New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

Jeff Fisher: Training with Cowboys not related to relocation
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...aining-with-cowboys-not-related-to-relocation

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- St. Louis Rams coach Jeff Fisher insisted Tuesday that his team's decision to scrimmage the Dallas Cowboys just north of his team's potential future Los Angeles home has nothing to do with the possibility of relocation.

"The two are not related," Fisher said. "The Cowboys have practiced against somebody just about every year there. The facility is such that it welcomes another team. So we talked to a number of teams besides the Cowboys about working together with them and Cowboys is really the only one that worked out."

The Rams and Cowboys will scrimmage against each other on Aug. 17 and 18 and the Rams will practice alone in Oxnard, Calif. on Aug. 19. Those practices will follow the Rams' Aug. 14 preseason opener against the Oakland Raiders. The Rams will fly to Los Angeles from Oakland after that game and return to St. Louis in the middle of the week before moving on to Tennessee to play the Titans in the second preseason game.

While there's certainly plenty of reason to wonder whether the Rams have ulterior motives in practicing so close to Los Angeles, where owner Stan Kroenke has planned the construction of a football stadium in nearby Inglewood, Fisher said his goal was to give his team a chance to get additional practice repetitions outside of its four preseason games.

"I think big picture it will help us," Fisher said. "We wouldn’t do it if we didn’t think it was going to be beneficial. Depending on the play time for the starters in the first preseason game, this creates another opportunity for them to compete and get better aside from preseason games. You have a full padded practice against another opponent."

The Rams have started the past two seasons with 1-3 records and have made it a point of emphasis to try to get off to a better start in 2015. Linebacker James Laurinaitis said practicing the Cowboys could help in that regard.

"Having a chance to practice against another team in camp this year will be something that’s very beneficial for us," Laurinaitis said. "It’s going to be physical. It’s going to be a battle so knowing that going in, I think that’s something we’ve always lacked. I think we’ve always been a little rusty out of the gate as far as defensively. I don’t think there will be any excuses this year but especially when we get that good work against Dallas."

Fisher and the Rams began exploring options for training camp scrimmages back in April and actually at one point looked poised to host the Indianapolis Colts in St. Louis. But when the preseason schedule came out, the Rams found out they didn't play the Colts until the third week. Fisher looked at other options and ultimately settled on Oxnard and the Cowboys after talking to coach Jason Garrett.

"We visited with the Cowboys months ago, I visited with Jason and it’s gonna work," Fisher said. "Once the preseason schedule came out, it made sense for us to just kind of shoot down after the Friday night game in Oakland down to L.A. then move out to Thousand Oaks area and practice with them in training camp for a couple of days. So it kind of shortens camp up a little bit but it’s the first time this group been through that experience and had the opportunity to practice against another team, a good football team. I would think we would benefit from it."

Remaining Rams fans in Los Angeles also figure to benefit from the chance to see their favorite team up close for a few days. And whether Fisher or anybody else on the Rams wants to admit it, it's probably safe to assume the organization will be taking some notes on how its received in its three-day Hollywood cameo.

 

[Sum1]

that's what i am talking about money not from the team from endorsements, tv, talk shows etc.

Whichever you were talking about my point still holds true.

The players almost always go after whichever team gives them the highest contract.

In todays world their location won't matter much for the big time endorsements as much as the teams success that they are on.

You think the fact that the Packers are in Green Bay Wisconson is why Aaron Rodgers is the discount double-check icon? No, it's because Aaron Rodgers is a top-flight QB that plays on a successful team.

 

[iced]

PSL numbers are in the financial breakdown, and publicly owned is a big selling point. Those both come from the task force, that's not speculation.

Which has nothing to do with what I said, especially when you bring up any kind of Stadium revenue from the Riverfront. Peacock has not released any new details or changes since the bonds were changed to $400 million. Anything else is an assumption

Spanos is a billionaire, he has the money to make it work in San Diego if he wanted. He needs help to get to LA, but not to stay in San Diego.

If Spanos had the money to finnance it, a'la Kroenke, I doubt they'd be seeking out Goldman Sachs for financing help.

and they have said their model wouldn't work in San Diego either.

Sure it is, if San Diego bought in it would be. Without them its not. Just like St Louis, everyone can dance and talk about checking all the boxes they want, but the if the most important one, being the team buys in, then its not viable.

There's a difference between a plan being viable and an owner being interested. Say Kroenke kept trying to move should the financing come through - that'd be walking away from a viable plan - design approved, land secured, financing secured. A viable stadium plan. An owner's interest or lack there of does not make a plan viable - Kroenke would still be walking away with a viable stadium in that situation...Well, he can turn his back to it - I doubt the NFL is going to let him go with that stadium or $400 million in public money on the table.

Again, he's a billionaire, he can make it work if he wanted to.
Goldman Sachs has helped out many cities before with many different venues, I'm sure if they wanted they could help in San Diego as well.

they have said their model won't work in San Diego

I'd say that Kroenke is already in the front of the line for LA.

I think Kroenke is that kid thats standing on the side of the line, looking for a way to cut..But Spanos is easily in front - especially with a plan that brings in more revenue to the NFL. Spanos also has time on his side, as well as the votes to block a move.

As for Carson, it is NOT a 50/50 split, this is from them, the Chargers will own a majority of it, in fact they won't say how much, probably because the Raiders are getting scraps.

Two teams in Inglewood still make more than two in Carson.

Got a quote for this?because I can't find it anywhere - only that it's a co-owned. and If you remember Carson policy had made some statements about how the NFL doesn't want a Landlord/tenant issue like they had in the past with the Jets and the Giants, citing that the Carson project is co-owned...unlike Inglewood and what might be the Raiders (although I doubt it since they've bought land together with the Chargers)

I do. "you can't leave because they made an offer"
"But I don't want that offer, San Diego made an offer as well"
"It wasn't as far along, too bad"
"Well I'm not accepting that so now what?"
"Uhhhh..."

I get this feeling that you believe that a City can just throw out a proposal and it makes it viable, which is not how it works. Land has be to secured. Financing has to be secured. The design itself has to meet NFL approval. San Diego has yet to submit a proposal that meets the NFL's standards for a viable plan. And most importantly, the biggest thing working against San Diego is time - this whole thing of waiting for a vote could kill their chances is not news - especially when the NFL upped the timeline. The NFL could very easily know by october which team is going to LA, which would render their vote useless (and there's no guarantee it'll pass)

You can't make Kroenke spend money if he doesn't want to. Meaning if he doesn't want the St Louis stadium, it doesn't solve three solutions.

If he's told he can't move; it's either lease to lease or Riverfront.

It solves two. Just as Inglewood does. Except Inglewood generates more money. The difference is Kroenke has indicated he'll help the team (Raiders) get a new stadium... Suddenly three teams are settled AND all three owners are happy.

Carson generates more money - I don't believe for a second that Kroenke has the favor of Davis or especially Spanos. The fact that Kroenke is offering to help finance a second team shows how much he's losing the battle; attempting to gain leverage. It's not a coincidence that announcement came shortly after we heard all the whispers of Spanos winning the popularity contest.

 

[blue4]

So, what they need to break .500 to be average? I mean I can go back into any game thread/vent thread and most of the talk is about how the refs screwed us. If they are holding us back, but we're not even an average team, then what the hell are we?



On the flip side at least he sends someone to go and talk. Spanos sits in meetings and then comes out and has Fabiani trash everything and destroy any hope of getting a deal done. Is that considered better? What if Kroenke did that instead? Sat in a meeting, basically did nothing, and then had Demoff come out and trash the riverfront proposal? Where would we be then? I promise you, people would be looking at that stadium a lot differently, and they'd probably have close to no chance of getting their part of the financing figured out. Being quiet is just how some guys are, it's one thing if he is totally disconnected, but he's not. Demoff is his eyes and ears, he reports back to Kroenke and Kroenke tells him what to do, that's his job. Minion or not, that is still more involved in the process than "Well I'm going to sit here and then trash it in a few days". That's not getting involved in the process. The taskforce said that the Rams have been very helpful, very involved, and they have made tweaks per their suggestion. Maybe it was just being nice, but it was by their own admission, and I can't imagine that wont be enough for the other owners when they're talking about if they really worked with their city.

Thus far, people think that Stan has checked out, and he probably has, but he isn't trashing St Louis, and he's not trashing their project. He's helping them, and he is the only owner that is looking to move who is doing that.

Again, you're arguing as if I'M making these points myself. I'm looking at it from an outsiders perspective. We aren't the Cowboys. We aren't the Packers. Outsiders do not really watch our games and our rosters. These are men who probably don't know much about THEIR OWN mid round draft picks much less ours. These are people whose OWN teams have been plagued by poor officials.

As for Spanos, yes I think it means more if he's there in person. Even if the result is the same. Again, these are billionaires. Showing up is a sign of respect. Delegates are a sign that he thinks your time is best spent discussing his projects and his time is more valuable.

As for the notion that Kroenke is helping St Louis I'm just figuring you forgot the blue font. I can't really see how you could seriously say that. I'll just stop there.


Edit....

Yes .500 is the definition of average. 6-10 and last place in the division for the umpteenth time in a row is the definition of not average.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Which has nothing to do with what I said, especially when you bring up any kind of Stadium revenue from the Riverfront. Peacock has not released any new details or changes since the bonds were changed to $400 million. Anything else is an assumption

I'm not clear on what you're saying then. Other than naming rights, what other splits are there? Kroenke won't own or operate the stadium.

If Spanos had the money to finnance it, a'la Kroenke, I doubt they'd be seeking out Goldman Sachs for financing help.

and they have said their model wouldn't work in San Diego either.

He doesn't have the money to finance LA, I was talking about San Diego. And I'm sure Goldman Sachs could figure out a way to get a few hundred million in San Diego, if they can get 2+ billion for LA. They're smart guys.

There's a difference between a plan being viable and an owner being interested. Say Kroenke kept trying to move should the financing come through - that'd be walking away from a viable plan - design approved, land secured, financing secured. A viable stadium plan. An owner's interest or lack there of does not make a plan viable - Kroenke would still be walking away with a viable stadium in that situation...Well, he can turn his back to it - I doubt the NFL is going to let him go with that stadium or $400 million in public money on the table.

So then St Louis isn't viable in your eyes? They don't have the land or financing secured either.

I think Kroenke is that kid thats standing on the side of the line, looking for a way to cut..But Spanos is easily in front - especially with a plan that brings in more revenue to the NFL. Spanos also has time on his side, as well as the votes to block a move.

How? Kroenke has everything done except permits, which are in the works, Carson doesn't, Inglewood brings more with two teams than Carson does, and can be done two years before Carson can. How is Spanis possibly in front? How does he have time on his side? Kroenke can start building in December, that's 6 months. Spanos can't start until roughly the time Kroenke would finish.

Got a quote for this?because I can't find it anywhere - only that it's a co-owned. and If you remember Carson policy had made some statements about how the NFL doesn't want a Landlord/tenant issue like they had in the past with the Jets and the Giants, citing that the Carson project is co-owned...unlike Inglewood and what might be the Raiders (although I doubt it since they've bought land together with the Chargers)

I'll look it up when I get home, but I remember it came about when people questioned how the Raiders can even afford a split, because they can't. Either the Chargers or Carson admitted that the Chargers would invest more money and it wouldn't be split 50/50, but they wouldn't say what the split would be.

I get this feeling that you believe that a City can just throw out a proposal and it makes it viable, which is not how it works. Land has be to secured. Financing has to be secured. The design itself has to meet NFL approval. San Diego has yet to submit a proposal that meets the NFL's standards for a viable plan. And most importantly, the biggest thing working against San Diego is time - this whole thing of waiting for a vote could kill their chances is not news - especially when the NFL upped the timeline. The NFL could very easily know by october which team is going to LA, which would render their vote useless (and there's no guarantee it'll pass)

Of course not, they need to make a deal that is workable, and gets the owner excited and willing to pitch in. San Diego certainly seems workable, they may not have loopholes to exploit like St Louis does, but it certainly seems viable. Their biggest issue is the same one that St Louis has, getting the owner to buy in.

If he's told he can't move; it's either lease to lease or Riverfront.

So essentially you're saying that if they block him he either is forced to spend money or they don't have three stadium issues solved. I have a real hard time seeing the NFL try to pull that type of stunt over an owner and getting away with it.

Carson generates more money - I don't believe for a second that Kroenke has the favor of Davis or especially Spanos. The fact that Kroenke is offering to help finance a second team shows how much he's losing the battle; attempting to gain leverage. It's not a coincidence that announcement came shortly after we heard all the whispers of Spanos winning the popularity contest.

Carson does not pull in more money, you keep operating on the assumption that Inglewood is going to be a one team facility, despite pretty much everyone saying that it'll hold two teams. Even Fabiani said it was possible that the Chargers end up there instead of Carson. That assumption is false. Inglewood with two teams makes more than Carson with two teams. Then if money is funneled to the Raiders, they have a new stadium as well. I don't see it as a desperate ploy, I see it as smart. For a long term we've heard that the NFL will do something that makes all three owners happy. If Davis wants to stay in Oakland, and it seems he does, and Kroenke and Spanos want to leave for LA, and it seems they do, then by agreeing to let the NFL pick the second team, and agreeing to help the third team, that gives him a huge step up. Now not only does his plan offer more money and security, its the only plan that leaves all three owners happy, and as an added bonus he lets the NFL maintain control over the proces because they select the second team.

That's good negotiation, not a desperate ploy. A desperate ploy would be starting construction now and moving the Rams and letting them settle it in court.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Again, you're arguing as if I'M making these points myself. I'm looking at it from an outsiders perspective. We aren't the Cowboys. We aren't the Packers. Outsiders do not really watch our games and our rosters. These are men who probably don't know much about THEIR OWN mid round draft picks much less ours. These are people whose OWN teams have been plagued by poor officials.

As for Spanos, yes I think it means more if he's there in person. Even if the result is the same. Again, these are billionaires. Showing up is a sign of respect. Delegates are a sign that he thinks your time is best spent discussing his projects and his time is more valuable.

As for the notion that Kroenke is helping St Louis I'm just figuring you forgot the blue font. I can't really see how you could seriously say that. I'll just stop there.


Edit....

Yes .500 is the definition of average. 6-10 and last place in the division for the umpteenth time in a row is the definition of not average.

Honestly I don't think they're even going to care about that very much, I was just pointing out that none of these teams are powerhouses in response to what Randy said about how the Rams being poor would make it harder for them to make LA work. If that was the case than it's hard for any of these teams, especially the Raiders who are a mess from top to bottom. I also said I felt that the Rams were an average team, rather than a poor one. Honestly, I'm still a bit taken back about how much flack I'm getting on that. In one thread people are wrong for doubting us, in this thread I'm apparently wrong for believing in us.

In terms of respect, not trashing everything your city does would also be a sign of respect. Having someone sit down and actually work with the task force would be a sign of respect. Kroenke may not be doing that himself, but he has Demoff on his behalf. Meanwhile San Diego has filed a court case to remove Fabiani from the equation because of his lack of respect. I'd say that argument would have a hard time flying.

He has helped them, he's offered feedback that they have taken and made changes too, he hasn't publicly trashed the project to stall it, like it or not, that's working with the city, and it's helping them out. If he wanted to, he could pull the Spanos move and try to kill the project before it got any further.

 

[RamFan503]

Lot of statements to respond to so I am making them all in one post.

Problem is as Fans we know our team - do you think other owners are studying our rosters (and others)? I don't - and as businessmen, I'd assume they're more about the factual numbers (W/L records); not educated guesses on what a team is going to do. There's off season champions every year.
And to make a point - every analyst and their mom had us going to the playoffs before the 2011 season, after coming a 7-9 season in 2010. The hiring of Josh Mcdaniels only furthered the hype. Think we all saw what happened that season: 2-14 record.
I don't believe for a second that other owners are analyzing our rosters or the 2 other teams and trying to make a predictions for long term success - those assurances come from records and consistency over time, two areas the Rams don't meet, and haven't even been playoff relevant in 10 years.
Hype means nothing at the end of the day - W/L records do

What large company owner or CEO does NOT know every working in and out of their competitors? Are you kidding me? I have met many very successful businessmen and they can recite everything about their competitors down to their mission statement. They know how the do business, where they are most successful, where the competitor's CEO likes to dine, everything about their family, which of the competitor's employees they want to steal and how much they would need to pay them to get it done.
The idea that NFL owners don't know pretty much everything about their competitors (aside from, interestingly, Paul Allen) would just be unheard of at their level.

Yeah... you're not winning that "Rams are average" debate...

He is with me. In fact, I would say that they are above average on talent right now but very young and inexperienced. They have shown that they can beat the best of teams and a below average team simply doesn't consistently play the shecocks, whiners, Indys, Denvers, of the league like they have. Records be damned. Let virtually any other team play six games against the NFC West and not only will they lose most of those games but be beat up just having to play them.

"It appears the Chargers have pulled the plug on San Diego even though the city and county have gone out of their way to try and accommodate the team," a spokesman said, via the San Diego Union-Tribune. "Instead of working collaboratively on a solution, the Chargers have thrown up one road block after another in San Diego while working aggressively on stadium plans in Carson. It's disappointing, especially for fans."

So... Stan is being worse to St Louis than Spanos is and has always been to SD? I don't see it.

Chargers are doing the same thing they've been doing for years, trying to shoot down the plan before it gets off the ground.

Exactly. I have followed that saga (not as much as the St Louis saga) for years. Spanos has had a my way or the highway attitude all along. And he lets Fabiani be his Post Dispatch-esq spokesman.

Time has always been an issue with the plan, among many other reasons - it was reported from when the proposal was first made and it still rings true today. This news isn't shocking - the onus is on San Diego to prove them wrong and get it to a vote.
I love how everyone acts like San Diego's plan is viable - when it's not. No stadium yet has met the requirements Grubman has stated for a viable stadium proposal - not even St.Louis has until the financing is secured.

Time is only recently an issue in SD. Spanos has not exactly treated anything with a sense of urgency until Stan got involved. They are using it now as an enormous wet blanket. Unfortunately, the only way Spanos wants a new stadium in SD is if he pays next to nothing for it. And he will send his three year old to stomp his feet before the press anytime he doesn't get it.
What exactly makes SDs plan non-viable when comparing it to St Louis? I see different structures as
to how they will be financed, but not really a big difference in money out of the owner's pockets. The SD may rely on property being sold but that is just another aspect of financing much like aspects of the St Louis plan. Neither plan has financing secured so.....

And I was talking about what Grubman has listed as requirements for a viable stadium - there are other issues with the San Diego plan that the NFL has rumored to have, and I think the biggest two are: 1)chargers paying rent (city of san diego actually pays them to play there) , 2) Selling the land at their quoted price of $225 million, without a buyer even lined up. That's just a guess...
Although what I think is funny is that Spanos should supposedly take a bad plan while Kroenke should be allowed to leave "because he doesn't like the plan"

Again, what really makes the SD plan a bad one?
And I haven't seen where SD is paying the Chargers to play there. Is this actually true? I thought they were paying a pretty similar rent to what is in the proposal. The issue raised was that rent is usually used for maintenance - not financing construction. However, SD put in their proposal that maintenance was handled with other funds.
I'm not sure what the land would sell for. My dad is a realtor and says that land value is increasing in most of CA - including SD. I haven't seen where Fabiani or Spanos has said where they view the value of the land. But the land in conjunction with a new stadium in San Diego is not likely to lie fallow.

when we heard San diego might have to wait til December to get a vote, word was that could be an issue because of the accelerated time line...Problem is they've had time on their side (14 years)

Yes - and so has Spanos to actually come to the table and present a workable solution. It truly does cut both ways down there.

As far as Kroenke and St.Louis, it's still a hogwash excuse to me. You can't tell me in the same breath that Kroenke doesn't like the plan in St.Louis when he refuses to answer the phone.

When was the last time you actually saw where Spanos met with or called the city of SD? He is handling most of it through Fabiani much like Stan is going through KD. Personally, St Louis should be very happy that they are dealing with KD instead of Fabiani. That guy burns a bridge practically every time he speaks.

The St.Louis proposal is light years ahead of the rest - the only contigency is on their financing being done (which all indications thus far is that it won't be an issue, but that's later TBD). And I am sure St.Louis would have no problem if Kroenke wanted to invest a high amount of dollars for a kick ass Stadium in St.Louis. The berter question is does he want to , and how will the other owners feel about it vs Spanos, and Davis, whom don't have deals anything close to viable like St.Louis does (I think you can forget oakland entirely, who said they will not spend public money)

Again. How is St Louis' plan actually light years ahead? I realize SDs may be delayed due to a vote potentially being needed. We may find the same thing occurs in St Louis. SD actually already has the land. St Louis doesn't. I suppose St Louis is ahead in that the lawsuits are already started.
Part of this is tongue and cheek but until ALL the boxes are checked, neither city can do anything.
As far as Stan wanting to invest in St Louis, I'm sorry but he has to see an appropriate ROI. It's not just about his supposedly not being able to move in order to increase his team's value. He can't be compelled to put up hundreds of millions of dollars if his research shows that the market there is in decline for example. I am expecting that Stan has pretty in depth knowledge of the market and health of the corporate sector. If former corporate luxury box buyers have either moved out of the area, closed their doors, or in a position to have cut this from their budget, he would likely know this beyond some kind of letter to the NFL or poll being conducted.

I realize the conversation has moved past this probably but this isn't about how we as fans view the team it's about how owners who don't care will view the team. This is a thread built on trying to logically predict who will relocate right? If we can't logically look at the state of the Rams then what's the point? How can we try to get a handle on what the owners might think if we have to assume that they will view sub .500 play as average?

What really makes you assume they don't care? Even if you owned a landscape business you would care what your competitors were doing. You certainly don't get to their level by not caring.

You assume a lot with regards to the amount of time Demoff has actually spent on the plan in St Louis and how involved the Rams have been.

And are you not assuming a lot as to how much time Fabiani and Spanos have spent working with SD?

People like to say that Stan not talking to St Louis personally is just how he does business and that's true. It is how he does business. What people don't stop to think about is whether or not other owners will view that as legitimate. Because it's not the way some others do business. Just saying it's Stan's way means nothing.

True dat. What we don't know is if they really would hold it against him or if media shills are just assuming.

All pure Speculation of details that haven't been released - you have no idea how the splits work nor the revenue, in addition to any changes *should* Kroenke actually come to the table.

Pretty much what this thread is made of - speculation. By that same token, you can't really say that St Louis' proposal is viable without knowing that info.
In all honesty, it seems that SDs proposal actually contains a little more info in that regard but not a whole lot.

I'm talking about money in general being an issue.. Kroenke does not face any financial issues, nor could he claim unlike a Spanos or Davis without Goldman Sachs backing them (which they didn't have in the past)

This statement confuses me. We are talking about a new stadium. And I'm not sure where you could be getting that Spanos has faced greater financial issues in SD that Stan doesn't face going forward. In fact, from what I have read is that ticket prices are far higher in SD and attendance has been averaging roughly 65,000. I'm not sure what the luxury box comparison is but word is that the dome is only selling about 80% of their suites and club seats.
I would think that if the Rams were making so much money for their owner, the value of the team wouldn't be sitting at 32nd.

I don't believe it's that simple. The stadium plan has to actually viable; as if they could agree and start the plan tomorrow with the important details secured (land, financing, stadium design approval). If a team a proposal doesn't have those set in stone (*Ahem* SD selling land at their price of $225 million plus going through process of legally selling it, let alone the vote), its not viable

Without financing, stadium design approval, and all land purchased St Louis doesn't have that yet either.

I don't think he can - Spanos doesn't have the financial backing Kroenke does, and it's not like Goldman Sachs has pledged to build any stadium in any city. They're pledging to Carson.... And good luck telling the other owners you can't get a stadium in St.Louis when they're offering the best stadium plan of 3.... not to mention no one believes Kroenke is going to jump ahead of the line to LA over Spanos; especially when 2 teams will generate more revenue than 1. And unlike inglewood, those teams own the land 50/50.

You think GS has been asked to do anything in SD?
The two teams won't own the land at all. A stadium authority is being formed of local gov't officials (just as was done in Santa Clara) and it will own the land and operate the stadium. It's part of how the two teams can avoid legal issues concerning the property itself.

I don't think its going to be difficult at all for the other owners. At the end of the day, St.Louis is the only city that's offering a stadium that meets their criteria in a timely fashion, while giving all 3 owners a new stadium and maximizing revenue with 2 teams in Carson

If all goes according to plan, you may be right. Pretty hard to tell at this point though.

6 and 10 isn't average. It's just not. As a fan I don't like saying that, but it's not average.
Billionaire businessman are people too. They don't necessarily like the way every other businessman does his business. If you and I are billionaire owners and I show up for relocation meetings and you keep sending a minion, I'd be pissed. That's human nature. If I'm more involved in the process for YOUR move, I'd be pissed. Demoff may be your right hand man, but to me he's a minion. I'm not saying that this is how it's happening now, nor am I saying I know that's how anyone feels. Just saying that Stan's silence and separation has the potential to be as off putting to them as it is to us.

Average isn't about record only IMO. And where did you hear that Stan has missed any owner meetings let alone meetings dealing with relocation?
And I'm going to guess that Stan's business style is much more off putting to fans in this kind of situation than it is among billionaire businessmen.

If you are content to be the moron brigade that gets star struck by the helmets and jerseys and feels "honored to be there", then that's your choice

To all: Any more statements similar to this where I see a direct insult to a member will result in the poster being bounced from this thread and possibly the site as well. That's not how we do things around here.

There's a difference between a plan being viable and an owner being interested. Say Kroenke kept trying to move should the financing come through - that'd be walking away from a viable plan - design approved, land secured, financing secured. A viable stadium plan. An owner's interest or lack there of does not make a plan viable - Kroenke would still be walking away with a viable stadium in that situation...Well, he can turn his back to it - I doubt the NFL is going to let him go with that stadium or $400 million in public money on the table.

I am not really sure what will constitute a viable plan to the other owners. But I can almost guarantee you that it will have a lot to do with future revenue streams to them and the owner of the Rams. We'll have to see if they feel the St Louis plan is viable. I just don't think we really know the real numbers or their exact criteria.
That said, it DOES appear to me that St Louis has the more solid plan and I think it will be hard to ignore should they get the rest of their ducks in a row.

they have said their model won't work in San Diego

Isn't this like saying that Stan might not view the St Louis plan as viable because it isn't his model? Would the Inglewood model work in St Louis?

as well as the votes to block a move.

Allegedly

I get this feeling that you believe that a City can just throw out a proposal and it makes it viable, which is not how it works. Land has be to secured. Financing has to be secured. The design itself has to meet NFL approval. San Diego has yet to submit a proposal that meets the NFL's standards for a viable plan. And most importantly, the biggest thing working against San Diego is time - this whole thing of waiting for a vote could kill their chances is not news - especially when the NFL upped the timeline. The NFL could very easily know by october which team is going to LA, which would render their vote useless (and there's no guarantee it'll pass)

Timing may be in St Louis' favor but none of the other items you have mentioned have actually been completed by St Louis either.

Carson generates more money - I don't believe for a second that Kroenke has the favor of Davis or especially Spanos. The fact that Kroenke is offering to help finance a second team shows how much he's losing the battle; attempting to gain leverage. It's not a coincidence that announcement came shortly after we heard all the whispers of Spanos winning the popularity contest.

Probably right - that or once again, Stan just doesn't want to play stadium games for several years as he's witnessed in SD and OAK.

Again, you're arguing as if I'M making these points myself. I'm looking at it from an outsiders perspective. We aren't the Cowboys. We aren't the Packers. Outsiders do not really watch our games and our rosters. These are men who probably don't know much about THEIR OWN mid round draft picks much less ours. These are people whose OWN teams have been plagued by poor officials.

Officiating aside, I can't disagree more with this. They are not outsiders, they are very competitive people in a very competitive sport. You don't get to this point without knowing your competition inside and out of football.

I think the LA market surveys will be the key for the Raiders and the Rams. Raiders had the most fans with the Rams coming in a very close 2nd and the Chargers a distant 3rd. The deciding factor will be what the surveys says about the corporate support for the individual teams.

What survey is this coming from? The only thing I've seen is the LA Times poll and that had WAY more Rams fans than the other two and the Raiders and Chargers were 2nd and 3rd respectively.

 

[RamFan503]

If he wanted to, he could pull the Spanos move and try to kill the project before it got any further.

This is what I find very intriguing. If he is dead set on moving to LA, why wouldn't he just come out and have Demoff say how bad the project is - pretty much killing it. I'd even hazard to say that it should be encouraging for St Louis that he hasn't done exactly that.

 

[The Ripper]

What survey is this coming from? The only thing I've seen is the LA Times poll and that had WAY more Rams fans than the other two and the Raiders and Chargers were 2nd and 3rd respectively.

The NFL Market Surveys that were conducted last fall. It's was very similar to the ones in the home markets.

 

[iced]

I'm not clear on what you're saying then. Other than naming rights, what other splits are there? Kroenke won't own or operate the stadium.

I've seen posts from you covering different assumptions of revenue that haven't been released, like ticket revenues, naming rights, PSL's, etc. PSL's or naming rights have been included in on the NFL side, but not both. $600 from the NFL - $250 from kroenke, $200 in G4, other $150 in PSL's or rights, not both. PSL's have said to be in the 100-150 range

He doesn't have the money to finance LA, I was talking about San Diego. And I'm sure Goldman Sachs could figure out a way to get a few hundred million in San Diego, if they can get 2+ billion for LA. They're smart guys.

And they have said their model won't work in San Diego due to the size and population - it's not like Santa Clara. St.Louis is in the same boat - only can expect about $100-$150 in PSL's realistically

So then St Louis isn't viable in your eyes? They don't have the land or financing secured either.

No it's not - and if you had read my last post you would have read that. No team has a viable option at this juncture - and until St.Louis comes through on the bonds, its not viable either.

How? Kroenke has everything done except permits, which are in the works, Carson doesn't, Inglewood brings more with two teams than Carson does, and can be done two years before Carson can. How is Spanis possibly in front? How does he have time on his side? Kroenke can start building in December, that's 6 months. Spanos can't start until roughly the time Kroenke would finish.

Kroenke hasn't been trying to get a stadium deal for nearly as long as those guys who among other owners believe they have been working in good faith - including Grubman, who has even said it.

I'll look it up when I get home, but I remember it came about when people questioned how the Raiders can even afford a split, because they can't. Either the Chargers or Carson admitted that the Chargers would invest more money and it wouldn't be split 50/50, but they wouldn't say what the split would be.

Would like to read it if you can find it - the biggest thing is the NFL wants to avoid a repeat of a landlord/tenant issue (Jets/Giants), which is the opposite of Inglewood

Of course not, they need to make a deal that is workable, and gets the owner excited and willing to pitch in. San Diego certainly seems workable, they may not have loopholes to exploit like St Louis does, but it certainly seems viable. Their biggest issue is the same one that St Louis has, getting the owner to buy in.

They need to have a realistic deal - one that the owners would all agree "that's not a viable deal". The NFL favors the home market. The only issue St.Louis has with their deal is financing; SD has more

So essentially you're saying that if they block him he either is forced to spend money or they don't have three stadium issues solved. I have a real hard time seeing the NFL try to pull that type of stunt over an owner and getting away with it..

Not what I'm saying at all - I'm saying those are options if they chose Carson over Inglewood

Carson does not pull in more money, you keep operating on the assumption that Inglewood is going to be a one team facility, despite pretty much everyone saying that it'll hold two teams. Even Fabiani said it was possible that the Chargers end up there instead of Carson. That assumption is false. Inglewood with two teams makes more than Carson with two teams. Then if money is funneled to the Raiders, they have a new stadium as well. I don't see it as a desperate ploy, I see it as smart. For a long term we've heard that the NFL will do something that makes all three owners happy. If Davis wants to stay in Oakland, and it seems he does, and Kroenke and Spanos want to leave for LA, and it seems they do, then by agreeing to let the NFL pick the second team, and agreeing to help the third team, that gives him a huge step up. Now not only does his plan offer more money and security, its the only plan that leaves all three owners happy, and as an added bonus he lets the NFL maintain control over the proces because they select the second team.

That's good negotiation, not a desperate ploy. A desperate ploy would be starting construction now and moving the Rams and letting them settle it in court.

No I just don't believe Spanos or Davis are going to sign a lease under his terms or work with them when they a better one in their eyes in Carson. The NFL can't force them to move into Kroenke's stadium either, nor accept his terms..And the NFL doesn't want that kind of relationship either. Just because Kroenke's stadium can house two teams, doesn't mean the NFL is going to force either one of the teams to take that deal when Carson is a better one..and yes, 2 teams make more than money than one.

It's clearly obvious there is a willingness for Spanos/Davis to work together - the land they purchased for Carson is together, and I also remember reading somewhere that land is 50/50 owned

 

[Moostache]

(SECTION DELETED I'd be careful here Moostache).

Forgot exactly what the snarky part was, but got it....

 

[RamFan503]

The NFL Market Surveys that were conducted last fall. It's was very similar to the ones in the home markets.

And it showed more Raiduh fans in LA than Rams fans? Can you post a link to where that info is available?

 

[blue4]

Lot of statements to respond to so I am making them all in one post.

What large company owner or CEO does NOT know every working in and out of their competitors? Are you kidding me? I have met many very successful businessmen and they can recite everything about their competitors down to their mission statement. They know how the do business, where they are most successful, where the competitor's CEO likes to dine, everything about their family, which of the competitor's employees they want to steal and how much they would need to pay them to get it done.
The idea that NFL owners don't know pretty much everything about their competitors (aside from, interestingly, Paul Allen) would just be unheard of at their level.

He is with me. In fact, I would say that they are above average on talent right now but very young and inexperienced. They have shown that they can beat the best of teams and a below average team simply doesn't consistently play the shecocks, whiners, Indys, Denvers, of the league like they have. Records be damned. Let virtually any other team play six games against the NFC West and not only will they lose most of those games but be beat up just having to play them.

So... Stan is being worse to St Louis than Spanos is and has always been to SD? I don't see it.

Exactly. I have followed that saga (not as much as the St Louis saga) for years. Spanos has had a my way or the highway attitude all along. And he lets Fabiani be his Post Dispatch-esq spokesman.

Time is only recently an issue in SD. Spanos has not exactly treated anything with a sense of urgency until Stan got involved. They are using it now as an enormous wet blanket. Unfortunately, the only way Spanos wants a new stadium in SD is if he pays next to nothing for it. And he will send his three year old to stomp his feet before the press anytime he doesn't get it.
What exactly makes SDs plan non-viable when comparing it to St Louis? I see different structures as
to how they will be financed, but not really a big difference in money out of the owner's pockets. The SD may rely on property being sold but that is just another aspect of financing much like aspects of the St Louis plan. Neither plan has financing secured so.....

Again, what really makes the SD plan a bad one?
And I haven't seen where SD is paying the Chargers to play there. Is this actually true? I thought they were paying a pretty similar rent to what is in the proposal. The issue raised was that rent is usually used for maintenance - not financing construction. However, SD put in their proposal that maintenance was handled with other funds.
I'm not sure what the land would sell for. My dad is a realtor and says that land value is increasing in most of CA - including SD. I haven't seen where Fabiani or Spanos has said where they view the value of the land. But the land in conjunction with a new stadium in San Diego is not likely to lie fallow.

Yes - and so has Spanos to actually come to the table and present a workable solution. It truly does cut both ways down there.

When was the last time you actually saw where Spanos met with or called the city of SD? He is handling most of it through Fabiani much like Stan is going through KD. Personally, St Louis should be very happy that they are dealing with KD instead of Fabiani. That guy burns a bridge practically every time he speaks.

Again. How is St Louis' plan actually light years ahead? I realize SDs may be delayed due to a vote potentially being needed. We may find the same thing occurs in St Louis. SD actually already has the land. St Louis doesn't. I suppose St Louis is ahead in that the lawsuits are already started.
Part of this is tongue and cheek but until ALL the boxes are checked, neither city can do anything.
As far as Stan wanting to invest in St Louis, I'm sorry but he has to see an appropriate ROI. It's not just about his supposedly not being able to move in order to increase his team's value. He can't be compelled to put up hundreds of millions of dollars if his research shows that the market there is in decline for example. I am expecting that Stan has pretty in depth knowledge of the market and health of the corporate sector. If former corporate luxury box buyers have either moved out of the area, closed their doors, or in a position to have cut this from their budget, he would likely know this beyond some kind of letter to the NFL or poll being conducted.

What really makes you assume they don't care? Even if you owned a landscape business you would care what your competitors were doing. You certainly don't get to their level by not caring.

And are you not assuming a lot as to how much time Fabiani and Spanos have spent working with SD?

True dat. What we don't know is if they really would hold it against him or if media shills are just assuming.

Pretty much what this thread is made of - speculation. By that same token, you can't really say that St Louis' proposal is viable without knowing that info.
In all honesty, it seems that SDs proposal actually contains a little more info in that regard but not a whole lot.

This statement confuses me. We are talking about a new stadium. And I'm not sure where you could be getting that Spanos has faced greater financial issues in SD that Stan doesn't face going forward. In fact, from what I have read is that ticket prices are far higher in SD and attendance has been averaging roughly 65,000. I'm not sure what the luxury box comparison is but word is that the dome is only selling about 80% of their suites and club seats.
I would think that if the Rams were making so much money for their owner, the value of the team wouldn't be sitting at 32nd.

Without financing, stadium design approval, and all land purchased St Louis doesn't have that yet either.

You think GS has been asked to do anything in SD?
The two teams won't own the land at all. A stadium authority is being formed of local gov't officials (just as was done in Santa Clara) and it will own the land and operate the stadium. It's part of how the two teams can avoid legal issues concerning the property itself.

If all goes according to plan, you may be right. Pretty hard to tell at this point though.

Average isn't about record only IMO. And where did you hear that Stan has missed any owner meetings let alone meetings dealing with relocation?
And I'm going to guess that Stan's business style is much more off putting to fans in this kind of situation than it is among billionaire businessmen.

To all: Any more statements similar to this where I see a direct insult to a member will result in the poster being bounced from this thread and possibly the site as well. That's not how we do things around here.

I am not really sure what will constitute a viable plan to the other owners. But I can almost guarantee you that it will have a lot to do with future revenue streams to them and the owner of the Rams. We'll have to see if they feel the St Louis plan is viable. I just don't think we really know the real numbers or their exact criteria.
That said, it DOES appear to me that St Louis has the more solid plan and I think it will be hard to ignore should they get the rest of their ducks in a row.

Isn't this like saying that Stan might not view the St Louis plan as viable because it isn't his model? Would the Inglewood model work in St Louis?

Allegedly

Timing may be in St Louis' favor but none of the other items you have mentioned have actually been completed by St Louis either.

Probably right - that or once again, Stan just doesn't want to play stadium games for several years as he's witnessed in SD and OAK.

Officiating aside, I can't disagree more with this. They are not outsiders, they are very competitive people in a very competitive sport. You don't get to this point without knowing your competition inside and out of football.

What survey is this coming from? The only thing I've seen is the LA Times poll and that had WAY more Rams fans than the other two and the Raiders and Chargers were 2nd and 3rd respectively.

My whole point here was that people are assuming too much about how others outside our organization view us. That people seem to just assume that other businessman approve of the way that Stan does business. I'm not making any claims at all. Simply trying to point out that some things people seem to take for granted aren't a given. I get the feeling that others think I'm making some sort of argument to convince them that Stan's not viewed well. I'm not. My entire argument can be summed up with one sentence. "You might be assuming too much."


As for the whole "average" thing. I don't think that it's understood that I'm not down on our team. I'm just giving what I think would be the view from the outside. I'm sure that fans of Arizona have very different thoughts then I do about the state of their team. People see trends. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 is a downward trend. Merely saying that we have been average because we feel we have good talent doesn't really fly does it? The Browns have had some talent along their futile way, would you buy it if a Browns fan said that they should be viewed as average or compared equally to the Chargers? I'm just trying to see it from the outside looking in. I don't believe that owners can run their own billion dollar day jobs and know the relocation ins and outs plus the inner workings of all 32 NFL teams. There's just not that many hours in the day. So, I don't think that any argument the Rams may make about being the safest choice for LA based on that will work. I think they will do what they do every day and look at trends. That's even if the Rams are making that argument. That in itself is was an assumption by someone in the media.

 

[RamFan503]

Kroenke hasn't been trying to get a stadium deal for nearly as long as those guys who among other owners believe they have been working in good faith - including Grubman, who has even said it.

But pale face who says many words with nothing said says pretty much the same thing about Kroenke.

The only issue St.Louis has with their deal is financing; SD has more

Isn't that one of if not THE biggest issue and don't SDs issues realistically all center around financing as well? St Louis also hasn't purchased or made purchase agreements on all of the land and SD already owns it so... Kind of a wash, isn't it?

Honestly, I assume St Louis' project is farther along. But to be honest with you, it seems that those involved have clouded the issues in a manner that makes it difficult at best to compare apples to apples.

SD's includes rent in their figures, St Louis' doesn't. SD counts half of the PSL money toward construction and half to go to Spanos, STL puts all toward the construction of the stadium. SD has a potentially questionable land deal as part of the financing plan, STL apparently intends to go eminent domain to secure the remaining properties but haven't figured out how much they are offering the property owners. They both appear pretty muddy to me.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I've seen posts from you covering different assumptions of revenue that haven't been released, like ticket revenues, naming rights, PSL's, etc. PSL's or naming rights have been included in on the NFL side, but not both. $600 from the NFL - $250 from kroenke, $200 in G4, other $150 in PSL's or rights, not both. PSL's have said to be in the 100-150 range

You're talking about financing for the stadium? I'm talking about revenue splits after the stadium is done. Some of that, like ownership and PSL's, which are big money items, are already accounted for. That leaves naming rights money, and then a few other things. Stan doesn't have the freedom to set his own events, or collect revenue from that though, as far as I know. Since he likes to own and operate his stadiums, you'd imagine that would be a sticking point, that he's asked to front over 50% of the bill, and doesn't get that.

And they have said their model won't work in San Diego due to the size and population - it's not like Santa Clara. St.Louis is in the same boat - only can expect about $100-$150 in PSL's realistically

They could change the model up and make it work, they could take the plan that San Diego has laid out, and tweak it. It's not impossible to make it work there. Of course they'll say they can't do it, because it gives them more leverage, but I'm not buying that.

Kroenke hasn't been trying to get a stadium deal for nearly as long as those guys who among other owners believe they have been working in good faith - including Grubman, who has even said it.

They haven't said that Kroenke hasn't worked in good faith, and the situation in St Louis isn't anything new. That's from Goodell himself. While they've had a bad situation longer, that doesn't mean that St Louis doesn't still have a problem as well. It just means there are three problems.

Would like to read it if you can find it - the biggest thing is the NFL avoids a repeat of a landlord/tenant issue, unlike Inglewood

I'm sure I'll be able to find it. It wasn't a landlord tenant issue, it was just not a 50/50 split. In theory Kroenke could do that in Inglewood, but I'm not sure how willing he is to do that.

Not what I'm saying at all - I'm saying those are options if they chose Carson over Inglewood

Yeah, so if they choose Carson over Inglewood they stick Kroenke between a rock and a hard place. I don't think they NFL wants to do that, especially to their second richest owner. Like him or not, they all know that money talks.

No I just don't believe Spanos or Davis are going to sign a lease under his terms or work with them when they a better one in their eyes in Carson. The NFL can't force them to move into Kroenke's stadium either, nor accept his terms..And the NFL doesn't want that kind of relationship either. Just because Kroenke's stadium can house two teams, doesn't mean the NFL is going to force either one of the teams to take that deal when Carson is a better one..and yes, 2 teams make more than money than one.

It's clearly obvious there is a willingness for Spanos/Davis to work together - the land they purchased for Carson is together, and I also remember reading somewhere that land is 50/50 owned

Honestly I think Davis will do just about anything because he is in such a poor spot. I also think that if it was the only way, Spanos would be willing to work. As long as Kroenke wasn't an asshole about it. They discussed working together before, even if it went sour and Kroenke got impatient, that means they can work together again. It's not out of the question for that to happen.

If one team went to LA, and the Chargers made it work in San Diego, and the Raiders in Oakland, I think the NFL would happily take that option. If they pick Inglewood, and Spanos refuses to work with him, then they can help the Raiders get there, if they both refuse, which is doubtful, then that's their fault really. If Kroenke helps funnel money to them to fix their home issues, then everyone wins in the eyes of the NFL.

 

[MrMotes]

This is what I find very intriguing. If he is dead set on moving to LA, why wouldn't he just come out and have Demoff say how bad the project is - pretty much killing it. I'd even hazard to say that it should be encouraging for St Louis that he hasn't done exactly that.

That's a good point but there are other possibilities:

Perhaps Kroenke wants to leave St. Louis, not burn it down. Maybe he wants to help Peacok and Nixon make sure St. Louis remains an NFL city, just not with the Rams.

Or maybe he thinks the stadium plan is so flawed he doesn't have to say or do a thing. Maybe he has friends in the legislature doing his dirty work for him.

Lots of possibilities...

 

[RamFan503]

My whole point here was that people are assuming too much about how others outside our organization view us. That people seem to just assume that other businessman approve of the way that Stan does business. I'm not making any claims at all. Simply trying to point out that some things people seem to take for granted aren't a given. I get the feeling that others think I'm making some sort of argument to convince them that Stan's not viewed well. I'm not. My entire argument can be summed up with one sentence. "You might be assuming too much."

My only point is how other NFL owners view the Rams and what Stan has done since he took over. I don't care at all how anyone outside of that views the Rams. Will it be any kind of deciding factor? Meh. Who knows? But I am quite certain they are paying attention to what other owners are doing - and this likely goes double for Stan with the stadium issue looming.

As for the whole "average" thing. I don't think that it's understood that I'm not down on our team. I'm just giving what I think would be the view from the outside. I'm sure that fans of Arizona have very different thoughts then I do about the state of their team. People see trends. 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 is a downward trend. Merely saying that we have been average because we feel we have good talent doesn't really fly does it? The Browns have had some talent along their futile way, would you buy it if a Browns fan said that they should be viewed as average or compared equally to the Chargers? I'm just trying to see it from the outside looking in. I don't believe that owners can run their own billion dollar day jobs and know the relocation ins and outs plus the inner workings of all 32 NFL teams. There's just not that many hours in the day. So, I don't think that any argument the Rams may make about being the safest choice for LA based on that will work. I think they will do what they do every day and look at trends. That's even if the Rams are making that argument. That in itself is was an assumption by someone in the media.

You can bet your bottom dollar that owners are having regular meetings with those they have tasked with tracking virtually everything about the other 31 teams. Are they doing it themselves? Heck no. But unless they are unlike their peers in virtually every other industry, they are damn getting it done. One thing these billionaires are good at is delegating to those best at doing a particular job and then using that expertise to make money. In most cases they have very little hands on dealings except for ultimate decision making once provided the best information available.

 

[RamFan503]

That's a good point but there are other possibilities:

Perhaps Kroenke wants to leave St. Louis, not burn it down. Maybe he wants to help Peacok and Nixon make sure St. Louis remains an NFL city, just not with the Rams.

Or maybe he thinks the stadium plan is so flawed he doesn't have to say or do a thing. Maybe he has friends in the legislature doing his dirty work for him.

Lots of possibilities...

Can't disagree with any of this really. All are possible truths and all are possible fiction. Just looking at all the yapping going on down in SD and thinking I'd rather have an owner be silent than spew all that crap Fabiani is spewing on behalf of Spanos. At least there is some semblance of class in what Kroenke and Demoff are doing - IMO of course.

 

[The Ripper]

And it showed more Raiduh fans in LA than Rams fans? Can you post a link to where that info is available?

Roggin mentioned it on the radio saying Raiders were 1 and Rams were 1A.

 

[MrMotes]

Can't disagree with any of this really. All are possible truths and all are possible fiction. Just looking at all the yapping going on down in SD and thinking I'd rather have an owner be silent than spew all that crap Fabiani is spewing on behalf of Spanos. At least there is some semblance of class in what Kroenke and Demoff are doing - IMO of course.

Agreed. It's hard to see how Spanos is somehow the darling of the NFL, the good soldier who's doing things the right way when he's absolutely just publicly savaging the city and fans of SD. To me, Spanos is the loose cannon here, but as always, only time is gonna tell...