New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Stranger]

I dont think I ever went to a game with less than 55,000 attendees. and many were in the 70's.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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".

Yeah, ultimately Kroenke will need to woo/threaten/buy the LA committee to get LA.

He could drop hints that because he has 2 years on Carson he may just go at it alone, and take it to court, although that would be a pretty extreme maneuver on Stan's part.

If I was him, I'd probably suggest I'd be willing to work with Davis or Spanos (which he has), and if they wanted to form a partnership I'd be open to it as well (which we don't know if he has or hasn't). That gives the LA committee more reason to select Inglewood, and added to the general belief that it's the stronger overall project, it helps. Then the LA committee can try to get the three into a room, and as long as Stan is the one playing nice and fair, he has a really good shot to get LA. If Spanos refuses to work with him, then he can say "See? Why reward him?".

 

[OC--LeftCoast]

Sort of a sore subject with me, even though I'm an Orange County guy, they never really belonged in the Big A (pretty much signaled the beginning of the end for the LA Rams) I'm fairly confident that move (to OC) never would have happened if CR hadn't been found face down in his swimming pool, opening the door for you know who.

Count down has began from someone wanting this moved elsewhere...

yeah
yeah
yeah

I know, I know

Check out the goal post aligned at the goal line and not 10 yards back, GZ would be in FG range just beyond his own 40

 

[snackdaddy]

We all know emotions can run high. One side loves their team and doesn't want to lose them. The other side loves their team and wants them back. Kinda like two guys in love with the same woman and she has to make a choice.

Dang, I must really love the Rams. If I was in position where a woman had to make a choice between me and another guy I'd tell her "Let me make your decision easier. I'm outta here". But I wouldn't do that with the Rams. I'd love dem bums wherever they go.

 

[den-the-coach]

I'm fairly confident that move (to OC) never would have happened if CR hadn't been found face down in his swimming pool, opening the door for you know who.

You're wrong here sir, Carroll Rosenbloom and his son Steve had already made the decision to move to Anaheim. CR felt the Coliseum was obsolete and Anaheim was not only an upgrade, but he liked the location much better. The move did happen in 1980, however, that was his wish and vision for the Rams.

Now believe me I'm all for blaming Georgia Frontiere for many things, but the move to Orange County was not hers!

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-04/news/mn-10264_1_1978-los-angeles-rams

 

[RamFan503]

You're wrong here sir, Carroll Rosenbloom and his son Steve had already made the decision to move to Anaheim. CR felt the Coliseum was obsolete and Anaheim was not only an upgrade, but he liked the location much better. The move did happen in 1980, however, that was his wish and vision for the Rams.

Now believe me I'm all for blaming Georgia Frontiere for many things, but the move to Orange County was not hers!

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-04/news/mn-10264_1_1978-los-angeles-rams

There were also supposed to be some major renovations to the Big A but those were thwarted by Georgia/Shaw and later used as additional reasons to move.

 

[Stranger]

wow, i didnt know either of these....

You're wrong here sir, Carroll Rosenbloom and his son Steve had already made the decision to move to Anaheim. CR felt the Coliseum was obsolete and Anaheim was not only an upgrade, but he liked the location much better. The move did happen in 1980, however, that was his wish and vision for the Rams.

Now believe me I'm all for blaming Georgia Frontiere for many things, but the move to Orange County was not hers!

http://articles.latimes.com/1988-08-04/news/mn-10264_1_1978-los-angeles-rams

There were also supposed to be some major renovations to the Big A but those were thwarted by Georgia/Shaw and later used as additional reasons to move.

 

[den-the-coach]

There were also supposed to be some major renovations to the Big A but those were thwarted by Georgia/Shaw and later used as additional reasons to move.

Don't know the whole story about that the "so called" renovations I was under the impression they were not thwarted by Georgia/Shaw, that in fact, they thought they were going to be done, but they never were and they also thought (Georgia/Shaw) that they would share more of the revenue (non football) but they didn't and that was the reason they looked into relocation.

 

[RamFan503]

Don't know the whole story about that the "so called" renovations I was under the impression they were not thwarted by Georgia/Shaw, that in fact, they thought they were going to be done, but they never were and they also thought (Georgia/Shaw) that they would share more of the revenue (non football) but they didn't and that was the reason they looked into relocation.

Yeah - there was a bunch of stuff going on at the time. Apparently, when CR agreed to go to the Big A they were supposed to put in some kind of luxury boxes (more similar to baseball type boxes) and also a private corporate sponsor area as well as a business park that CR was going to receive revenue from in some capacity. Georgia/Shaw started trying to reneg in order to get more a bigger piece of the pie and also wanted more amenities. It started to sour the entire relationship and whoever (don't remember) owned the Big A started to pull back rather than give in.

I still don't think it was an attempt to actually make the Big A home for the Rams as much as making a case for relocation as they knew the Big A would never accommodate their requests. They even threatened to move back to the Coliseum at one point. Everything about Georgia and Shaw's negotiations was contentious. IIRR the Coliseum folks even told them to take a flying leap over some of their demands and the fact that G/S were only using them as leverage.

 

[Stranger]

freakin cocktail waitress

 

[den-the-coach]

I still don't think it was an attempt to actually make the Big A home for the Rams as much as making a case for relocation as they knew the Big A would never accommodate their requests. They even threatened to move back to the Coliseum at one point. Everything about Georgia and Shaw's negotiations was contentious. IIRR the Coliseum folks even told them to take a flying leap over some of their demands and the fact that G/S were only using them as leverage.

And thus you have the situation the Rams are in now because Shaw ensured that the Gateway City agreed to all his demands for the relocation.

I understand how some can have ill feelings toward ESK, but IMO, he pales in comparison to Cruella de Vil and her henchman Shaw!

 

[den-the-coach]

freakin cocktail waitress

With dancing legs though,that's how she got CR. And stranger, we've all given in to a cocktail waitress to two in out day!

 

[Hacksaw]

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.

So now that this relationship is public, you can bet that more eyes will be on how this turns out. Does the governing body and one of the participants bond influence any of this?

 

[den-the-coach]

So now that this relationship is public, you can bet that more eyes will be on how this turns out. Does the governing body and one of the participants bond influence any of this?

BTW Roger Goodell is employed by the Owners if I was Nixon I would rather put faith somebody else!

 

[WillasDad]

Yeah, ultimately Kroenke will need to woo/threaten/buy the LA committee to get LA.

He could drop hints that because he has 2 years on Carson he may just go at it alone, and take it to court, although that would be a pretty extreme maneuver on Stan's part.

If I was him, I'd probably suggest I'd be willing to work with Davis or Spanos (which he has), and if they wanted to form a partnership I'd be open to it as well (which we don't know if he has or hasn't). That gives the LA committee more reason to select Inglewood, and added to the general belief that it's the stronger overall project, it helps. Then the LA committee can try to get the three into a room, and as long as Stan is the one playing nice and fair, he has a really good shot to get LA. If Spanos refuses to work with him, then he can say "See? Why reward him?".

Just thinking what would happen if SK decided not to play nice with Spanos and just allowed it to come to a vote, what would happen? Carson's pretty much a pipe dream at this point as the environmental issues are legion. The Raiders are trying to get additional investment to remain in Oakland. I don't see them throwing that chance away just to further some arrangement of convenience which frankly doesn't further its own interest all that much. Toxic site and no Raiders means no Carson.

The choices remaining would then be either SK's Inglewood stadium plan to go it alone for the first year OR nobody goes to LA for 2016. I highly doubt the NFL will allow that outcome after all that's happened already. Either way, Spanos is screwed. Even if SK allows a partial equity share in the stadium, would Spanos be happy with the lower percentage revenue and the status as minority owner that comes accordingly? Could he even afford the giant loan with the reduced revenue proceeds? I'm sure he'd do much better staying put in SD.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Just thinking what would happen if SK decided not to play nice with Spanos and just allowed it to come to a vote, what would happen? Carson's pretty much a pipe dream at this point as the environmental issues are legion. The Raiders are trying to get additional investment to remain in Oakland. I don't see them throwing that chance away just to further some arrangement of convenience which frankly doesn't further its own interest all that much. Toxic site and no Raiders means no Carson.

The choices remaining would then be either SK's Inglewood stadium plan to go it alone for the first year OR nobody goes to LA for 2016. I highly doubt the NFL will allow that outcome after all that's happened already. Either way, Spanos is screwed. Even if SK allows a partial equity share in the stadium, would Spanos be happy with the lower percentage revenue and the status as minority owner that comes accordingly? Could he even afford the giant loan with the reduced revenue proceeds? I'm sure he'd do much better staying put in SD.

I think if he refused to play ball with everyone, he wouldn't get enough "yes" votes.

I think that Carson is a viable option, while it's not as good as Inglewood, nor nearly as fast, it's still a doable project, with the necessary funding likely to be in place. I don't really think the Raiders will be able to get something done in Oakland without a big company stepping in to cover the gap needed, unless the NFL funnels relocation fees to him. You'd think a big tech company (Google, Facebook) would happily step in or someone from one of them, but they would probably want to be majority owner, and Davis doesn't seem to be willing to sell. Raiders are a mess from top to bottom, those guys would probably rather a major brand overhaul, so buying in right now likely doesn't make much sense. Maybe down the line.

Carson can happen with just the Chargers, but it's not nearly as profitable. Still, it is doable though, so if Kroenke is a dick they could vote him down and go there. Of course he could then go to court, but they may decide to fight him. I think he would still stand a good chance of winning that, but it'd be much easier (and cheaper) to play ball with them, even if he does a split with Spanos in Inglewood.

Spanos might not accept being the 'minority' owner in Inglewood, but it's not against not having a 50/50 split since he's doing it in Carson. I think it would be a hard sell to the rest of the owners to say "I'm fine with not having a 50/50 split as long as I'm the one who's the majority owner." if he refuses to work with Kroenke in Inglewood.

If he did and said he'd build Carson anyway, then Kroenke still gets Inglewood done sooner, and they could (in theory) threaten to move the Raiders there before Carson is done to kill that project. That would be an extreme situation.

I think the NFL is best to work with Kroenke though. He's in the best position to say "screw you" and go at it alone, and since Inglewood would be done before Carson even starts, he'd be able to kill the profitability of it.

 

[The Ripper]

Don't know the whole story about that the "so called" renovations I was under the impression they were not thwarted by Georgia/Shaw, that in fact, they thought they were going to be done, but they never were and they also thought (Georgia/Shaw) that they would share more of the revenue (non football) but they didn't and that was the reason they looked into relocation.

The relocation process started when Georgia lost the lawsuit to Anaheim and the Angels in regards to the development around the stadium. The lease was altered and signed in 1990 allowed the Rams to opt out of the lease in exchange for allowing the building of the arena for the Ducks. Anaheim, surrounding communities and a few corporate sponsors agreed to renovations of the Big A, a new practice facility, guaranteed ticket sales and a retirement home for former Rams players named after Georgia. The proposal was eventually increased to include a new football only stadium. Direct negotiations between Georgia and Anaheim officials was blocked by Shaw so they went directly to the NFL. The offer was there right to the end which contradicted what Georgia and Shaw said. This was one of the many reasons the original application for relocation was rejected. The NFL pinpointed 1988 as the year that the Rams started to lose, stopped paying players and Georgia began taking excessive sums from the team.

 

[Moostache]

The NFL pinpointed 1988 as the year that the Rams started to lose, stopped paying players and Georgia began taking excessive sums from the team.

Hmmm....'88 huh?
How did this happen then?

Los Angeles Rams vs. San Francisco 49ers, NFC Championship Game, January 14, 1990

http://thecanonreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/los-angeles-rams-vs-san-francisco-49ers.html

I am sure that there was ample stuff going on that DID support the narrative, no need to embellish...

 

[The Ripper]

Hmmm....'88 h
uh?
How did this happen then?

Los Angeles Rams vs. San Francisco 49ers, NFC Championship Game, January 14, 1990

http://thecanonreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/los-angeles-rams-vs-san-francisco-49ers.html

I am sure that there was ample stuff going on that DID support the narrative, no need to embellish...

It's from the report to the executive committee recommending that the Rams relocation to St Louis be rejected. They Identified 1988 as the date and it all was detailed in the congressional hearings. That playoff game was the season after the decision and the players on that team still had contracts. No embellishment

http://archive.org/stream/professionalspor00unit/professionalspor00unit_djvu.txt

 

[8to12]

Hmmm....'88 huh?
How did this happen then?

Los Angeles Rams vs. San Francisco 49ers, NFC Championship Game, January 14, 1990

http://thecanonreview.blogspot.com/2010/06/los-angeles-rams-vs-san-francisco-49ers.html

I am sure that there was ample stuff going on that DID support the narrative, no need to embellish...

"no need to embellish" ....... LOL ....listen to the pot calling the kettle black