New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

What is there to present to the City? I thought it was all signed off on and approved other than the environmental cleanup being done?

It's the same thing Inglewood did. Allows them to show some more details and let the public ask questions.

Inglewood had meetings with architects and fire marshalls I believe today, which they'll need for permits (every stadium needs to do this FYI) so they're just about complete to the point they can stick a shovel in the dirt as soon as they're ready.

 

[iced]

Didn't see this posted but thought this was interesting

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-believe-election-can-be-held-by-december-15/

Chargers believe election can’t be held by December 15

San Diego officials emerged from Monday’s meeting with the Chargers intent on attempting to hold a citywide election on a new stadium by December 15. The Chargers, unlike the city, made no statement regarding the plan to put the matter to ballot so quickly.

And there’s a reason for the silence. Per a source familiar with the team’s thinking, the Chargers believe it’s impossible, under the applicable election and environmental laws in the State of California, to conduct an election by December 15.

The Chargers specifically believe that, before the San Diego City Council or Board of Supervisors can place a measure on the ballot, they must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Compliance with the CEQA entails the completion and certification of an Environmental Impact Report, which the Chargers believes will take at least a year.

In this specific case, San Diego claims that the project can avoid the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report because a new stadium replacing an old stadium makes the project exempt from the CEQA. The Chargers believe that, given the size of the project, litigation challenging the city’s approach would be inevitable, which would tie the project up in court for years.

The Chargers apparently fear that the election will be held, the ballot measure will pass, and then the lawsuit(s) will be filed, delaying (and perhaps killing) the project and forcing the Chargers to explain to an electorate that approved the use of taxpayer funds for the construction of the stadium that the franchise can’t wait around for an outcome to the litigation. So the Chargers prefer an outcome that doesn’t entail a public vote.

There’s another reason for not having a public vote — the public in most states currently isn’t interested in voting to use public money to subsidize billionaire sports owners. So it won’t be easy to secure victory in a public election. The team’s concern is that it’ll be even harder to convert a successful vote into an actual new stadium, which that the Chargers could end up tapping the brakes on relocation just long enough to lose the race to L.A.

 

[Sum1]

I hate to bring this up people but attendance numbers from 30-40 years ago aren't going to mean anything. They're completely irrelevant to this process going on now. It's not even worth arguing about. Even the attendance numbers now probably won't be dealbreakers unless we believe 31 billionaires are too stupid to factor in the Rams trying desperately to move in a public fashion.

Attendance numbers in general don't mean squat. I'll bet you go around the league and the teams with high attendance are teams that are winning...teams with poor attendance are teams that are losing. Guaranteed.

 

[mr.stlouis]

What is there to present to the City? I thought it was all signed off on and approved other than the environmental cleanup being done?

Did you forget your blue font? That's confusing.

 

[iced]

What is there to present to the City? I thought it was all signed off on and approved other than the environmental cleanup being done?

The Environmental clean up was actually approved before the stadium. The city already granted those funds specifically for clean up.

 

[OldSchool]

The Environmental clean up was actually approved before the stadium. The city already granted those funds specifically for clean up.

No I know it's been funded it just has to be completed.

Did you forget your blue font? That's confusing.

No need for a blue font. What is there to present? Is it just a progress update? A presentation implies they're trying to sell something, I do presentations weekly at work. I was under the impression from the many articles that the Carson stadium was sold in and approved so I was curious what was presented. I'm sorry you think I'm sarcastic or picking a fight. It was an honest and straight forward question I thought.

 

[MrMotes]

In short arguing attendance from LA 30 years ago with St Louis today is a ridiculous argument to get into.

Especially because attendance has nothing to do with anything.

The Rams didn't leave Anaheim because of the fans or attendance. They left because St. Louis offered them a ton of money.

And if the Rams do move back to L.A. it won't have anything to do with the St. Louis fans, it will be because of the opportunity L.A. offers...

 

[MrMotes]

What is there to present?

It's all PR with Carson. It's not like they can start building a stadium anytime soon, so what else are they going to do?

 

[The Ripper]

I wasn't trying to get us in a discussion on attendance. I was just pointing out something from Bernie. My mistake.

 

[MrMotes]

I wasn't trying to get us in a discussion on attendance. I was just pointing out something from Bernie. My mistake.

You're not stirring the pot, Bernie is. You're calling him on it...

 

[iced]

you know one thing I have observed from this whole Situation, particularly if the Rams move....

Georgia Frontier to LA Fans is what Stan Kroenke will be to St.Louis fans...

Conspiracy theorists can look back on both owners' actions and line up the dots to meet their theories about degrading attendance to move

 

[OldSchool]

you know one thing I have observed from this whole Situation, particularly if the Rams move....

Georgia Frontier to LA Fans is what Stan Kroenke will be to St.Louis fans...

Conspiracy theorists can look back on both owners' actions and line up the dots to meet their theories about degrading attendance to move

There is one difference though in them moving the team, if in fact Stan does move, and that's Stan never destroyed the team to move them. Stan is signing free agents and spending money. He's retaining our big dollar free agents IE signing Quinn. Georgia let talent walk so the team wouldn't have to spend money and made the team worse through financial decisions. But you're 100% right each side of the fan base has their own reasons for hating owners.

 

[iced]

There is one difference though in them moving the team, if in fact Stan does move, and that's Stan never destroyed the team to move them. Stan is signing free agents and spending money. He's retaining our big dollar free agents IE signing Quinn. Georgia let talent walk so the team wouldn't have to spend money and made the team worse through financial decisions. But you're 100% right each side of the fan base has their own reasons for hating owners.

See I don't jive with the idea that Georgia, well Zygmunt, actually made the team worse - why? because that's implying that he was actually competent at his job. The Team in St.Louis only became successful under the guise of Vermiel, and we all saw how it fell apart after he left...from letting London Fletcher go to the complete demise that was the earlier 2000's..And then think about the horrific drafts. People think Mike Martz was a prick to work with - but when you think about whom he was working with, it's easier to understand. That front office was such a huge joke that its hard to really think of comparable situation that inept.

As far as Kroenke and the fan base - in some aspects I am sure people will make conspiracy theories about Bradford in the future......But as to now? I don't see how you can rationalize playing a home game in London and set practices in California/LA area, since arbitration began and given what has happened thus far along with his refusal to work with the city regarding a stadium.

LA fans might think low of Georgia and what she did for the team - but she never walked away from a stadium that had Public Funding like the Rams are offering...They'd again be offering top 5 in most what the NFL considers public funding ever for a stadium as it stands right now at $400 million

 

[rhinobean]

There is one difference though in them moving the team, if in fact Stan does move, and that's Stan never destroyed the team to move them. Stan is signing free agents and spending money. He's retaining our big dollar free agents IE signing Quinn. Georgia let talent walk so the team wouldn't have to spend money and made the team worse through financial decisions. But you're 100% right each side of the fan base has their own reasons for hating owners.

I agree with what you said! Ruining the team would be like cutting off your nose to spite your face! A good team goes a long way toward healing wounds in STL or getting new fans if they move! Money is not an issue in the short term at this juncture!

 

[The Ripper]

you know one thing I have observed from this whole Situation, particularly if the Rams move....

Georgia Frontier to LA Fans is what Stan Kroenke will be to St.Louis fans...

Conspiracy theorists can look back on both owners' actions and line up the dots to meet their theories about degrading attendance to move

It all leads back to one person all the way back to the beginning of her ownership.

 

[iced]

It all leads back to one person all the way back to the beginning of her ownership.

Just as it does to his....

 

[The Ripper]

LA fans might think low of Georgia and what she did for the team - but she never walked away from a stadium that had Public Funding like the Rams are offering...They'd again be offering top 5 in most what the NFL considers public funding ever for a stadium as it stands right now at $400 million

It was all good till this. Anaheim had many proposals with funding for a football only stadium. The actual dollar means nothing with the cost of stadiums increasing. The percentage is what matters and that will be on the lower side for home city initiated proposals.

 

[iced]

It was all good till this. Anaheim had many proposals with funding for a football only stadium. The actual dollar means nothing with the cost of stadiums increasing. The percentage is what matters and that will be on the lower side for home city initiated proposals.

No it does mean something - especially since 2002 the cost of stadiums and public funding has gone up. The fact that they're offering that much with the public funding over the years is what I am pointing at. You've seen the numbers since 2002 - you should know what I'm emphasizing. And that's going to be a big deal to the NFL, particularly considering the amount. I know you've heard before "The NFL isn't going to allow the move because Goodell would catch hell for letting a team walk away from public funding." If you may think i'm misquoting it, google it.

Again, 4th most money offered in public funding from a stadium going back 18 years.

And I think thats a big advantage that St.Louis has/have over the other stadiums, particularly when you start talking about timelines and such for San Diego's proposal (which has a lot of big contigencies to deal with, including legal environmental issues). And I don't think I need to say anything about Oakland's stadium which is pretty much dead.

 

[The Ripper]

No it does mean something - especially since 2002 the cost of stadiums and public funding has gone up. The fact that they're offering that much with the public funding over the years is what I am pointing at. You've seen the numbers since 2002 - you should know what I'm emphasizing. And that's going to be a big deal to the NFL, particularly considering the amount. I know you've heard before "The NFL isn't going to allow the move because Goodell would catch hell for letting a team walk away from public funding." If you may think i'm misquoting it, google it.

Again, 4th most money offered in public funding from a stadium going back 18 years.

And I think thats a big advantage that St.Louis has/have over the other stadiums, particularly when you start talking about timelines and such for San Diego's proposal (which has a lot of big contigencies to deal with, including legal environmental issues). And I don't think I need to say anything about Oakland's stadium which is pretty much dead.

SD is still over 50% public money but the problem is that both are city driven proposals so you can't look at dollar amounts. The average is still 57% and both proposals need to be over that to be considered strong. In Atlanta there's 600 million in public money and that's a team driven proposal where they own the stadium and the revenues.

 

[OldSchool]

No it does mean something - especially since 2002 the cost of stadiums and public funding has gone up. The fact that they're offering that much with the public funding over the years is what I am pointing at. You've seen the numbers since 2002 - you should know what I'm emphasizing. And that's going to be a big deal to the NFL, particularly considering the amount. I know you've heard before "The NFL isn't going to allow the move because Goodell would catch hell for letting a team walk away from public funding." If you may think i'm misquoting it, google it.

Again, 4th most money offered in public funding from a stadium going back 18 years.

The costs of stadiums have gone up so much that just using a flat dollar number and thumping chests is a bit disingenuous. The $400 million of public money is close to the total of some of the stadiums built in your time frame. Looking at it as a percentage of the total stadium project, 40%, it is actually average. More than 6 of the 12 stadium projects since 2002 and less than 6 of them. Heck you go back one more year and that $400 million builds Heinz field and has $120 million left over.

https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

Also I took your offer up and googled your quote:

"The NFL isn't going to allow the move because Goodell would catch hell for letting a team walk away from public funding."

Came up with no results the top article found was this:

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...adium-bill-will-trigger-serious-consequences/