New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Huh? If he's forced to stay, and he doesn't want to pay then they will just keep going year to year on the dome. Me thinks that if the Rams stay, that Stan would have no problems paying just $200 million toward a new stadium that will undoubtedly increase the value of his franchise by much more than the $200 million he's investing. Also, it's been reported that Stan doesn't have anything against the city of St. Louis, but it's the fact that the money in LA would be huge. With that, if he's forced to stay I seriously doubt he would not be willing to put up some money for a brand new stadium.

If he's forced to stay maybe, but my point is he'll make arguments that he shouldn't have to pay for a new stadium in a city he doesn't want to before the vote, thus they will be more likely they vote yes. If Stan files for relocation next year, he will have spent the year talking and presenting his argument for why he should be allowed to move. It is nowhere near enough for St Louis to just hang some pictures of a new stadium and then say "tada! Now force him to stay!".

If Stan is looking to move, you know he's putting together a damn good argument so they vote yes. There may be one or two no's, but I'm not sure who would potentially be the 7 or 8 others who would block it, and I'm not seeing anything from St Louis that would convince others to block the move. This assumes of course the default position for most owners is yes, which I'd say is likely.
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Buck says 'there's hope' for St. Louis NFL efforts
• By Dan Caesar

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainme...cle_7beac1e7-9ca0-5d6e-aeda-7741767d173a.html

(Second of two parts)

This space focused last week on how the perception has grown nationally that St. Louis merely is a baseball city, that it doesn’t care much about football.

We discussed how near-sighted that was, mainly because the Cardinals have been so successful on the diamond over the years while the two NFL teams that have resided in town have been, with rare exceptions, mediocre at best — sometimes atrocious.

Dan Dierdorf and Joe Buck, longtime St. Louisans who have been to the top of the NFL broadcasting ladder, defended their town. We pick up on that discussion here, with their feelings about the future of St. Louis as an NFL market in light of Rams owner Stan Kroenke recently announcing plans for a stadium in suburban Los Angeles as part of a large complex.

GUARDED OPTIMISM

Former Anheuser-Busch executive Dave Peacock heads the effort to keep St. Louis as an NFL city, with the Rams or a replacement team, and two weeks ago unveiled a proposal for an open-air downtown stadium.

Dierdorf and Buck endorse Peacock.

“I think there is hope,’’ Buck said. “I think they’ve got the right people involved, especially with Dave Peacock. I know that he’s tied in well (to the NFL) and they’re swinging away. I don’t think it’s too little, too late. I think a lot of hoops have to be jumped through by Stan Kroenke before just backing up the moving vans and end up in LA.

“Just because you show a pretty picture of what the complex is going to look like in the LA area doesn’t mean you go to sleep and the next day the Rams are playing in this new venue with a lake and a business center.

“It just doesn’t work that way. It’s not as easy as just snapping your fingers, putting a plan together and showing up in LA. He is part of a league, there are other owners, there are other owners that would like to potentially be in LA.”

The Los Angeles market has lost two NFL teams; the Raiders and Rams both left after the 1994 season.

“I still believe this: The NFL doesn’t spend every day wondering how they can get a team to Los Angeles,” Dierdorf said. “Some people think that’s what the NFL has been doing for the last 20 years. But in case you haven’t noticed, the NFL has been doing pretty well for a long time without a team in the Los Angeles market. It’s not like they have to go to Los Angeles to right their sinking ship. That’s hardly the case.”

In fact, Dierdorf points to his “Monday Night Football” days, when he was an analyst on the series from 1987-98. “MNF” showed 15 Raiders games from 1987 through ’94, their final season in California.

“Do you know how many of those were played in Los Angeles?” Dierdorf asked. “None. We couldn’t afford to have Los Angeles blacked out, because the Raiders didn’t sell out. The Raiders were always on the road when they were on ‘Monday Night Football.’ We weren’t like a Sunday-afternoon network, where you could plug in another game. The ABC affiliate in Los Angeles would have had to show a movie or a ‘Bob Newhart Show’ rerun.

“If you’re afraid to have a home game because it might not sell out for ‘Monday Night Football,’ what does that tell you about the level of support?”

But it’s a different era now. Blackout rules are much more relaxed, and estimates are that the Rams’ value would skyrocket if they were in the nation’s second-largest market.

As Dierdorf said in last’s week column: “Let’s be realistic — there’s New York, Chicago, the major markets. Then there’s everybody else. And we’re in the everybody-else category.”

A SHORT LIFESPAN

Dierdorf was involved in the effort to bring the NFL back to St. Louis more than two decades ago. He knows the complaints about the lack of atmosphere in the Edward Jones Dome, which is part of the convention center. But he said it had to be constructed that way because there were no guarantees the NFL was coming.

That’s part of a bigger-picture problem in the NFL in which stadiums that aren’t even a quarter-century old are deemed obsolete.

“The only way you could justify building that facility without a football team is you had to make it part of the convention center and it had to be a dome because it had to be space that could be utilized (for other events) in case we never got a football team,” Dierdorf said. “It just doesn’t seem right now that we’re looking at discarding a stadium that’s only 20 years old.”

But that’s exactly what is happening per the Rams’ lease, which allows them an out now because the Dome isn’t deemed a top-tier NFL stadium.

Dierdorf served as chairman of the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission for three years, beginning in 2005, and in 2008 warned area civic and business leaders to plan to raise hundreds of millions of dollars for a major overhaul of the Dome or the construction of a replacement to avoid the risk of losing the Rams. That didn’t happen. And he’s not happy about what some NFL owners now perceive as the shelf life of stadiums.

“When did football stadiums become like cigarette lighters, where they’re disposable?” he asked. “I think what’s really at the forefront of a lot of peoples’ thinking in this city — ‘Wow, it doesn’t seem that long ago that we built a brand-new stadium.’ Because it wasn’t. That’s one of the hurdles that is hard to get over. It’s not like we are talking about replacing a dilapidated 40- or 50-year-old stadium.”

Ground was broken last year in Atlanta to replace the Georgia Dome, which has been open for 23 years. In Indianapolis, the RCA (formerly Hoosier) Dome was jettisoned by the Colts in 2007, after 24 seasons.

“The precedent has been set,’’ Dierdorf said. “But man, I thought you built a stadium and it lasted a long time. It used to.”

Peacock — the point man on the local new stadium efforts — also disdains that trend, telling Post-Dispatch editors last week that he told NFL officials that “... if we do, it’s permanent.”

THE BOTTOM LINE

The NFL’s Cardinals left town after the 1987 season, and after a seven-year gap without football the Rams arrived in 1995. But the reality is that nobody knows if there will be an NFL team in St. Louis in 2016, 2020 or at any point thereafter.

“It’s frustrating for any St. Louisan to think that we as a city could lose another franchise, because all people from this area have done is support this team,” Buck said.

Dierdorf concurs.

“Just because the St. Louis Cardinals baseball franchise is so remarkably successful, I don’t think it’s fair that we get labeled as only a baseball town,” he said. “We’re much more than that. It always wasn’t a given there were going to be 3 million people watching the baseball Cardinals.”

In fact, that took place only once while the football Cardinals were in St. Louis but has happened in each of the last 11 years, which coincides with 11 consecutive non-winning seasons by the Rams — and 10 winning ones by the Redbirds.

“This is a good sports town, you’ll never get me to say otherwise,” Dierdorf said.

But the “good sports town” could join Los Angeles as cities to lose two NFL teams.

“It’s hard to comprehend that could happen to us twice,” Dierdorf said. “That would be tough to take.”
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I didn't say there was a judgment on either side. I didn't say anyone was out of line. I said, and I think the Rams' argument will be, that it was the CVC's decision to end the lease. That's it.

I misunderstood then. I thought you were arguing that the arbitration ruling was some type of indication of fault. I absolutely agree the Rams will argue that the CVC ended the lease. I just don't think anyone will blame them for doing it, or even consider it relevant to the new stadium.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
If he's forced to stay maybe, but my point is he'll make arguments that he shouldn't have to pay for a new stadium in a city he doesn't want to before the vote, thus they will be more likely they vote yes. If Stan files for relocation next year, he will have spent the year talking and presenting his argument for why he should be allowed to move. It is nowhere near enough for St Louis to just hang some pictures of a new stadium and then say "tada! Now force him to stay!".

If Stan is looking to move, you know he's putting together a damn good argument so they vote yes. There may be one or two no's, but I'm not sure who would potentially be the 7 or 8 others who would block it, and I'm not seeing anything from St Louis that would convince others to block the move. This assumes of course the default position for most owners is yes, which I'd say is likely.

Well, my argument was if he were forced to stay. Both sides are putting together damn good arguments, so what we think is irrelevant. You're on the LA side, thus you see it the way you want and I'm on the Stl side, and I see it the way I want. Contrary to what you think there have been plenty of articles out there that says that there are enough votes to block the move. When that was presented, the pro LA folks say "well he'll just take them to court, blah, blah blah." Before then, the popular opinion from you guys was that he would receive the votes. And between all of that is the picking apart of the Stl stadium proposal by people who don't know a thing about this topic, really, but the funny thing is the important people in the NFL like it and are doing their part to help get the deal done by flying in and out of St. Louis as well as meeting with Peacock and Blitz in NY. Funny how that works..
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Well, my argument was if he were forced to stay. Both sides are putting together damn good arguments, so what we think is irrelevant. You're on the LA side, thus you see it the way you want and I'm on the Stl side, and I see it the way I want. Contrary to what you think there have been plenty of articles out there that says that there are enough votes to block the move. When that was presented, the pro LA folks say "well he'll just take them to court, blah, blah blah." Before then, the popular opinion from you guys was that he would receive the votes. And between all of that is the picking apart of the Stl stadium proposal by people who don't know a thing about this topic, really, but the funny thing is the important people in the NFL like it and are doing their part to help get the deal done by flying in and out of St. Louis as well as meeting with Peacock and Blitz in NY. Funny how that works..

I'm actually on the St Louis side. While I live in Los Angeles now, I wont be here forever, and in a few years I plan on moving to St Louis anyway for a short while (year or two) so my girlfriend can be closer to her family (who all live in St Louis) before we move on elsewhere, hopefully to Switzerland, potentially Hawaii, depending on work. So where the Rams play doesn't mean much to me honestly, if they moved to LA by the time I actually had time to go to a game, I'd probably be getting ready to move anyway. So I'd rather them stay, because when I'm in St Louis I will have time and money to go and see them.

However I don't for a second expect the NFL to block a move without a really good offer from St Louis, and the current one doesn't do it in my opinion. While I don't know what Stan thinks, I can't imagine he okay with a number of details. While the NFL can come out and say they're impressed and blah blah blah, they also come out and say the refs are fine, the replacement refs were fine, and basically everything is fine. So why should I believe them now? Because it's convenient for me? I never thought that Stan would take the NFL to court, but a lot of that is because I don't think the NFL will block the votes. There's going to be tons of articles that are essentially looking for clicks that say Stan will take them to court or the NFL will block the votes, but if we really look at things, what would we expect to happen? The chargers say they have 9 votes, but who would these votes be? Other than him, and maybe Davis what teams benefit from the Rams not going to LA? Who benefits from the Rams leaving St Louis though? Quite a few teams potentially, by way of having a market they can expand into. Plus there's big names like Jones and Kraft who have publicly came out and supported a team in LA. It would seem that there's more evidence to suggest the owners would approve such a move. A bunch of articles that link back to a single rumor from an iffy source doesn't do much for me. The NFL has been flying back and fourth and talking to LA for years now by the way, so if they're doing it to St Louis, it doesn't mean much other than St Louis already has a team. They have made no attempt to hide their desire for a team in LA, and at this point the Rams are their best bet.

I think that St Louis needs to do a lot more to keep the Rams, and I really hope they do it. Where the Rams play means little to me, as I'll be too busy. If I had my way I'd like to check out a home game before I move far enough away it's not really feasible.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,293
If he's forced to stay maybe, but my point is he'll make arguments that he shouldn't have to pay for a new stadium in a city he doesn't want to before the vote, thus they will be more likely they vote yes. If Stan files for relocation next year, he will have spent the year talking and presenting his argument for why he should be allowed to move. It is nowhere near enough for St Louis to just hang some pictures of a new stadium and then say "tada! Now force him to stay!".

If Stan is looking to move, you know he's putting together a damn good argument so they vote yes. There may be one or two no's, but I'm not sure who would potentially be the 7 or 8 others who would block it, and I'm not seeing anything from St Louis that would convince others to block the move. This assumes of course the default position for most owners is yes, which I'd say is likely.

I agree with this. In addition, does anyone think that Stan would have purchased full ownership of the Rams if he didn't think he could move the team if he so desired? He took all the time allowed to claim his option. And, wasn't it timely that it occurred right after the owners meetings? IMO, he got his majority approval to move if he purchased the Rams behind closed doors at the meetings.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I agree with this. In addition, does anyone think that Stan would have purchased full ownership of the Rams if he didn't think he could move the team if he so desired? He took all the time allowed to claim his option. And, wasn't it timely that it occurred right after the owners meetings? IMO, he got his majority approval to move if he purchased the Rams behind closed doors at the meetings.
I don't think he has majority votes for one main reason. (I'm talking votes as of this moment, not ones that he can or will get later.)

1. Once he goes into LA, the other 31 owners no longer have much leverage in any kind of negotiations. If I'm an owner with 10 years or less to go on my own lease, I'm reluctant to vote yes. The golden age of stadiums might be over and I didn't get mine yet reasoning.
 

Boffo97

Still legal in 17 states!
Joined
Feb 10, 2014
Messages
5,278
Name
Dave
I misunderstood then. I thought you were arguing that the arbitration ruling was some type of indication of fault. I absolutely agree the Rams will argue that the CVC ended the lease. I just don't think anyone will blame them for doing it, or even consider it relevant to the new stadium.
One never knows... especially if billionaires are looking for excuses to scratch other billionaires' backs.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/01/23/al-michaels-super-bowl-49-interview-deflategate-mueller-report/

A comment on this topic by announcer Al Michaels being interviewed by MMQB.
***********************************************************
VRENTAS: In your book that came out in November, You Can’t Make This Up, you write fondly of the sports landscape of Los Angeles you grew up on. Do you think we’re finally about to see a return of the NFL to L.A.?

MICHAELS: It’s hard to say. But I feel this way: It’s closer than it’s been in a long time. And obviously it is closer because the owner of the St. Louis Rams, one Stan Kroenke, who I know very well, has partnered with the people that have the adjacent parcel of land at the old Hollywood Park site in Inglewood and have these plans to build a stadium. So the next question is, does this mean the Rams are coming here? And that is the big question.

The way it goes right now, the league has thrown its body over the Los Angeles market. Can a team move here without league approval? I guess they could try to and then open themselves up to lawsuits. Al Davis did it back in the early ’80s, he basically told the league, “Hey, the hell with you, I am moving my team here,” and he did go to court, and he won that battle, too. The league wants to avoid that.

We are in a different time right now. If I had to guess, I don’t think Stan would fight it if the league declined to give him the permission to move here. I just don’t know what is going to happen. The market is great; I think if I’m the NFL, I want a team in L.A., I probably want two teams, and this area can support it, there’s no doubt about it. I think they’d want to play the Super Bowl here as much as they could. What better place to play the Super Bowl than Los Angeles/Hollywood.

There is a 95 percent chance you are going to play it on a beautiful day. It would be a great place to have a Super Bowl, to build a world-class stadium here. That’s the only thing that has prevented L.A. from getting a team. We haven’t had a facility.

The Coliseum is a dinosaur, and the Rose Bowl is not fit for the NFL with the way we know it. So there’s never been a question in my mind that if it were built, L.A. would get a team and probably two. But again, we’re now back to the politics of the situation. What is the league going to do? Are they going to give Kroenke or anybody else permission to move to Los Angeles? That’s the big question right now.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
However I don't for a second expect the NFL to block a move without a really good offer from St Louis, and the current one doesn't do it in my opinion. While I don't know what Stan thinks, I can't imagine he okay with a number of details. While the NFL can come out and say they're impressed and blah blah blah, they also come out and say the refs are fine, the replacement refs were fine, and basically everything is fine. So why should I believe them now? Because it's convenient for me? I never thought that Stan would take the NFL to court, but a lot of that is because I don't think the NFL will block the votes. There's going to be tons of articles that are essentially looking for clicks that say Stan will take them to court or the NFL will block the votes, but if we really look at things, what would we expect to happen? The chargers say they have 9 votes, but who would these votes be? Other than him, and maybe Davis what teams benefit from the Rams not going to LA? Who benefits from the Rams leaving St Louis though? Quite a few teams potentially, by way of having a market they can expand into. Plus there's big names like Jones and Kraft who have publicly came out and supported a team in LA. It would seem that there's more evidence to suggest the owners would approve such a move. A bunch of articles that link back to a single rumor from an iffy source doesn't do much for me. The NFL has been flying back and fourth and talking to LA for years now by the way, so if they're doing it to St Louis, it doesn't mean much other than St Louis already has a team. They have made no attempt to hide their desire for a team in LA, and at this point the Rams are their best bet.

See, I hear differently about the other owners benefiting. I listen to the local radio over here everyday (mainly The Fast Lane with Randy Karraker and D'Marco Farr) and they have conversations with various guests and themselves about the other owners benefiting from a potential Rams move. I can't remember specifics, but I believe they stated how it wouldn't benefit the other owners financially and this isn't just coming from Farr and Karraker, but the guests as well. Then came the arguement that the move would only enrich Kroenke and, per the bylaws, a move can't be made just for financial gain. The point I'm trying to make overall is that there are a whole bunch of twists and turns that will occur before this thing comes to an end and there are a lot of things that will go on behind the scenes. Does Stan really want to move the team? Do some of the owners really not care for him or his tactics much? Do the Chargers really have the votes to block a move? Will the Stl stadium plan come to fruition? If Kroenke is blocked from moving, then what? With the way the NFL is being scrutinized now for recent issues, will they ensure that they follow their own bylaws or create yet another story by not? What about that cross ownership rule that Kroenke only has a few months to settle? There are far too many questions for any side of the coin to draw a conclusion.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
The owners and the commissioner and now Al is saying if LA builds a stadium a team will move into the stadium. The owner of the Rams is building a world class stadium and he owns a team. So ya...
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
See, I hear differently about the other owners benefiting. I listen to the local radio over here everyday (mainly The Fast Lane with Randy Karraker and D'Marco Farr) and they have conversations with various guests and themselves about the other owners benefiting from a potential Rams move. I can't remember specifics, but I believe they stated how it wouldn't benefit the other owners financially and this isn't just coming from Farr and Karraker, but the guests as well. Then came the arguement that the move would only enrich Kroenke and, per the bylaws, a move can't be made just for financial gain. The point I'm trying to make overall is that there are a whole bunch of twists and turns that will occur before this thing comes to an end and there are a lot of things that will go on behind the scenes. Does Stan really want to move the team? Do some of the owners really not care for him or his tactics much? Do the Chargers really have the votes to block a move? Will the Stl stadium plan come to fruition? If Kroenke is blocked from moving, then what? With the way the NFL is being scrutinized now for recent issues, will they ensure that they follow their own bylaws or create yet another story by not? What about that cross ownership rule that Kroenke only has a few months to settle? There are far too many questions for any side of the coin to draw a conclusion.

I take a lot of the local stuff with a grain of salt, because obviously they want to generate hits and if a team isn't coming to LA then it won't get nearly as many hits. I would imagine its the same thing with St Louis only about the team leaving. So naturally they're going to focus more on the team staying. That being said, I don't see how the league benefits from blocking a move to LA. The idea that they would block it based on leverage is a poor one. If they block a move to LA and it gets out that they want to use them as leverage, then everybody knows its just a leverage threat, and thus the leverage is gone. If they block a move and cite other reasons, they still can't use LA as leverage anymore. An owner would threaten the move and cities are likely to respond "you guys blocked a guy who was going to build a stadium and move his team there, you're telling us that they're going to change their minds because its you instead? Fat chance." A move block destroys the leverage that LA offers owners at this time.

Plus that assumes that there's no other cities that can be used as leverage. London, Toronto, San Antonio, etc, there are plenty of other options. So I don't pay attention to leverage talks. The fact that the NFL has been putting a lot of time and effort into an LA team recently, sending out surveys to local populations and such, tells me there interested in putting a team there, which is the owners who are interested. So why would they block a move? Because they believe so strongly in their intentionally vaguely written bylaws? Or because they just want to stick it to Stan personally? Neither of those sound very likely to me, especially not the last one. There might be some that dislike how Stan has done things, but these guys are businessmen, they are looking at a business proposition. Even if it may not see immediate gains, which it likely will, they are going to see someone going to accomplish a goal of theirs, so why stop it?

They could, you never know how these guys think, but I don't think they will. Now if there's an offer that frankly would be incredibly stupid of Stan to walk away from then yeah, a block may happen. Blocking for personal reasons, or just because they want to potentially avoid controversy? I don't see it. I can see the Chargers voting no because financially they gain from no team in LA, but I can also see Kansas City, Chicago, Indy, Tennessee all voting yes because they may benefit from the hole left if the Rams move.

Essentially I think it's a bad move to count on the NFL blocking a move unless there is a damn good offer on the table. This offer is a good start, or would have been two years ago, but there isn't a lot of time left. The LA stadium is estimated to be finished in 2018, meaning if the Rams leave, it is likely next year. The time for sitting around ended last year.
 

Dodgersrf

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2014
Messages
11,339
Name
Scott
I don't think he has majority votes for one main reason. (I'm talking votes as of this moment, not ones that he can or will get later.)

1. Once he goes into LA, the other 31 owners no longer have much leverage in any kind of negotiations. If I'm an owner with 10 years or less to go on my own lease, I'm reluctant to vote yes. The golden age of stadiums might be over and I didn't get mine yet reasoning.
I think it could possibly help other teams in negotiations.
If a stadium is already built, even if another team plays there, the threat of moving is more of a possibility.
Two teams in 1 stadium is a realistic claim.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,830
Name
Stu
I just don't buy that if Stan has a plan and approval from Inglewood AND is willing to pay for the whole thing that the NFL will block it because they want to leave it open for teams to use as leverage. It might be the only case I could see where Stan definitely sues. That is not how business is done and it would really be difficult to defend.
 

Prime Time

PT
Moderator
Joined
Feb 9, 2014
Messages
20,922
Name
Peter
From today's Jim Thomas chat:

http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_74?Page=0

You were 45-55 last week Rams stay in STL. Any changes.

Still there Clyde at 45-55.
----------
Jim has anyone reported on the loss tax revenue if the Ram's move, including state and local income tax paid by the team, players, coaches, etc. loss in sales and amusement tax on tickets, and taxes on parking and concessions? Thinking it might be very close to the $24 million a year coast-to-coast in the bonds.

Good point. I don't know if it adds up to $24 million a year. But you're talking about a $143 million payroll (that's the projected salary cap) in players alone in 2015. Throw in the coaching staff, trainers, scouts, personnel department, sales, marketing, PR, etc., and you're probably talking $200 million a year.
----------
Is the updated Jones Dome plan the Rams proposed a few years ago off the table?

Yes.
--------
Jim...if u were a member governing body would u subsidize a sports stadium with tax dollars?

Remember, you're asking this of someone who has covered the NFL for a quarter of a century. And loves the game. Yes.
--------
My mind is numb trying to figure out how Kroenke is playing his hand. He's not in compliance with cross ownership; he's appeared to butt in line ahead of Spanos and Davis for LA, and in the process, perhaps ticked off many other owners; and Goodell and the shield have been dented up the past 9 months with questions of integrity. How does Kroenke see himself as playing a wise hand - unless there actually is no integrity in this den of thieves?

He's going the Jerry Jones route. Doing what he wants and forcing the league's hand.
--------
Jim, are there any similarities in the previous escape by the Cardinals from St. Louis and the current potential move for the Ram? Obviously, the Cardinals didn't have the current stadium issue. Your thoughts?

Keep in mind, I wasn't covering the Big Red back then. Obviously, Bidwill wanted a new stadium. For a fraction of the cost that it takes these days. And the area leaders couldn't deliver. It was an ongoing scenario for several years, and then Bidwill was gone. Relocation was easier back then. The baseball Cardinals were very successful in the '80s, making 3 World Series in a six-season stretch. And yes, Bidwill wasn't the most popular owner around even before the "new stadium/move the team" stuff materialized.
--------
Jim....Happy New Year! Read another article in the LA Times talking about how St. Louis fans could care less if the Rams left STL. I know that Bernie and other have pointed out the bad rap we have gotten. However, wanted to know how we can go nationally and tell our story that we are big football fans and do care about our team. Thanks!

1.) Show up to the games. 2.) Leave a comment at the end of such stories if you disagree with them. Do the same via e-mail or Twitter if you hear a national pundit say something about St. Louis being a baseball town. 3.) Write, text, e-mail your state congressman/senator on the topic, Mayor Slay, the county executive, etc. The Keep the Rams in St. Louis group got fans so riled up, they must have sent 100 angry messages on Twitter to one state congressman from the area who stated he didn't care about the keeping the Rams in St. Louis.
--------
If Stan announces he's moving the team even if we have a viable stadium plan and ready to break ground, does STL have any legal recourse? Can we block them from moving using the courts?

Such things have never been successful in the past. The NFL owners could vote to block relocation, but would that stop Kroenke from going rogue and moving anyway?
--------
Jim, On the stadium issue. The NFL says St. Louis has to build it to keep the Rams. To build it, Peacock says St. Louis needs a commitment from the Rams. What happens next?

The NFL isn't demanding St. Louis to have the stadium built _ or under construction. What they do want is a stadium plan that included purchased land and financing in place. Neither of that has happened so far.
---------
Hey Mr. Thomas, I keep hearing fans and media saying “if the NFL follows its relocation rules, it will be difficult for the Rams to move anywhere”. What do you think? Do you feel the NFL would actually be willing to hold tight to its own policy?

I get the feeling if Kroenke can show he can legitimately solve the league’s Los Angeles conundrum, the majority of owners would be willing to swallow hard, figure a way to get their cut, and let him go. But, then again, perhaps my view of that group of billionaires is a bit heavy on the cynical side.


Well, that's the question. Right now, I don't think Kroenke has the votes.
---------
Jim - this might be a stupid questions but I know a lot of people do not want any tax dollars going for a new stadium. Is it because the owner is a billionaire and it is the principle of the thing or because it would take so much out out the taxpayers pocket that they would actually feel it? If it is the later, how much would each taxpayer be responsible for? $10 a month? $100 a month? My argument is that most people will not even realize the burden. We need this stadium if we want NFL football in St. Louis.

OK, the payment is $24 million a year from city, county, and state combined. There are 6 million people in this state. Let's assume half of them are working _ or 3 million. If my math is right, that comes out to $8 a year per person. Does that sound right?
--------
Why wouldnt the NFL question Kroenke on the fact he is willing to pay for a stadium in L.A., but not put up the money in St. Louis?

I would think it's come up.
---------
Being in New Jersey I really don't have a horse in the relocation race and I've heard all the whining from both sides. The Rams fans that are out here would like to hear more about the team and players. Please focus more toward this. I live in the shadow of the Eagles. I can tell you these people are delusional. I think the Rams are moving in the right direction.

Well, you can't just ignore what's going on in relocation. But our coverage hasn't changed in terms of writing on the team and the players. I just returned from the Senior Bowl, where I wrote several stories about prospects, particularly at the QB position. We'll be at the combine. The Super Bowl. The owners meetings. We'll have plenty of stuff on the draft and free agency in the weeks and months to come.
---------
If the new stadium gets approved, does Stan HAVE to stay here no matter what?

No. But he'll be under quite a bit of pressure from the rest of the league to stay if that's the case.
 

Pancake

Hall of Fame
Joined
Aug 1, 2010
Messages
2,204
Name
Ernie
I don't think he has majority votes for one main reason. (I'm talking votes as of this moment, not ones that he can or will get later.)

1. Once he goes into LA, the other 31 owners no longer have much leverage in any kind of negotiations. If I'm an owner with 10 years or less to go on my own lease, I'm reluctant to vote yes. The golden age of stadiums might be over and I didn't get mine yet reasoning.

Leverage as far as moving? I don't think it makes a difference to the hosting city where a team is threatening to move. It's the mere threat of moving which creates the leverage not the destination.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Leverage as far as moving? I don't think it makes a difference to the hosting city where a team is threatening to move. It's the mere threat of moving which creates the leverage not the destination.

Well a threat to move to Portland just doesn't have the same punch. LA is the only town left that's realistic.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Inside stl.com reporting Spanos and Goldman Sachs agree to build new stadium in LA. If this is for real....
 

Memphis Ram

Legend
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
7,352
Could a Competing Stadium Deal Keep the Rams in St. Louis?
Chuck Chapman

January 23, 2015

NFC West, St. Louis Rams
Perhaps St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is late to the Los Angeles NFL stadium party. Or so says one St. Louis media member who believes that the NFL already has a deal in place to bring another NFL team to Los Angeles.

Andy Strickland, appearing on KSDK’s Frank Cusumano’s radio show, said that he believes that San Diego Chargers’ owner Dean Spanos could already have deal in place to move the Chargers to LA. Citing an anonymous source within the St. Louis stadium effort, Strickland said,

“Spanos from the Chargers has a deal in place with Goldman-Sachs to build a new stadium and the NFL has asked him to hold off on announcing those plans.”

Strickland went on to add that the NFL might not be very happy with Kroenke’s announcement of his own stadium plans for Los Angeles.

Spanos has long been unhappy with his current situation in San Diego. Qualcomm stadium was built in 1967, and Spano, like Kroenke with St. Louis, is on a year-to-year lease with the city of San Diego. Many have speculated that he would block any potential move into the Southern California market, one the Chargers called home during their first year of existence in 1960.

Whether or not there’s any traction to the Spanos/Goldman-Sachs rumor, whoever has site on the LA market will likely have to deal with Dean Spanos before getting the NFL’s approval to move in.

http://www.endzonescore.com/competing-stadium-deal-keep-rams-st-louis/
 

TSFH Fan

Epic Music Guy
Joined
Dec 5, 2014
Messages
1,473
I'll throw in some wild speculation that the would-be Competing Stadium would be in Carson.
Chargers playing on top of a landfill? [insert own punchline]

http://www.sfvbj.com/news/2014/dec/05/nfl-scouts-carson-next-big-stadium/?page=1&

NFL Scouts Carson for Next Big Stadium

Friday, December 5, 2014

City of Industry, downtown Los Angeles, Inglewood – and now Carson?

Yes, yet another site is entering the L.A. region’s pro football stadium derby, and this time it’s a county park and golf course in Carson.

In recent weeks, executives with National Football League teams have been scouting the 172-acre Victoria Regional Park and golf course as a possible location for a stadium and related entertainment complex. The park is just east of the interchange of the 405 and 110 freeways, and right next to the landmark Goodyear blimp field.

Executives with two of the teams widely considered to be looking to move have approached a local developer who is in escrow to become a major partner in the company that operates the golf course. These executives made queries about the site.

"Yes, I have been approached by two separate groups with NFL contacts," said Jeffrey Klein, a Newport Beach developer. "And yes, there’s no question it’s an attractive place for a stadium."

Klein would not name the teams, but the San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams have all been mentioned as serious candidates to move to Los Angeles should negotiations for new or renovated stadiums in their home cities falter. The Buffalo Bills and Jacksonville Jaguars have also been mentioned as possible candidates.

Klein, whose family also operates the Malibu Country Club, is buying into the company that holds the lease on Victoria golf course. The lease with Los Angeles County, which owns the land, is good for another 23 years. A stadium developer would likely have to buy out that lease before proceeding – though it would also need approval and a new lease from the county.

Klein said the stadium cost figure being tossed around by the groups looking at the site is "in the neighborhood of $1.2 billion." And he said the talk is that it would host two NFL franchises.

As for ancillary development – likely including sports-themed entertainment and at least one hotel – he said that if a team commits to a stadium and if the approvals are secured, private investment would flow in.

He added that his main interest is in operating the golf course and that he is not directly involved in any attempts to develop a stadium. Rather, he said it’s been NFL teams approaching him.

Late entrant

As the golf course sits atop an old landfill, the site would have to be cleaned up before ground could be broken on a stadium. So it could be as much as five years before a stadium would be ready to host an NFL team. That puts the Carson park site years behind at least two of the sites contending for a stadium.

Developer Ed Roski’s plan for a stadium in the City of Industry has all the necessary approvals and is "shovel-ready" once an NFL team signs up.

Anschutz Entertainment Group also has most of its approvals from the city of Los Angeles for its Farmers Field stadium next to the Convention Center downtown. That site has so far failed to attract an NFL franchise, though a report last week on Beast 980, a local sports radio station, said AEG was in the process of hiring a public relations executive to handle an NFL franchise move to Los Angeles as early as February.

A third site is a 60-acre plot of land in Inglewood, right next to Hollywood Park, that was purchased earlier this year by Rams owner Stan Kroenke, though Kroenke has not put forward a stadium plan.

Dodger Stadium and the parking lots that surround it have also been mentioned as a potential football stadium site, though, as in Carson, there’s no group formally backing that plan.

Nonetheless, Victoria Park’s size and location near three major freeways has been enough to attract attention. This is the third stadium proposal for Carson in the last two decades, and all have been close to the 405-110 interchange.

"It’s hard to find sites like this in L.A. with so much room and that is so convenient to get to," said Roy Weinstein, managing director of Micronomics, an economic research and consulting firm in downtown Los Angeles that has analyzed stadium sites locally and around the nation.

The park is much larger than either the Inglewood or downtown sites, which would allow room for ample parking and tailgating. And it sits at the confluence of three freeways, the 405; 110; and 91, which is less than a mile north.

This central location would allow a stadium to be marketed in Los Angeles and Orange counties, as well as the Inland Empire. And, just as important, Weinstein, said, it’s close enough to L.A.’s Westside to attract the big-money clients to buy luxury suites.

Major hurdles


According to one NFL executive contacted by the Business Journal, one of the biggest drawbacks to the site is the cleanup that would be required. The executive – who was clearly familiar with the site and its previous history as a municipal landfill – said the state has yet to determine the extent of the pollution there, let alone approve a cleanup plan. The executive estimated it could take at least a year to get a cleanup plan approved and noted that
cleanups are often subject to delays.

But the biggest problem, Weinstein said, is likely to be the same that has plagued most of the region’s efforts over the past two decades to reel in an NFL franchise: the unwillingness to invest public money in a stadium.

"There’s not a lot of clamor from the public for a football team, and the moment that someone even mentions public money for the effort, it dies," he said. "But the league won’t consider a site unless the locals are willing to put in public dollars to finance a stadium. And so the stalemate drags on."


In the case of Victoria Park, the county Board of Supervisors would be the primary negotiating party, both for a lease deal and any subsidies.

The supervisor representing the park area is Mark Ridley-Thomas.

Reached last week, Ridley-Thomas said, "It’s an unusual consideration but if there is a proposal out there that is a higher and best use for this county land, then we will take a look at it."

But Ridley-Thomas added that there are strict regulations for the disposition of parkland or open space.

"So whoever has a proposal for any such transfer of use has to be prepared to go through these processes," he said.
Carson Mayor Jim Dear and City Manager Nelson Hernandez did not return calls seeking comment on the stadium proposal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.