New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

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

 

[dbrooks25]

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

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.

 

[Legatron4]

I'm seeing a lot of people saying 2015 is our "lame duck season", please tell me this is not true. I can't watch another 3-13 season.

 

[rams2050]

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_c281a12a-afbb-5e1d-acd3-808c04d35497.html

 

[Rabid Ram]

This will be merged soon

 

[rams2050]

Oops! Sorry.

 

[LesBaker]

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.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

I disagree this is the same, it solves the biggest problem they had, getting an owner who wanted to move and be willing/able to pay for the stadium. That alone makes this very different from the other plans. Most of the others required owners to give up a portion of the team at the least.

Also why would Stan be willing to pay for a new stadium if he wasn't willing to pay the relocation fees? If he is looking to move then there's no chance he's going to be told about the relocation fees and then suddenly decide he doesn't want to anymore, so instead he'll just have his new stadium sit empty.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

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?

 

[tonyl711]

There is no stopping it, the time has come.

in your opinion

 

[RamFan503]

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.

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.

 

[LesBaker]

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?

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.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

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.

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

Where did Goddell say that moving to LA will cost a lot of money in fees?

Also I didn't say it was a done deal, I said its different from the other proposals. The others, like Farmers Field, required teams to give up part of their ownership. So you're asking a team to up and move AND give up part of the team to another group. With Stan's proposal, now nobody needs to give up part of the team, because he's the one who is building it and he already owns one.

So if he wants to move, two of the biggest issues to the LA stadium problems in the past is solved. That is what makes it different, its backed and paid for by an owner instead of an outside group.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

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.

But if they have to go the long way, the impact reports alone could delay this thing a year or more.

 

[RamFan503]

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.

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.

The Roski proposal included a minimum 30% ownership be granted in exchange for building the stadium. It also stated that the Roski group was to own most of the revenue streams coming from the project.

 

[RamBill]

Rams convert lease on stadium to year-to-year
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/15761/rams-convert-lease-on-stadium-to-year-to-year

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- In a move that should come as no surprise to anyone paying attention, the St. Louis Rams officially notified the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission that they are converting their lease on the Edward Jones Dome to a year-to-year proposition on Monday.

The St. Louis CVC provided a statement from president Kitty Ratcliffe on Monday afternoon:

“We have received notification from the St. Louis Rams of their intent to convert their lease agreement to an annual tenancy effective in March 2015. While the lease will now run year-to-year, all other lease terms remain the same. We look forward to working with Rams’ management in preparation for the 2015 football season in the Edward Jones Dome.”

The move comes at the discretion of the Rams based on a clause in the original lease the team signed upon moving to St. Louis in 1995. Specifically, the lease stated that the Rams could opt out of it after 20 years if it was not considered among the top 25 percent of stadiums in the league.

The CVC and Rams went through an arbitration process two years ago in which it was determined the CVC was responsible for bringing the Edward Jones Dome up to date. They passed, which led to this point where the Rams' future in St. Louis is up in the air.

As for what this means to that end, well, the Rams now officially become a sort of perennial free agent until they find a permanent stadium solution whether in St. Louis, Los Angeles or elsewhere. The NFL already made it clear that neither the Rams, the Oakland Raiders or the San Diego Chargers would be allowed to move in 2015.

But now that the Rams are in a year-to-year lease, they are free to begin looking beyond the scope of this year and St. Louis. Rams owner Stan Kroenke and his business partners announced earlier this month that they have begun preparations for a stadium development in Los Angeles expected to be completed by 2018.

Monday's news amounts to little more than a formality in all of this but it's a necessary one for the Rams to reach their ultimate end game.

 

[RamBill]

Rams to city: We'll stay for another year
• By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_c281a12a-afbb-5e1d-acd3-808c04d35497.html

ST. LOUIS • The Rams will play at the Edward Jones Dome next season.

Rams management sent a letter to regional officials Monday afternoon. The letter said the team was converting its 30-year lease to an “annual tenancy,” effective April 1 and, “in the absence of intervening events,” extending through March 31, 2016.

The notice, which has long been expected, does two things:

It allows owner Stan Kroenke to pull the team out of St. Louis as soon as 2016, because the Rams lease will now expire at the end of every season. The original lease was to expire in 2025.
It also legally binds the Rams to play at the Edward Jones Dome next fall — a point on which many here were uncertain.

Rams Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff did not immediately return a call seeking comment Monday.

Some have expected the Rams to leave St. Louis for years, since the team engaged in a lengthy battle over upgrades in its lease with the Jones Dome.

Two years ago, a three-member arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Rams’ request for publicly financed renovations worth perhaps $700 million. Dome authorities declined, giving the Rams the option to go year-to-year on the team lease.

A year ago, word leaked out that Kroenke had bought a football field-sized lot in Inglewood, Calif., about 30 miles from the Rams’ old home in Anaheim.

Then, in early January, Kroenke and an investment group announced plans to build a privately financed, 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood.

Days later, a two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon revealed a counter-proposal: A 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis. The cost would rise to nearly $1 billion, Nixon’s team predicted, and include as much as $405 million from taxpayers.

National Football League officials said they were working with Nixon’s team to build a viable plan for St. Louis.

Kroenke will need approval from 24 of the league’s 32 teams to move the Rams to Los Angeles. NFL officials have insisted Kroenke won’t move without permission.

Meanwhile, Monday’s notice keeps the Rams in St. Louis for at least one more season. All other terms of the lease remain the same, said Kitty Ratcliffe, president of the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, which manages the Dome. Those include the annual $250,000 lease payment from the team.

“We look forward to working with Rams’ management,” Ratcliffe said in a statement, “in preparation for the 2015 football season in the Edward Jones Dome.”

 

[Walter]

I just cannot believe this. Not to jump off a cliff here but by all indications they are leaving. This is so deflating. Normally I would be on pins and needles wondering who the New offensive coordinator will be and looking towards free agency. Now every new story just seems further evidence that they will be gone in 2016. Like Jerry Jones again spouting off. Surely a calculated remark to sway other owners for a positive vote. After all these years, frustrating Sunday's and optimistic off seasons it is going to end like this. At least in San Diego the team always says their first option is to stay there. St Louis fans can't even get so much as a "we would like to stay." Which reminds me of the irony of the Shaun Hill interceptin at the 1 yard line this year against the chargers. SoCo for the win..... On top of that, the Damn patriots and Seahawks are in The super bowl. This is going to really suck. Sorry for the rant. Had to vent somehow.