informed of any problems with the St. Louis effort. Nixon wants to make sure this is a fair process. And that the NFL won’t abandon St. Louis without justification by simply allowing Rams owner Stan Kroenke to haul the franchise to Los Angeles to set up in his proposed stadium in Inglewood, near LA.

Maybe it’s important. Maybe it won’t matter in the end. But Nixon is relentless. If the NFL eventually approves a Rams’ relocation to Los Angeles, it won’t be because of any negligence on Nixon’s part.

Nixon says Goodell continues to be positive and supportive when discussing the St. Louis situation with him.

“On all of the occasions when we’ve met or talked, the commissioner has been direct, honorable, prepared, specific and focused,” Nixon said. “And he also understands how important this transaction is, and how important this market is, for the NFL. The depth of knowledge that Roger Goodell has of the generosity of the fan support and corporate support in the St. Louis market, has been very impressive.”

Goodell has had a rough couple of years. His leadership has been assailed and his image battered by a series of controversies. It’s pretty easy for everyone to take shots at Goodell and question his integrity.

In his dealings with Goodell, Nixon has formed his own view of the commissioner, concluding that Goodell is principled and fair. In my conversation with Nixon this week, he made a few references to Goodell being an “honorable man.”

Interesting. Because when this relocation game nears the end, it could come down to honor.

If the St. Louis task force can clear the final hurdles and untie potential snags, Peacock and Blitz will have secured stadium funding that includes $400 million in public money. That’s apparently made an impression at NFL headquarters.

“In all of our conversations with the NFL and the feedback we get from the league, it’s clear to me the NFL is impressed by what we’ve done here,” Nixon said. “And impressed by how quickly we’ve reached this point. We’ve kept pace with the process. And we’ll continue to do that.”

If this plan succeeds, St. Louis will be all-in on building a second NFL stadium in the last 25 years.

As I’ve said before: how many cities have stepped up to build multiple NFL venues in such a short period of time?

In NFL history the league has never discarded a city that has firm financing committed to provide a team owner with a new stadium that ensures long-term financial prosperity.

Never.

So how could the NFL walk away from $400 million put on the table by St. Louis and the state, and allow Kroenke to enrich himself by moving to the nation’s second-largest market after refusing to participate in as little as one meeting, or one phone call, with the St. Louis task force?

By any honest, objective reading of the NFL relocation guidelines, how could the league possibly come to the conclusion that Kroenke has — in words taken from the relocation policy — “exhausted all efforts” to find a solution in his current market?

It would become a different story if the St. Louis stadium plan unravels.

That can only happen if the project gets taken down by opponents.

Opponents that apparently would think nothing of terminating a plan that would redevelop a barren and depressing north riverfront, keep the city in the NFL, attract an MLS soccer franchise, provide a substantial number of construction jobs and retain around $10 million a year in payroll taxes generated by the Rams being here.

All of this could be achieved with no new taxes imposed on residents. Moreover, the NFL and the team owner would put up $600 million — more than half of the money needed to finance the project.

If this deal implodes, the NFL is gone from St. Louis and will never return. But if St. Louis does what the NFL has advised us to do — solve the stadium problem — then I don’t see how the league could walk away from our town in good conscience.

Yes. This absolutely could come down to a question of honor.

For his part, Nixon trusts Goodell.

“When you’re in my job, and you’re talking to a person of that capacity, and they have at their ready the relevant important business and factual information, it tells you they’re prepared and they’re trying to work with you to figure out a way to have this end the right way for St. Louis and the league,” Nixon said.

Nixon believes that Goodell and the NFL owners will treat St. Louis fairly. And that the relocation guidelines are more than just a bunch of meaningless words that can be ignored or twisted to conveniently fit a desired agenda.

“We’ve been very specific about that,” Nixon said. “In this job I deal with a lot of economic development. You’re dealing with CEOs around the world. And doing deals with organizations that have a lot fewer rules than the NFL bylaws.

“I have found Roger Goodell to be somebody who feels strongly about having a league in which the rules that govern each other by, matter.”

Nixon’s eyes are wide open, but he’s sincerely putting his faith in the commissioner and a fair process. I hope the governor’s instincts are correct, and he won’t get burned.

Sometimes it’s difficult to know if your friend is really the enemy.

 

[Moostache]

I don't have any faith in Goodell. My faith is in Spanos and Davis finding 6 other owners who do not want Kroenke in LA on his own terms. The NFL is a gang of thugs in the truest sense of the word - people who strong arm others and take what they want without regard to rules, regulations or decency.

I am rooting for self-interest to trump greed. I think the anti-Kroenke faction will include Rooney (out of tradition), Davis (out of necessity), Spanos (Out of self-interest), Kraft (out of ego - wants to remain "most important"), Richardson (out of self-interest, he has his own stadium issue in the near future), Bidwell and Khan (out of spite) and we need one more owner...get to 8 and everything is great; stay a seven, and LA is in heaven...

"Swing votes"?
Cincinnati?
Chicago?
Kansas City? (don't think for one second that Nixon hasn't been working them strong behind the scenes)
Tennessee? (they may be 5-10 years out from a stadium issue of their own and would not like to see precedent of leaving public money on the table)
Minnesota? (NFL helped keep the team in market, get the stadium AND a Super Bowl...there's bargaining power there too..)
San Fran? (Maybe getting Oakland and San Diego to LA and setting up the Chargers as the new LA-SF rivalry sounds better to them than a 20-year dead 'rivalry' that was competitive for about 5 of the last 30 years...)

This whole thing hinges on two things now - 1) St. Louis crossing the finish line on financing and 2) 8 owners saying "no" to Stan ...the white smoke will come after the August meeting.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't have any faith in Goodell. My faith is in Spanos and Davis finding 6 other owners who do not want Kroenke in LA on his own terms. The NFL is a gang of thugs in the truest sense of the word - people who strong arm others and take what they want without regard to rules, regulations or decency.

I am rooting for self-interest to trump greed. I think the anti-Kroenke faction will include Rooney (out of tradition), Davis (out of necessity), Spanos (Out of self-interest), Kraft (out of ego - wants to remain "most important"), Richardson (out of self-interest, he has his own stadium issue in the near future), Bidwell and Khan (out of spite) and we need one more owner...get to 8 and everything is great; stay a seven, and LA is in heaven...

"Swing votes"?
Cincinnati?
Chicago?
Kansas City? (don't think for one second that Nixon hasn't been working them strong behind the scenes)
Tennessee? (they may be 5-10 years out from a stadium issue of their own and would not like to see precedent of leaving public money on the table)
Minnesota? (NFL helped keep the team in market, get the stadium AND a Super Bowl...there's bargaining power there too..)
San Fran? (Maybe getting Oakland and San Diego to LA and setting up the Chargers as the new LA-SF rivalry sounds better to them than a 20-year dead 'rivalry' that was competitive for about 5 of the last 30 years...)

This whole thing hinges on two things now - 1) St. Louis crossing the finish line on financing and 2) 8 owners saying "no" to Stan...the white smoke will come after the August meeting.

Quite a few of these don't make any sense.

Obviously Spanos and Davis. After that its fuzzy.

The LA committee will likely base their votes together, but in terms of "tradition" for Rooney, what tradition? He's going to turn down one team to relocate so he can vote to move two teams?

Kraft might have some ego, but billionaires don't make billion dollar decisions to "appear important".. Either way teams go to LA. There's plenty of other big owners, Jerry Jones is well known. I don't see Kraft voting no for that reason.

Why would Bidwell and Khan vote out of spite? Khan got his team, I doubt he cares, and what is Bidwell upset about?

For the swing votes, Cincinnati? Why?

Why would Chicago, Kansas City, or Tennessee vote no? Especially Kansas City, these are all teams close enough they could try to expand their footprint into St Louis if its open.

Minnesota makes no sense either. They would vote no based on the fact they got a new stadium and the NFL helped?

SF is similar the the three closer teams, its actually in their best interest for all NFC West teams to vote yes. Shorter travel, no timezone changes, that helps them.

These teams may all vote no, but I doubt it based on the reasoning you're stating. Most teams will likely follow what Goodell suggests, who probably follows what the LA Committee suggests. Making billion dollar decisions based on spite, and some of the other reasons you said just makes no sense.

 

[dieterbrock]

Quite a few of these don't make any sense.

Obviously Spanos and Davis. After that its fuzzy.

The LA committee will likely base their votes together, but in terms of "tradition" for Rooney, what tradition? He's going to turn down one team to relocate so he can vote to move two teams?

Kraft might have some ego, but billionaires don't make billion dollar decisions to "appear important".. Either way teams go to LA. There's plenty of other big owners, Jerry Jones is well known. I don't see Kraft voting no for that reason.

Why would Bidwell and Khan vote out of spite? Khan got his team, I doubt he cares, and what is Bidwell upset about?

For the swing votes, Cincinnati? Why?

Why would Chicago, Kansas City, or Tennessee vote no? Especially Kansas City, these are all teams close enough they could try to expand their footprint into St Louis if its open.

Minnesota makes no sense either. They would vote no based on the fact they got a new stadium and the NFL helped?

SF is similar the the three closer teams, its actually in their best interest for all NFC West teams to vote yes. Shorter travel, no timezone changes, that helps them.

These teams may all vote no, but I doubt it based on the reasoning you're stating. Most teams will likely follow what Goodell suggests, who probably follows what the LA Committee suggests. Making billion dollar decisions based on spite, and some of the other reasons you said just makes no sense.

Great post.
It's a tough vote for sure. Owners have to protect their own interests and if this vote is ultimately setting a precede then they have to think down the road.
As for khan, who knows. If the Rams vacate St. Louis it would open up a spot for him to move his team down the road.

 

[WillasDad]

This whole thing hinges on two things now - 1) St. Louis crossing the finish line on financing and 2) 8 owners saying "no" to Stan ...the white smoke will come after the August meeting.

Not 100% sure, but I believe they need 9 votes.....8/32=1/4. SK needs exactly 3/4 or more, in which case 8 No votes would be enough to pass.

 

[DaveFan'51]

This photo is just to show (or remind Everyone) Just how well the Rams use to fill the Old L.A. Coliseum, back in the Day, from 1946 - 1979! (90,000+)

 

[Big Willie]

Quite a few of these don't make any sense.

Obviously Spanos and Davis. After that its fuzzy.

The LA committee will likely base their votes together, but in terms of "tradition" for Rooney, what tradition? He's going to turn down one team to relocate so he can vote to move two teams?

Kraft might have some ego, but billionaires don't make billion dollar decisions to "appear important".. Either way teams go to LA. There's plenty of other big owners, Jerry Jones is well known. I don't see Kraft voting no for that reason.

Why would Bidwell and Khan vote out of spite? Khan got his team, I doubt he cares, and what is Bidwell upset about?

For the swing votes, Cincinnati? Why?

Why would Chicago, Kansas City, or Tennessee vote no? Especially Kansas City, these are all teams close enough they could try to expand their footprint into St Louis if its open.

Minnesota makes no sense either. They would vote no based on the fact they got a new stadium and the NFL helped?

SF is similar the the three closer teams, its actually in their best interest for all NFC West teams to vote yes. Shorter travel, no timezone changes, that helps them.

These teams may all vote no, but I doubt it based on the reasoning you're stating. Most teams will likely follow what Goodell suggests, who probably follows what the LA Committee suggests. Making billion dollar decisions based on spite, and some of the other reasons you said just makes no sense.

Also, don't forget the horse trading that goes on. There will be a number of back room deals where owners will vote pro or con based on quid pro quo. At the end of the day we probably won't know who voted for or against the teams looking to move as the vote will spun as "unanimous".

 

[The Ripper]

I don't have any faith in Goodell. My faith is in Spanos and Davis finding 6 other owners who do not want Kroenke in LA on his own terms. The NFL is a gang of thugs in the truest sense of the word - people who strong arm others and take what they want without regard to rules, regulations or decency.

I am rooting for self-interest to trump greed. I think the anti-Kroenke faction will include Rooney (out of tradition), Davis (out of necessity), Spanos (Out of self-interest), Kraft (out of ego - wants to remain "most important"), Richardson (out of self-interest, he has his own stadium issue in the near future), Bidwell and Khan (out of spite) and we need one more owner...get to 8 and everything is great; stay a seven, and LA is in heaven...

"Swing votes"?
Cincinnati?
Chicago?
Kansas City? (don't think for one second that Nixon hasn't been working them strong behind the scenes)
Tennessee? (they may be 5-10 years out from a stadium issue of their own and would not like to see precedent of leaving public money on the table)
Minnesota? (NFL helped keep the team in market, get the stadium AND a Super Bowl...there's bargaining power there too..)
San Fran? (Maybe getting Oakland and San Diego to LA and setting up the Chargers as the new LA-SF rivalry sounds better to them than a 20-year dead 'rivalry' that was competitive for about 5 of the last 30 years...)

This whole thing hinges on two things now - 1) St. Louis crossing the finish line on financing and 2) 8 owners saying "no" to Stan ...the white smoke will come after the August meeting.

You can rule Bidwell out after Blitz's bashing of the family at the initial press conference. Rooney will abstain from all 3 votes.

There's a lot more public money in the SD proposal so that's a non issue. The other owners that have stadium issues want public money but turning down a deal that will end up being only about 30% from St Louis is pretty easy. The average is 57% over the last 20 years. The other factor is the lease and the top tier clause. The top tier requirement is in a number of leases and if they let St Louis out of it what's going to happen in the other cities. It just happens that 2 of the owners on the LA committee have that in their lease.