New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

@WillasDad

My thoughts on the Audio

A lot of what Rogg's does say is speculation (and he does admit it for certain parts, particularly when he talks about forcing the Chargers/Rams to work out a deal)... I also remember hearing this part of the Audio before because he talked about the relationship between Spanos and Kroenke, possibly buying the land together, then Kroenke went and did it on his own. And with the way he describes these two - you'd think they're spurned lovers and there's some big angst between each other, as opposed to just to calculated businessmen in a race. The way he makes it sound, there's no way in hell these two want to work together.

I disagree with 11 acres part - 1) he's forgetting that the Raiders also co bought the land with Chargers, 2) ignoring the fact that the other 157 acres is secured through CSAG. 3) He argues that Spanos can sell those 11 acres back at a profit (which is the exact same thing Kroenke can do with Hollywood Park)

For those curious -

Relationship between Spanos/Kroenke (starts kind of getting into at 10 minute mark)
Votes vs each other (35:57 mark) ... However this is all speculation - numerous times he states "I think" or "I believe" , hardly anything he's reporting "in fact".. And the caller claiming that Kroenke "had the votes to move already" also cited he had heard it before the announcement or right around it - which would be before the Riverfront proposal and that definitely I think changes things (just like I think if they don't come through on the financing they're free to go)

Although I will say Roggin's seems to think that Kroenke moving is a done deal and seems pretty dismissive to St.Louis's building a stadium effort, while tearing down Fabiani and Spanos (Which makes me assume he thinks there's nothing wrong with San Diego's plan and believes it's viable, or doesn't believe the NFL truly cares about its relocation process despite its constant urging to the city's to make a deal).

Although it did make me chuckle when he talked about spanos upsetting the people in San diego (which only made me think of Kroenke and St.Louis)

I also question his "$200 million" that Kroenke has spent - 1) Is he including the price tag of hollywood park here? If so, point is moot imo. 2) On what? 3) That's the highest amount thrown around and yet hasn't been reported yet...so jurys out on it still to see if more information is thrown out about it, but as of right now I'm skeptical on that number (mainly because of the numbers reported by field of schemes/bizjournal).... Additionally, if it were true, I don't think an owner can make argument saying "Well I already spent this much!!". Well, you did it out of your own pocket without approval to move.. Spending money doesn't get you ahead of line privileges - this isn't 6 flags.

I really do at the end of the day think its about Inglewood vs Carson and which scenario offers the most long term stability but the most money long term - although this audio, which granted has a San Diego Point of view/spin to it (Just like an LA or STL one would), and makes it sound like its more about Spanos vs Kroenke, than Inglewood vs Carson.

 

[tonyl711]

No need to prove it. We've all seen it said and read that it's been said. He could provide you a video with 80 people saying that exact thing and it would be spun to mean anything but what was said.

when you state as fact that something was said it is on you to prove it, otherwise i could say i have seen articles that have Stan says LA is all a bluff, but i dont feel like taking the time to show you any of them, guess what? you wouldnt believe me, and untill i see proof of what was said i and others wont believe that. if you state something as fact be prepared to back it up.

 

[iced]

It HAS been reported that Kroenke has the votes to block Spanos. I heard it on Fred Roggin's radio show as well. He seems to be the most plugged in guy on this matter, at least in LA. I don't really know how dependable his source is, but really, it's not unreasonable to think he'd have the votes. We already know Jerry Jones has made comments that SK can move if he really wants to do so. What's to say Jones doesn't have his own bloc of owners who'll vote down Spanos to help out SK. Roggin's also reported that the reporters who've said that Spanos has the votes to block SK named Mark Fabiani is their source of this news. Food for thought....

And By the way, Rooney didn't agree with Jones either, whom is on the stadium committee

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/

“I think we’re comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn’t go through the process,” Rooney said. That process ultimately consists of 24 owner votes approving the move, which means that only nine owners can block relocation.

Rooney specifically went on the record with Farmer in order to further undo damage potentially done by Jerry’s Sunday comments to the New York Times — comments that were largely overlooked and ignored given the story lines emerging from the outcome of his team’s game against the Packers.

“I don’t agree with Jerry on that point,” Rooney told Farmer. “The majority view is that there’s a process the teams are going to have to go through, and I think everybody understands that in terms of the teams that may be interested, I expect that the process will be observed, and hopefully it will be an orderly process.”

I also don't give Jones much credibility either since he also still believes that he did nothing wrong with the salary dumping scandal, which clearly the rest of the owners felt he was in violation of....the older he gets the more he talks out of his ass

 

[tonyl711]

It has been in fact by multiple sources. It's been said that all 3 of the owners can block the others from a move. And it will stay that way until Goodell comes down with a plan to endorse and the 8 man committee votes.

all im asking is show these multiple sources, that shouldnt be hard if there are multiple, i have never seen anyone say that Stan said he had the votes to block anything.

 

[tonyl711]

I asked Jason Cole and this is his response.
http://prntscr.com/7j820w

thats not the same as saying Stan said he had the votes to block a move, i do appreciate that you gave a link though.

 

[The Ripper]

No one has the votes so all 3 owners can block the others. It's the same thing as what Fabiani said. He didn't say he had the owners committed just the votes to block and right now he doesn't have the votes or any of the owners commited to move. There are only 2 reporters that have said that directly not as a quote, Kevin Acee and Jason Cole both got it from Fabiani.

 

[RAGRam]

I heard that Carson is a done deal and that Stan has agreed in principle to contribute his share towards the new St Louis stadium.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSIcFZFIel4

 

[D L]

I heard that Carson is a done deal and that Stan has agreed in principle to contribute his share towards the new St Louis stadium.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSIcFZFIel4

That is awesome. Like me some Randy Orton. John Cena is still my favorite though.

 

[ChrisW]

I'm assuming that's what you meant, ChrisW.

No, I was actually referring to not getting far with the other posters in this thread. Nothing to do with threatening you at all. Will be clearer next time.

 

[blue4]

I think that after 200,000 conflicting articles, columns, and op-ed pieces posted on this thread that we can now officially ignore the media's take on this. It really makes no sense to even back up one's opinion with articles anymore because most seem to be bullshit guesswork. If one media guy says someone has spent x amount of dollars on something, and no other major news source is reporting it, let's just treat it as the bullshit it usually is. If LA news is reporting something major and the St Louis and national media don't seem to know much about it, I'm going to assume it's bullshit. Same with stories that only seem to have traction in just St Louis. It just seems prudent now. There's no way in modern media for something major, or even minor really, to actually happen for real without the national media not knowing about it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So you are saying the Rams are going to LA for what you are believe are excellent, realistic, reasons? I understand that.

Now don't get me wrong, there are excellent reasons for them moving to LA. I do believe they be more popular than than the Chargers or Raiders. For one thing the Rams have a very, very, exciting team currently. Much more exciting than the Chargers or Raiders. Their potentially great defense will be combined with a stout running game, deep balls, and gadget plays from guys like Tavon. Rams probably have one of the most exciting ST's units as well. I mean Hekker was a former QB and Tavon was a top PR last year. Gotta love it! And that's not looking to change next year. LA would love them!

But that does not mean it's the best option for the NFL. The Chargers would lose ground in LA and Oakland needs to get out of the Bay area. It's too close to SF of whom have a strong hold of it. Both the Chargers and Raiders would suffer, maybe even a lot, from a Rams move there. The cherry is they have joined forces in Carson. It simply makes the most sense and continues to grow.

Nope, I'm actually pretty split on the issue. 55-45 they leave. I'm also quite firmly in the "Carson is definitely a viable option" camp.

Line deleted I didn't talk about the Rams leaving, I didn't talk about the viability of Carson or Inglewood or anything like that.

You see the original question I was discussing was "Why would Spanos take Inglewood over Carson?" obviously Carson is a better deal for Spanos, he's the guy on 'top' in that deal, where in Inglewood that would be Carson. Makes no sense.

So then how does Spanos end up in Inglewood?

And then we see my post. He would end up in Inglewood if the NFL says that Inglewood is the stadium they're picking, which means that Carson is no longer going to happen. Which means his options are not Inglewood or Carson, it's Inglewood or San Diego, I.E. if he wants LA he has to pick Inglewood.

That doesn't say which stadium I think gets picked, or anything like that. It just says that if Inglewood is the stadium that they select, then Spanos' only option to get to LA is by playing in Inglewood.

And that's how Spanos ends up in Inglewood.

Line deleted

 

[Big Willie]

I understand the NFL has said no to expansion. If St Louis builds a stadium, does anyone think there is a scenario where St Louis keeps the team and rebrands the name, Stan sells to a local group but keeps the Rams name, the LA Rams return to the league upon the completion of a new stadium as an expansion team, while the Chargers and Raiders announce their move while leveraging the LA market until one of them gets their market to build them a stadium (or the Raiders ultimately move somewhere else like San Antonio, or location TBD)?
Why do I believe this is a possibility?
I find it hard to believe that a league that is so money driven would pass on the chance to get a billion dollars in new expansion fees from a "new" team in LA. I don't think they could get a billion from any other market that is currently without a team. The amount of the expansion fee would also raise the value of all other franchises, and would temporarily solve SK's cross market ownership issues. Also, that would give them time to negotiate a more lucrative TV deal for a few more billion dollars.

SK wins because he will sell his current franchise for more than he paid. He would also get a "new" franchise in LA that would be worth $2 billion or so. The NFL gets two new stadiums in CA and money from expansion fees, relocation fees, and an enhanced TV contract. Mo money, mo money, mo money.

If I were an NFL team owner, I wouldn't mind SK getting a windfall in LA as long as I also got a huge Vig. This scenario would do that.

 

[The Ripper]

I understand the NFL has said no to expansion. If St Louis builds a stadium, does anyone think there is a scenario where St Louis keeps the team and rebrands the name, Stan sells to a local group but keeps the Rams name, the LA Rams return to the league upon the completion of a new stadium as an expansion team, while the Chargers and Raiders announce their move while leveraging the LA market until one of them gets their market to build them a stadium (or the Raiders ultimately move somewhere else like San Antonio, or location TBD)?
Why do I believe this is a possibility?
I find it hard to believe that a league that is so money driven would pass on the chance to get a billion dollars in new expansion fees from a "new" team in LA. I don't think they could get a billion from any other market that is currently without a team. The amount of the expansion fee would also raise the value of all other franchises, and would temporarily solve SK's cross market ownership issues. Also, that would give them time to negotiate a more lucrative TV deal for a few more billion dollars.

SK wins because he will sell his current franchise for more than he paid. He would also get a "new" franchise in LA that would be worth $2 billion or so. The NFL gets two new stadiums in CA and money from expansion fees, relocation fees, and an enhanced TV contract. Mo money, mo money, mo money.

If I were an NFL team owner, I wouldn't mind SK getting a windfall in LA as long as I also got a huge Vig. This scenario would do that.

I can see expansion but they want LA now so the current team would go from whatever market loses the team. I can see IF the Rams leave St Louis that the NFL awards the city an expansion team that begins play the year that the Riverfront Stadium opens. The league wants a team in St Louis and the only way to accomplish that is with an owner or a group that's committed to the market.

The prevailing thought is that expansion will wait till the tv contract expires but the for the last few expansion teams they had to waive the tv revenues till the next contract.The TV contracts adjust based upon the markets. It's not automatic but either the league or the network needs to make the case for a material change in the contract, that's not saying it will but could.

The NFL may do expansion in LA as a 2nd team. The one common statement for the last 20 years is that when the NFL returns to LA they wan't to get it right.

The San Antonio point is valid. Austin and San Antonio will be the next metroplex in Texas. It currently has a combined population of over 4 million. The 2 cities are slowly merging together and if the planned light rail comes together it would be a perfect market for the NFL. The Alamo Dome is descent option till a new stadium is built.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I understand the NFL has said no to expansion. If St Louis builds a stadium, does anyone think there is a scenario where St Louis keeps the team and rebrands the name, Stan sells to a local group but keeps the Rams name, the LA Rams return to the league upon the completion of a new stadium as an expansion team, while the Chargers and Raiders announce their move while leveraging the LA market until one of them gets their market to build them a stadium (or the Raiders ultimately move somewhere else like San Antonio, or location TBD)?
Why do I believe this is a possibility?
I find it hard to believe that a league that is so money driven would pass on the chance to get a billion dollars in new expansion fees from a "new" team in LA. I don't think they could get a billion from any other market that is currently without a team. The amount of the expansion fee would also raise the value of all other franchises, and would temporarily solve SK's cross market ownership issues. Also, that would give them time to negotiate a more lucrative TV deal for a few more billion dollars.

SK wins because he will sell his current franchise for more than he paid. He would also get a "new" franchise in LA that would be worth $2 billion or so. The NFL gets two new stadiums in CA and money from expansion fees, relocation fees, and an enhanced TV contract. Mo money, mo money, mo money.

If I were an NFL team owner, I wouldn't mind SK getting a windfall in LA as long as I also got a huge Vig. This scenario would do that.

I think it'd be a hard sell, because I don't know if Stan wants to start from scratch with a team. Maybe if it was the only way to get to LA, but it's a pretty unlikely scenario in my opinion.

I also don't know if it's possible for local owners to buy the team and have Peacock in charge, but as far as I could tell he doesn't have the cash to buy the necessary percentage of team ownership to do that, and there's a limit of the amount of ownership to make sure he can have the needed percentage to by the guy in charge.

 

[Big Willie]

I can see expansion but they want LA now so the current team would go from whatever market loses the team. I can see IF the Rams leave St Louis that the NFL awards the city an expansion team that begins play the year that the Riverfront Stadium opens. The league wants a team in St Louis and the only way to accomplish that is with an owner or a group that's committed to the market.

The NFL may do expansion in LA as a 2nd team. The one common statement for the last 20 years is that when the NFL returns to LA they wan't to get it.

Clarification. I am saying the Chargers would move to LA, but the Raiders wouldstate their intention to move while giving their current city a glimmer of hope that they could change their minds if a stadium is approved and funded within a one year window.

St Louis would keep the current team under a different name, say the Stallions. The new LA Rams would be the the second team in LA, with the Chargers, and the Raiders would most likely move.

This may be far fetched, but could be a windfall in money to the NFL.

 

[den-the-coach]

I think that after 200,000 conflicting articles, columns, and op-ed pieces posted on this thread that we can now officially ignore the media's take on this. It really makes no sense to even back up one's opinion with articles anymore because most seem to be bullcrap guesswork. If one media guy says someone has spent x amount of dollars on something, and no other major news source is reporting it, let's just treat it as the bullcrap it usually is. If LA news is reporting something major and the St Louis and national media don't seem to know much about it, I'm going to assume it's bullcrap. Same with stories that only seem to have traction in just St Louis. It just seems prudent now. There's no way in modern media for something major, or even minor really, to actually happen for real without the national media not knowing about it.

Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.”

― Edgar Allan Poe

 

[The Ripper]

Clarification. I am saying the Chargers would move to LA, but the Raiders wouldstate their intention to move while giving their current city a glimmer of hope that they could change their minds if a stadium is approved and funded within a one year window.

St Louis would keep the current team under a different name, say the Stallions. The new LA Rams would be the the second team in LA, with the Chargers, and the Raiders would most likely move.

This may be far fetched, but could be a windfall in money to the NFL.

Far fetched is right. If Kroenke was younger it actually might be a real possibility but now it's a long shot.

 

[den-the-coach]

Clarification. I am saying the Chargers would move to LA, but the Raiders wouldstate their intention to move while giving their current city a glimmer of hope that they could change their minds if a stadium is approved and funded within a one year window.

St Louis would keep the current team under a different name, say the Stallions. The new LA Rams would be the the second team in LA, with the Chargers, and the Raiders would most likely move.

This may be far fetched, but could be a windfall in money to the NFL.

 

[The Ripper]

I think it'd be a hard sell, because I don't know if Stan wants to start from scratch with a team. Maybe if it was the only way to get to LA, but it's a pretty unlikely scenario in my opinion.

I also don't know if it's possible for local owners to buy the team and have Peacock in charge, but as far as I could tell he doesn't have the cash to buy the necessary percentage of team ownership to do that, and there's a limit of the amount of ownership to make sure he can have the needed percentage to by the guy in charge.

There's away around the 30% majority owner requirement, he could be listed as an owners representative. There are a few teams right now Denver, Tennessee and Detroit. We also experienced it when Georgia was the owner with Shaw.

 

[Big Willie]

I think it'd be a hard sell, because I don't know if Stan wants to start from scratch with a team. Maybe if it was the only way to get to LA, but it's a pretty unlikely scenario in my opinion.

I also don't know if it's possible for local owners to buy the team and have Peacock in charge, but as far as I could tell he doesn't have the cash to buy the necessary percentage of team ownership to do that, and there's a limit of the amount of ownership to make sure he can have the needed percentage to by the guy in charge.

It's probably unlikely, but SK would delegate the building of the team from scratch and most likely wouldn't do much but "sign the checks". He does not appear to be a hand's on owner.

I was not suggesting Peacock would be in charge, maybe the team is owned by the Enterprise Rental CEO.