New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

what i have posted is that they gave their thoughts into their stadium - not that they rejected Kroenke's requirements for a stadium, nor has he ever made it known..he's never said what he likes or dislikes about the riverfront - if anything, the only perception is that he's never cared for anything in St.Louis.

Hard to imagine/assume he couldn't sit down with the task force and build an awesome stadium as he see's fit; especially if he's willing to spend damn near 2 billion in a different market.

The plan from the task force should have incorporated what was in the Rams Proposal for arbitration. That should have been the starting point for negotiations not a stadium that couldn't host a Super Bowl. He doesn't have to say what he doesn't like because he already said what he wants.

 

[dbrooks25]

Did Randy say if that somebody was actually a somebody and not just a ball boy or something? "Somebody" told that chick in LA that the Rams were announcing they were moving in August too...

If it wasn't someone of significance, Randy would have definitely said that. I listen to him everyday, and he's pretty straight up when it comes to his sources.

 

[The Ripper]

I disagree - you have to find a buyer that would be interested, at that particular price, for that site..but more importantly they don't have one listed - their speculation that they could get someone to do it is no different the NFL than Peacock/Nixon believing they will get their bond extensions..Yea they believe it could - but until that money is actually there and present, the NFL isn't going to rely on it - especially since I doubt the owners are going to ask Spanos to "wait and see" while the future of LA is in the balance

A site adjacent to a stadium will sell because of the potential revenues that can be generated.

 

[ChrisW]

Did Randy say if that somebody was actually a somebody and not just a ball boy or something? "Somebody" told that chick in LA that the Rams were announcing they were moving in August too...

Randy isn't a blowhard like Jeanne Zelasko is. Makes me believe him a little more.

 

[dbrooks25]

The plan from the task force should have incorporated what was in the Rams Proposal for arbitration. That should have been the starting point for negotiations not a stadium that couldn't host a Super Bow. He doesn't have to say what he doesn't like because he already said what he wants.

I disagree with this. From all of the articles and Peacock quotes, they can not even meet with SK, so why just simply go off of the Rams arb proposal? Didn't Demoff say in his most recent interviews that the Rams have had input in the Riverfront Stadium?

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/San-Diego-Chargers-City-Negotiations-305895891.html





agreed - i can't recall the numbers, nor do I want to speculate at this point either and put false info...

Put up the @LesBaker bat symbol!

Well ok then. Spanos was in the house.

 

[dbrooks25]

Randy isn't a blowhard like Jeanne Zelasko is. Makes me believe him a little more.

Nope he isn't. From listening to him often, he seems to be a straight shooter who doesn't think with his heart either. At the very beginning of the year before the Riverfront and Carson proposals were made public, Randy made it clear that he thought the Rams were gone. He often made small jokes about it, actually.

 

[The Ripper]

Randy isn't a blowhard like Jeanne Zelasko is. Makes me believe him a little more.

I used to think that before his article last week and talking about how there were no formal relocation guidelines when the Rams moved. He had the guidelines that existed which are almost the same as the current ones and still he wrote this which he knew was false.

"2) The NFL’s relocation guidelines have changed. There’s a belief that this race to Los Angeles between the Rams, Raiders, and Chargers can be compared to the franchise free agency of the 1990’s, but there is no comparison. The only real guidelines in place back then were to go to the league and tell them you were moving."

 

[The Ripper]

I disagree with this. From all of the articles and Peacock quotes, they can not even meet with SK, so why just simply go off of the Rams arb proposal? Didn't Demoff say in his most recent interviews that the Rams have had input in the Riverfront Stadium?

Because he won in arbitration

 

[RamFan503]

Randy isn't a blowhard like Jeanne Zelasko is. Makes me believe him a little more.

I would only say that as of late Randy seems to be the definition of a blow hard. A year ago I would agree. The problem is that all he said was "someone in the league". Gee Randy, could you get any more vague? If it was someone within the league offices, don't you think he would have said? Randy has not hesitated to try to throw crap at the walls lately. I can't help but suspect he is doing it again. Hopefully he will get a wee bit more specific and give at least a little credibility to his claim.

 

[iced]

A site adjacent to a stadium will sell because of the potential revenues that can be generated.

Not questioning if it will sell - more so if at that price, and if not, where does that difference in revenue come from?

Again, financing needs to be secured...Every dollar needs to be lined up - if there is one thing that needs to be taken away from this process, its that land and financing needs to be secured, not hypotheticals

The NFL has proven they are not going to wait on this process. If the construction can't start when the NFL says go, they won't entertain it - especially if they believe lawsuits will delay it.

 

[The Ripper]

Not questioning if it will sell - more so if at that price, and if not, where does that revenue come from?

Again, financing needs to be secured...Every dollar needs to be lined up - if there is one thing that needs to be taken from this process, land and financing needs to be secured, not hypotheticals

Revenue comes from developing the site just like any commercial property.

Securing the land is a little easier since it doesn't have to be purchased from individual land owners. Their financing is a lot easier than extending bonds on property and using it for another. The rest of the financing in St Louis isn't in question except maybe the city donating land.

[QUOTE="iced, post: 579287, member: 566"

The NFL has proven they are not going to wait on this process. If the construction can't start when the NFL says go, they won't entertain it - especially if they believe lawsuits will delay it.[/QUOTE]

Then I guess Carson is out.

 

[RamFan503]

Just a thought as far as Randy goes - that tweet was from someone who said Randy said it. Does anyone have anything from the horses mouth? Maybe what he actually said has more details?

 

[iced]

Revenue comes from developing the site just like any commercial property.

Securing the land is a little easier since it doesn't have to be purchased from individual land owners. Their financing is a lot easier than extending bonds on property and using it for another. The rest of the financing in St Louis isn't in question except maybe the city donating land.

If it was so easy I'd imagine they'd have buyer - but I think you're missing the point. SD's proposal is full of contingencies; St.Louis is only contingent on the court's ruling.. SD is not

 

[ChrisW]

I would only say that as of late Randy seems to be the definition of a blow hard. A year ago I would agree. The problem is that all he said was "someone in the league". Gee Randy, could you get any more vague? If it was someone within the league offices, don't you think he would have said? Randy has not hesitated to try to throw crap at the walls lately. I can't help but suspect he is doing it again. Hopefully he will get a wee bit more specific and give at least a little credibility to his claim.

He could be throwing crap at the wall. But, I'm comparing him to Jeanne Zelasko here, and she's said some blatant things in tweets. Specifically mentioning that the Rams would be there in 2016 and stuff like that.

 

[ChrisW]

Just a thought as far as Randy goes - that tweet was from someone who said Randy said it. Does anyone have anything from the horses mouth? Maybe what he actually said has more details?

He might get a chance to talk about it tomorrow on the radio. If I get a chance to listen to the fast lane tomorrow I will.

 

[RamFan503]

The NFL has proven they are not going to wait on this process. If the construction can't start when the NFL says go, they won't entertain it - especially if they believe lawsuits will delay it.

Then I guess Carson is out.

Sorry Iced but Ripper beat me to this one. We already know Carson can't start right away and will take longer than either St Louis or Inglewood. We frankly don't even know how long it may be delayed and I can't find anything that would convince me that the SD property would honestly take longer and entail more lawsuits than a toxic waste dump.

 

[RamFan503]

If it was so easy I'd imagine they'd have buyer - but I think you're missing the point. SD's proposal is full of contingencies; St.Louis is only contingent on the court's ruling.. SD is not

There are actually two cases plus a countersuit that need to be ruled on at this point. Do you know that the Native Lands issue won't rear it's head after all? They've hinted at it if the project goes forward. Do we know yet that the Army Corp of Engineers et al will approve the elevation of the planned Riverfront stadium? I remember some questions on that as it pertains to a seawall and the 100/500 year flood levels. Have they figured out if they can actually force the sale of some of the properties through eminent domain? I believe even Peacock said they haven't ironed out that detail.

I put almost zero stock in Fabiani warning of possible lawsuits. I would suggest that his real motivation is that the project still calls for more money than Spanos wants to kick in and he is still pushing that angle as he always has.

See the thing is that I firmly believe that if Spanos owned the Rams, Fabiani would be carping about these things constantly. But that is not Stan's MO. I personally am glad it's not no matter what the outcome.

 

[RamFan503]

He could be throwing crap at the wall. But, I'm comparing him to Jeanne Zelasko here, and she's said some blatant things in tweets. Specifically mentioning that the Rams would be there in 2016 and stuff like that.

Yeah - I have no idea who Zelasko is and don't even consider her when thinking about Randy's alleged comment. I realize someone brought her up but I don't think it was in trying to use her as some sort of authority - just how people in the media throw shit out there at times trying to get clicks or followers.

 

[RamFan503]

He might get a chance to talk about it tomorrow on the radio. If I get a chance to listen to the fast lane tomorrow I will.

Let us know. I have to believe that he must have more than "someone in the league". Maybe it is actually a teaser for his show tomorrow and he is going to get more specific then.