New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Can and will house are 2 completely issues - and i think you can forget Spanos working with Kroenke, especially if you put stock in Roggin's opinion. Davis is the only wild card, but we see he has an inclination to work with Spanos. Just depends on if Kroenke can lure him away from Spanos.

And I don't agree that Inglewood with 2 teams makes more money than Carson - I believe they're about the same because the TV deals are going to be the same regardless of the stadium. It's the right to air the games.

Independent economic reports, which I've posted several times say that Inglewood makes more than Carson. Inglewood with one team makes more than Carson with one team, and Inglewood with one team barely makes less than Carson with two teams. Inglewood with two teams makes more than Carson with two teams. It's not just about the TV deals either, it's about everything. In fact Carson's profitability relies on the cities ability to find a new place for housing which gives them federal dollars that they lose by electing to build a stadium instead. The Carson mayor insists that finding a spot, acquiring and then selling the land to a buyer, and getting those housing units built wont be an issue. Which is interesting, because it's pretty similar to what apparently makes San Diego not viable. It's not something they can just ignore either, there are already people looking into it and threatening lawsuits if the city doesn't find a way to keep those federal dollars, so they have to find a replacement.

And I know that you don't think that Inglewood will house two teams, which is odd because essentially every reporter covering the stadiums have said that it will house two teams. Roggin says he believes that the Chargers and Rams will end up in Inglewood, so I don't know why you'd say he doesn't think it'll happen.

 

[The Ripper]

Can and will house are 2 completely issues - and i think you can forget Spanos working with Kroenke, especially if you put stock in Roggin's opinion. Davis is the only wild card, but we see he has an inclination to work with Spanos. Just depends on if Kroenke can lure him away from Spanos.

Not just Roggin opinion, Fabiani said it on his show. You can also listen to the Loose Cannons XTRA 1360, Fabiani was on yesterday.
http://www.1360sports.com/onair/loose-cannons-steve-mike-54926/

And I don't agree that Inglewood with 2 teams makes more money than Carson - I believe they're about the same because the TV deals are going to be the same regardless of the stadium. It's the right to air the games.

Go watch the City Council meetings in Inglewood and Carson when they passed the vote to avoid the elections. They both had independent financial reports.

The tv deals are the same for all teams so what separates the teams is the local revenues. The other factor is Goldman and it's investors get paid first so they're the ones that will make the money till the financing is paid back.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Here's the dirty little secret the Carson stadium people are trying to hide. The site is far from being "shovel ready" as they would have everyone believe. The Cailf. State Board of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency will not give their approval for construction until a number of problems with the site are taken care of.

The proposed site, 157 acres, is a former landfill that operated for over 50 years, from the early 30's to 1982. The refuse is 40 -60 feet thick is some places, garbage that is rotting and liquefying. The site was also the depository of industrial waste. Montrose Chemical Corp. was on the property just west of the landfill, where they dumped their toxic waste. Montrose made DDT and BCB's for transformers on power poles. On the other side of the landfill to the east was a Shell Oil refinery. They also used the landfill for their industrial waste. Added to that are tens of thousands of 55 gallon drums of toxic industrial waste from all over S. Cal. that ended in the landfill.

The current problems now are there are cracks with methane gas leaking up to the surface. Also the 55 gallon drums are rusting and corroding and are oozing to the surface in at least 5 different places. Pump trucks regularly come in and pump up the pools, the drivers have to wear resperators while they work.

The EPA has mandated that wells be sunk with vent pumps for the menthane. They have been installing them for over a year, but new cracks and more methane leaks are occurring.

Another issue is "liquefaction". That is when there is an earthquake, buildings built on ground that has liquid underneath (in this case, 40 feet deep rotting garbage), acts like wet sand and the building will sink into it. Cassions or pilings must be driven in to the bedrock every so many feet apart to anchor a foundation. However the EPA's concerned that these pilings may make matters worse, by relseasing and breaking up more of the 55 gallon drums.

Clearly the Carson site has substantial issues. I think they can be overcome, but it will take time and a lot of money. This site has had several projects proposed, a Mll, a theatre complex, a Wal-Mart, and even the NFL spent 3 mil in1999 looking at the site while LA was considered for expansion. Houston got that.

My whole point being that Pro Carson people know this, know it will be years before the site can shovel ready but are playing like it is.

How do I know all this? I have lived four blocks from the site for 62 years. I worked at the landfill during the summer when I was in high school. I saw what went in there.

 

[RamFan503]

Of course, it's my opinion. Top tier status could be a part of the approval criteria, but to say that Peacock and Co. should have gone off of Kroenke's proposal during arbitration is off, imo. That was my original point.

Yeah - I don't know that there is much to go on from a totally different venue. I would say though that ability to host SBs was one of the criteria mentioned by the arbitration panel so that may indeed come into play. The other measurements included in the arbitration decision could also be considered benchmarks. I do think the proposal from Kroenke gives the Peacock team a good idea of what Stan wants though.

 

[OldSchool]

@bubbaramfan
Thanks for the up close and personal info. Greatly appreciate the hands on knowledge of the site and the issues it poses and clarifying what some of us have been saying since it was announced as a possible NFL stadium site.

 

[RamFan503]

if they plan on being there for 20+ years and the revenue with Carson is that much more over inglewood (2 teams over 1), it'll be worth it over time.

Just not the way I picture them wanting to kick off the LA market. But maybe that's just me.

 

[OldSchool]

Yeah - I don't know that there is much to go on from a totally different venue. I would say though that ability to host SBs was one of the criteria mentioned by the arbitration panel so that may indeed come into play. The other measurements included in the arbitration decision could also be considered benchmarks. I do think the proposal from Kroenke gives the Peacock team a good idea of what Stan wants though.

I mentioned on another board, and this is just my personal opinion. But anything that the Rams asked for in the EJD arbitration should probably be included in the new Riverfront Stadium. Just my opinion but it makes too much sense, if Stan wanted it once he's likely to want it again.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I mentioned on another board, and this is just my personal opinion. But anything that the Rams asked for in the EJD arbitration should probably be included in the new Riverfront Stadium. Just my opinion but it makes too much sense, if Stan wanted it once he's likely to want it again.

Then they'd better slap a roof on that baby!

 

[OldSchool]

Then they'd better slap a roof on that baby!

Nope, did you ever read their proposal for the EJD? It's been posted here before.

 

[RamFan503]

You're not going to avoid a temporary venue no matter what - Rams still have to play somewhere while Inglewood is built, and that itself is going to take time.

No - but with the Carson plan you have two temporary venues while it is being built. Unless you know of a temporary venue with facilities for two home teams and a visiting team. Do you really think they want two teams playing in the Coliseum and Rosebowl while they wait for Carson? I just don't see it.

 

[Loyal]

Here's the dirty little secret the Carson stadium people are trying to hide. The site is far from being "shovel ready" as they would have everyone believe. The Cailf. State Board of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency will not give their approval for construction until a number of problems with the site are taken care of.

The proposed site, 157 acres, is a former landfill that operated for over 50 years, from the early 30's to 1982. The refuse is 40 -60 feet thick is some places, garbage that is rotting and liquefying. The site was also the depository of industrial waste. Montrose Chemical Corp. was on the property just west of the landfill, where they dumped their toxic waste. Montrose made DDT and BCB's for transformers on power poles. On the other side of the landfill to the east was a Shell Oil refinery. They also used the landfill for their industrial waste. Added to that are tens of thousands of 55 gallon drums of toxic industrial waste from all over S. Cal. that ended in the landfill.

The current problems now are there are cracks with methane gas leaking up to the surface. Also the 55 gallon drums are rusting and corroding and are oozing to the surface in at least 5 different places. Pump trucks regularly come in and pump up the pools, the drivers have to wear resperators while they work.

The EPA has mandated that wells be sunk with vent pumps for the menthane. They have been installing them for over a year, but new cracks and more methane leaks are occurring.

Another issue is "liquefaction". That is when there is an earthquake, buildings built on ground that has liquid underneath (in this case, 40 feet deep rotting garbage), acts like wet sand and the building will sink into it. Cassions or pilings must be driven in to the bedrock every so many feet apart to anchor a foundation. However the EPA's concerned that these pilings may make matters worse, by relseasing and breaking up more of the 55 gallon drums.

Clearly the Carson site has substantial issues. I think they can be overcome, but it will take time and a lot of money. This site has had several projects proposed, a Mll, a theatre complex, a Wal-Mart, and even the NFL spent 3 mil in1999 looking at the site while LA was considered for expansion. Houston got that.

My whole point being that Pro Carson people know this, know it will be years before the site can shovel ready but are playing like it is.

How do I know all this? I have lived four blocks from the site for 62 years. I worked at the landfill during the summer when I was in high school. I saw what went in there.

Bro, I knew it was bad but not that bad...WHY would a stadium even be considered there? I would never attend a game there..eat ANYTHING there. I knew about the methane wells having to be dug and that it would be 6-12 months before even one shovel could break ground...Carson is a pipedream, imo

 

[Rmfnlt]

Nope, did you ever read their proposal for the EJD? It's been posted here before.

???

The Ed already had a roof... and if the same conditions need to be incorporated into the new stadium (what I thought you wrote), a roof needs to go on top, no?

 

[OldSchool]

???

The Ed already had a roof... and if the same conditions need to be incorporated into the new stadium (what I thought you wrote), a roof needs to go on top, no?

http://nextstl.com/2013/02/arbitration-panel-has-ruled-in-favor-of-ram-s-stadium-proposal/

They wanted a retractable roof on the EJD.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Bro, I knew it was bad but not that bad...WHY would a stadium even be considered there? I would never attend a game there..eat ANYTHING there. I knew about the methane wells having to be dug and that it would be 6-12 months before even one shovel could break ground...Carson is a pipedream, imo

It's been theorized that the whole Carson thing was for leverage... based on what Bubba has said (and I believe him), that appears to have been the case all along.

It won't be long before that leverage disappears...

Then it's St. Louis and Inglewood... and all the permutations those two locations can conjure up.

 

[Rmfnlt]

http://nextstl.com/2013/02/arbitration-panel-has-ruled-in-favor-of-ram-s-stadium-proposal/

They wanted a retractable roof on the EJD.

OK, so they'd need a retractabble on Riverfront?

 

[OldSchool]

OK, so they'd need a retractabble on Riverfront?

If the St Louis people thought to incorporate his ideas for the EJD into the new stadium there. Then again Inglewood started initially as open air then went to retractable and seems to have settled on a dome right now. Though that could change in Inglewood.

 

[iced]

Theoretically, either way the net money earned by the NFL will be evaluated with all three teams no matter where they end up. Also judging by my ventures into Charger forums/websites if they move to LA they stand to lose a large chunk of their fan base.

True - and that's good point to bring up because one thing that is never mentioned about inglewood is losing the St.Louis market. Gotta subtract that when comparing to carson if we're doing those scenarios

 

[iced]

Not just Roggin opinion, Fabiani said it on his show. You can also listen to the Loose Cannons XTRA 1360, Fabiani was on yesterday.
http://www.1360sports.com/onair/loose-cannons-steve-mike-54926/

I thought Fabiani's opinion didn't carry any weight around here?

The tv deals are the same for all teams so what separates the teams is the local revenues. The other factor is Goldman and it's investors get paid first so they're the ones that will make the money till the financing is paid back.

Their money isn't coming from the national TV share splits - local revenue could be a different story, depending on how they have it set up to be paid back over time.

 

[OldSchool]

True - and that's good point to bring up because one thing that is never mentioned about inglewood is losing the St.Louis market. Gotta subtract that when comparing to carson if we're doing those scenarios

And when you count Inglewood x2 you have to count Oakland or San Diego too, or potentially Oakland AND San Diego. That was my point you were comparing 2 teams in carson vs 1 team in Inglewood. Regardless of where they end up the calculation isn't 2 vs 1 it's 3 vs 3.

 

[iced]

And I know that you don't think that Inglewood will house two teams, which is odd because essentially every reporter covering the stadiums have said that it will house two teams. Roggin says he believes that the Chargers and Rams will end up in Inglewood, so I don't know why you'd say he doesn't think it'll happen.

he also believes they don't want to work together and the NFL will have to lock them in a room and tell them to work it out

Roggin's opinion carries just as much as weight as Bernie's - zilch.