Is the NFL quietly applauding Kroenke’s LA plan? NFL Network Analyst Albert Breer on The Fast Lane with Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr.
Listen to Breer Talk LA Stadium
Listen to Breer Talk LA Stadium
I listened to this about an hour ago while driving. Breer pretty much echoed what was stated in the article. I expect a lot more of this kind of stuff to come out in the next year (both on the Stl and LA side). This is going to be quite the ride.Is the NFL quietly applauding Kroenke’s LA plan? NFL Network Analyst Albert Breer on The Fast Lane with Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr.
Listen to Breer Talk LA Stadium
This is probably the most interesting part of that article, if the league office was quietly happy about the announcement, that's pretty telling.
This plan isn't any different than the last couple tho0ugh, so it isn't really some "powerful plan", it's the same thing in a different location.
Now the NFL may be happy because they may get a team in LA, but the questuion remains......is SK willing to spend the money to move, the NFL won't hand him the market. The last market fee was 700 mil, Houston in I think 2000. LA in 2016 could cost double but will certainly get a billion.
This plan isn't any different than the last couple tho0ugh, so it isn't really some "powerful plan", it's the same thing in a different location.
in your opinionThere is no stopping it, the time has come.
The only thing I would caution is that 20,000 signatures is not all that huge of a cushion. I have been involved in several initiative petitions and depending on who gathered the signatures, what kind of vetting they did in house to eliminate obvious fraudulent signatures, how tight of an eye the certifying body takes in reviewing the signatures, etc. you can count on a minimum of 20% of the signatures to be thrown out and even as high as 60% if the collecting outfit is like some we have seen.http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...-20k-signatures-20150126-story.html?track=rss
Inglewood stadium plan garners 20,000 signatures
![]()
The plan to put a pro football stadium in Inglewood took its first big step forward Monday when organizers submitted more than 20,000 signatures for an initiative petition.
That’s more than twice as many as needed to put a measure on the ballot that would rezone Hollywood Park to include the stadium. The measure could be up for a vote by mid-year.
The signatures, delivered in more than 40 boxes to Inglewood City Hall on Monday morning, were collected in just the three weeks since St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and Hollywood Park developers Stockbridge Capital and Wilson Meany unveiled their stadium plans. A group the stadium team has funded -- Citizens for Revitalizing the City of Champions -- has held town hall meetings and hit civic events across the city of 110,000 to collect signatures.
“This outpouring of support from Inglewood residents is overwhelming and unprecedented, especially when you consider the signature-gathering effort began less than three weeks ago,” said Gerard McCallum, a community liaison with Hollywood Park Land Co.
“The people of Inglewood are sending a clear and powerful message that this project is vital for our city’s future,” he said.
The measure would update the redevelopment plan for the 238-acre site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack to add 60 acres, an 80,000-seat NFL-caliber football stadium, a performing arts center and additional office and retail space. Hollywood Park and Inglewood officials say no public money will be spent upfront on the project -- though $60 million for roads and sewers will be reimbursed from tax proceeds eventually -- and they promise thousands of new jobs on the site.
To qualify for the ballot, a local initiative needs valid signatures from at least 15% of registered voters -- 8,400 in Inglewood’s case, according to the petition’s backers. County election officials now have 30 days to verify the signatures; if enough qualify, the initiative will go to Inglewood’s City Council. A special election could take place by summer.
By running the changes through an initiative, instead of through the city’s traditional planning process, developers would avoid the need for time-consuming, costly and potentially legally-risky environmental review. And if the stadium hopes to lure an NFL tenant -- be it Kroenke’s Rams or some other team -- time is of the essence.
While the NFL has said no teams will move in the off-season that begins after Sunday’s Super Bowl, the window for teams to request relocation after next season is now less than a year away. Having a stadium under construction would bolster any L.A. bid. Hollywood Park officials have said they aim to start work on Inglewood stadium in December, with or without a team on board.
Not sure how you get that. This plan by all accounts differs greatly in that mainly it seeks no public financing or public land. It also is a multi-use destination type development. If - and I still consider this a big if - Stan decides this is his best avenue, I think the NFL would jump at it and persuade even Spanos to go along with it. Hell - Spanos could no doubt use it as leverage saying he would move the Chargers in as the other team.
As far as the fee. What was the last fee charged for a team moving to a different market? Not an expansion fee but a fee similar to what Davis apparently didn't pay on either of his moves?
The only thing I would caution is that 20,000 signatures is not all that huge of a cushion. I have been involved in several initiative petitions and depending on who gathered the signatures, what kind of vetting they did in house to eliminate obvious fraudulent signatures, how tight of an eye the certifying body takes in reviewing the signatures, etc. you can count on a minimum of 20% of the signatures to be thrown out and even as high as 60% if the collecting outfit is like some we have seen.
When we used to get signatures in, we would take them and look them over. It was always difficult to know for sure so you always left questionable signatures. The thing was, we were a C4 so we felt an obligation to eliminate obviously fraudulent sigs before we paid for them with contributed funds. Some outfits would do what is known as round tabling. They would circulate the petitions among a group sitting at a table and sign one signature at a time. That way it was more difficult to tell that the signatures were frauds. Many organizations would hardly check the signatures if at all and their percentage of valid signatures often resulted in paying for a buttload of sigs and still not making it on the ballot.
I'm not saying this will be the case, but until the sigs are validated, there isn't anything going on the ballot and I believe it would be another 6 months before they could try again.
And BTW - very few initiatives make it on the ballot with only volunteer signature gatherers so I wouldn't point to that as just some rich dude buying his way onto the ballot.
As Amy Trask stated there are different rules in place now. Not to mention the NFL isn't going to simply hand over the NFL market, Goodell has made it clear it's coming at a premium.
A couple of other plans haven't required public funding either by the way. Farmers Field wasn't asking for public money. Grand Crossing and it's guy Ed Roski wasn't either and it was a pretty similar proposal with tons of retail and other stuff around it. Even Arnold got on board with the Grand Crossing thing.
Color me jaded but I've heard all of this before.
Call me when a shovel hits the dirt. Otherwise this Inglewood thing is the exact same thing we've heard before. Just a different location.
@bluecoconuts this is FAR from a done deal IMO. And until something happens other than inexpensive drawings and a bunch of boxes of signatures happens I'm just skeptical. I've seen this movie before.
Other people/companies/groups have cleared some or many of the "non-NFL" hurdles and even done environmental impact studies that are required. And years later we still have no stadium on those sites.
Every new stadium that has been built in the last two decades has been built in the shadow of "moving to LA". So until a team actually moves there I don't believe the hype machine.
That's my understanding as well. Maybe it's my experience with signatures but collecting and having valid numbers are two different things. I think they'll have enough but I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they didn't.From what I've gathered, this is just to see if they can get it on the ballot in the spring, allowing them to break ground this year (assuming it passes). They were excited because they got more than twice as many signatures as needed in less than three weeks. Of course it all needs to be validated, but this is just to fast track things. If it failed, they need to go the more traditional route.
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but the Farmers field proposal required land owned by the city and public buildings to be destroyed. I believe they also wanted a stake in the team.A couple of other plans haven't required public funding either by the way. Farmers Field wasn't asking for public money. Grand Crossing and it's guy Ed Roski wasn't either and it was a pretty similar proposal with tons of retail and other stuff around it. Even Arnold got on board with the Grand Crossing thing.