New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

Makes no difference if the long term revenues aren't there. SD has more public money and Raiders have a viable NFL stadium in there home market so it will come down to the non-guaranteed revenues

none of those proposals meet the definition of viable - nor does St.Louis until financing is secure

 

[blue4]

Makes no difference if the long term revenues aren't there. SD has more public money and Raiders have a viable NFL stadium in there home market so it will come down to the non-guaranteed revenues

When did the Raiders get a viable stadium in their home market? Perhaps I've missed part of the conversation.

 

[The Ripper]

none of those proposals meet the definition of viable - nor does St.Louis until financing is secure

Even with financing none of them may be viable. The other factor is that the owner must be excited about the project

 

[The Ripper]

When did the Raiders get a viable stadium in their home market? Perhaps I've missed part of the conversation.

Levi. Whether they like it or not it exists and the NFL weighs that heavily in the decision

 

[bluecoconuts]

While agree with the Rams on the side on arbitration, I don't think they were able to address the main point - where they would play the interim...

That would be part of the negotiations right? If we're not to fault Peacock for not including every detail about the stadium and the financing, because the Rams haven't agreed to the stadium so they could begin discussing the details, why fault the Rams?

i really can't wait to see how this plays out and the domino effect its going to have - essentially you're arguing that if the city didn't meet the NFL stadium criteria on the first try they're free to leave no matter what changes a city comes up with..

I'm not arguing that at all, I'm saying that the city knew there was going to be an issue and decided to play politics instead, now they might be out of time to get it done. The excuse of "we don't have enough time to get a public vote" is bullshit, they've had years to get one done. They dicked around instead, and by doing so they've given the Rams far more wiggle room to justify a move, even if they get the financing figured out. They can do all sorts of legal dances but without the Rams agreeing they have squat. Ultimately that's the area that they have no time on, and that's what they should have focused on long ago.

It's come out that the city had people starting the process long before it was reported. The consensus seems to be about a year earlier, so that would have been early 2014. That's not exactly shabby for a project this size with no input at all from the team. It's funny, all these other cities were full of infighting when building their stadiums, but St Louis has the misfortune of having a multi billionaire who can afford to build his own stadium and we get typecast as the bumbling Midwest city who can't get it done on time.

I think that St Louis had/have plenty of infighting as well, hence the lawsuits and the need for loopholes and the politics game. The main difference is they decided to come up with a plan without team input, where San Diego and Oakland didn't (well San Diego didn't until recently) and they've identified loopholes to help speed the process and circumnavigate potential issues. The city could have identified they were working on it before, and garnered public support to get a vote passed, but they didn't. That's my main point, they had time to get a public vote, they chose not to do so, when they said they can't have a vote for lack of time, they're basically full of shit. That's like waiting to write a 20 page term paper until the last hour and then e-mailing your professor that you don't have time to write it. You had plenty of time and decided not to do it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Levi. Whether they like it or not it exists and the NFL weighs that heavily in the decision

I don't think Levi's stadium will have any impact other than helping the cause of why the Raiders could leave, because there's another team in that market to fill the void.

 

[blue4]

That would be part of the negotiations right? If we're not to fault Peacock for not including every detail about the stadium and the financing, because the Rams haven't agreed to the stadium so they could begin discussing the details, why fault the Rams?



I'm not arguing that at all, I'm saying that the city knew there was going to be an issue and decided to play politics instead, now they might be out of time to get it done. The excuse of "we don't have enough time to get a public vote" is bullcrap, they've had years to get one done. They dicked around instead, and by doing so they've given the Rams far more wiggle room to justify a move, even if they get the financing figured out. They can do all sorts of legal dances but without the Rams agreeing they have squat. Ultimately that's the area that they have no time on, and that's what they should have focused on long ago.



I think that St Louis had/have plenty of infighting as well, hence the lawsuits and the need for loopholes and the politics game. The main difference is they decided to come up with a plan without team input, where San Diego and Oakland didn't (well San Diego didn't until recently) and they've identified loopholes to help speed the process and circumnavigate potential issues. The city could have identified they were working on it before, and garnered public support to get a vote passed, but they didn't. That's my main point, they had time to get a public vote, they chose not to do so, when they said they can't have a vote for lack of time, they're basically full of crap. That's like waiting to write a 20 page term paper until the last hour and then e-mailing your professor that you don't have time to write it. You had plenty of time and decided not to do it.

So the city needed to go public with the stadium early? Without any public comment from the Rams about wanting a new stadium? Like I said, we're talking about reality here, not what could have happened in a perfect world. Perhaps an example of another city preparing years in advance for an unasked for stadium would help, because I'm not at all convinced that what you're saying is realistic. There's no way a politician could come out and drum up voter support for a $900 million dollar stadium without a word being said by team ownership.

 

[blue4]

I don't think Levi's stadium will have any impact other than helping the cause of why the Raiders could leave, because there's another team in that market to fill the void.

That's what I thought. I thought I had missed something.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So the city needed to go public with the stadium early? Without any public comment from the Rams about wanting a new stadium? Like I said, we're talking about reality here, not what could have happened in a perfect world. Perhaps an example of another city preparing years in advance for an unasked for stadium would help, because I'm not at all convinced that what you're saying is realistic. There's no way a politician could come out and drum up voter support for a $900 million dollar stadium without a word being said by team ownership.

They didn't need to, but they shouldn't whine about lack of time because they didn't. They made their choice. They could have come out right after arbitration and said "We want to work with the Rams to build a new stadium, we're going to appoint a task force to get it done" and started talking to Kroenke, I'd guess we'd be in a different situation now. If they were so afraid that they couldn't get support for the stadium then, what has changed? I don't think that's going to make the NFL feel very confident if that's the argument for why they waited.

 

[The Ripper]

I don't think Levi's stadium will have any impact other than helping the cause of why the Raiders could leave, because there's another team in that market to fill the void.

That's what I thought. I thought I had missed something.

It certainly will. In the other relocations the NFL went over all the suitable options in the market so that the team could stay in the home city. The NFL required Levi to be 2 team capable and they have said that they want the Raiders to play there. The other factor is that they also only want 1 stadium in a market. The NFL has given them every option to find a suitable option in Oakland even though that's not what the NFL wants. The other factor is that the Raiders have the option of using it as a temporary facility while they work on other options which could be Oakland or Sacramento

 

[ramfan46]

http://stockbridgerealestate.com/20...uild-world-class-sports-complex-in-inglewood/

The thing that strikes me about this release is that he bought the property in 2013, formed HPLC partership in 2014 and announced the stadium and performing arts venue in 2015. This caught my attention because I remember when it become public about the 60 acres in Jan 2014 Goodell said he was aware of the purchase. The league knows what Kroenke has been up to IMO.

 

[blue4]

They didn't need to, but they shouldn't whine about lack of time because they didn't. They made their choice. They could have come out right after arbitration and said "We want to work with the Rams to build a new stadium, we're going to appoint a task force to get it done" and started talking to Kroenke, I'd guess we'd be in a different situation now. If they were so afraid that they couldn't get support for the stadium then, what has changed? I don't think that's going to make the NFL feel very confident if that's the argument for why they waited.

Why they waited? From 2013 to early 2014? They did appoint a task force. From all reports and from what Demoff has alluded to, Stan no longer spoke to St Louis after arbitration. As for what's changed? Well, for one arbitration. Now there's a reason to act. You can claim that St. Louis didn't do this and didn't do that but what you think should have happened does not happen. Like before I asked for an example of a city who started preparing for a new stadium years in advance. Who harmoniously advanced to the finish line of the project hand in hand like you seem to think St Louis should have been capable of. Who did all that without a shred of support from the owner, who at the same time, is doing everything in his power short of throwing games to poison the market while your trying to build him a stadium. Like I said it's a completely unrealistic expectation. Maybe the NFL uses that like you say as a reason to yank the team. That doesn't mean anything, they'll do whatever they want regardless of justification. Maybe they do, but I'm not going to waste my time criticizing the city for not living up to an unrealistic standard. This is another thing we've been over a thousand times, I don't feel like doing it again. We aren't going to agree.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Why they waited? From 2013 to early 2014? They did appoint a task force. From all reports and from what Demoff has alluded to, Stan no longer spoke to St Louis after arbitration. As for what's changed? Well, for one arbitration. Now there's a reason to act. You can claim that St. Louis didn't do this and didn't do that but what you think should have happened does not happen. Like before I asked for an example of a city who started preparing for a new stadium years in advance. Who harmoniously advanced to the finish line of the project hand in hand like you seem to think St Louis should have been capable of. Who did all that without a shred of support from the owner, who at the same time, is doing everything in his power short of throwing games to poison the market while your trying to build him a stadium. Like I said it's a completely unrealistic expectation. Maybe the NFL uses that like you say as a reason to yank the team. That doesn't mean anything, they'll do whatever they want regardless of justification. Maybe they do, but I'm not going to waste my time criticizing the city for not living up to an unrealistic standard. This is another thing we've been over a thousand times, I don't feel like doing it again. We aren't going to agree.

Stan won in arbitration, what was he supposed to do, come back with another proposal and see if that works out? Perhaps the city reached out right afterwards, but if they did I'm sure they'd be saying so. I'm guessing they decided to just sit around and do nothing, and didn't actually realize they might be in trouble until after Kroenke bought the land in Inglewood. Especially since the Mayor came out after arbitration and said "Now we can see what the Rams really want"... After the Rams just told them what they wanted. Even then when the report of them starting sooner came out, it seemed that the ball really didn't get rolling until Peacock got some important news from the NFL... Probably that Kroenke informed them that he was going forward with a stadium in Inglewood. Then they started to actually work.

Comparing them to other cities isn't really good because every situation is different. Plenty of cities have gotten plans together quickly to rebuild a stadium, and plenty more will do the same. The thing is St Louis had a lot of time knowing they needed to get something done, when they finally made a pitch it wasn't even close, and then they dragged their feat until the owner went ahead and started pursuing other cities. Now the city is coming out and saying "Oh but we don't have time to do ___ and we don't have time to do ___" and I'm saying that's bull. The writing was blatantly on the wall in 2005 and confirmed in 2012, and then again even further in 2013 they had time and did nothing.

We can be impressed at the speed they've moved since they actually started working (and I am impressed), but I'm not buying the argument that they didn't have time, they procrastinated until they figured out they were in a tough spot. Peacock has said it himself, the most important thing is that they have a scapegoat other than the political leaders if they fail, they knew what they were doing. If one of the students I T.A. for came to me asking for an extension because they procrastinated I wouldn't give them any sympathy and I don't give any to the leadership in St Louis.

I hope they do get the Rams to stay, I really do, and I sympathize with the fans of both cities because one city is going to lose out, but the leadership? Not a chance.

 

[blue4]

Stan won in arbitration, what was he supposed to do, come back with another proposal and see if that works out? Perhaps the city reached out right afterwards, but if they did I'm sure they'd be saying so. I'm guessing they decided to just sit around and do nothing, and didn't actually realize they might be in trouble until after Kroenke bought the land in Inglewood. Especially since the Mayor came out after arbitration and said "Now we can see what the Rams really want"... After the Rams just told them what they wanted. Even then when the report of them starting sooner came out, it seemed that the ball really didn't get rolling until Peacock got some important news from the NFL... Probably that Kroenke informed them that he was going forward with a stadium in Inglewood. Then they started to actually work.

Comparing them to other cities isn't really good because every situation is different. Plenty of cities have gotten plans together quickly to rebuild a stadium, and plenty more will do the same. The thing is St Louis had a lot of time knowing they needed to get something done, when they finally made a pitch it wasn't even close, and then they dragged their feat until the owner went ahead and started pursuing other cities. Now the city is coming out and saying "Oh but we don't have time to do ___ and we don't have time to do ___" and I'm saying that's bull. The writing was blatantly on the wall in 2005 and confirmed in 2012, and then again even further in 2013 they had time and did nothing.

We can be impressed at the speed they've moved since they actually started working (and I am impressed), but I'm not buying the argument that they didn't have time, they procrastinated until they figured out they were in a tough spot. Peacock has said it himself, the most important thing is that they have a scapegoat other than the political leaders if they fail, they knew what they were doing. If one of the students I T.A. for came to me asking for an extension because they procrastinated I wouldn't give them any sympathy and I don't give any to the leadership in St Louis.

I hope they do get the Rams to stay, I really do, and I sympathize with the fans of both cities because one city is going to lose out, but the leadership? Not a chance.

We do not agree at all. What you think should've happened is a completely unrealistic expectation. Again, maybe an example of another city doing this thing much better would be helpful. The only difference between us and every other city is the fact that our owner is rich enough to do whatever the hell he wants, even if it's just for ego.

 

[snackdaddy]

We do not agree at all. What you think should've happened is a completely unrealistic expectation. Again, maybe an example of another city doing this thing much better would be helpful. The only difference between us and every other city is the fact that our owner is rich enough to do whatever the hell he wants, even if it's just for ego.

The billion dollar question, what does he really want?

 

[bluecoconuts]

We do not agree at all. What you think should've happened is a completely unrealistic expectation. Again, maybe an example of another city doing this thing much better would be helpful. The only difference between us and every other city is the fact that our owner is rich enough to do whatever the hell he wants, even if it's just for ego.

That and St Louis agreed to keep their stadium top tier and pay for it as a way to attract the team there initially. Which is a pretty important detail.

 

[RamFan503]

for one thing America is not a true democracy it is a republic. The citizens do get a say in how their money is spent when they elect officials, and again in a couple years if those officials go against their will.

most of the time people on REALLY want a true democracy when they are in some majority.

But that is not really what is at play here. The US is a representative republic and not a democracy. But that doesn't matter when the voters pass an initiative or ordinance or whatever. The criteria is there. A republic has many issues decided by a simple majority as in a true democracy.

But just because you elect representatives, that doesn't mean the public doesn't get a say beyond that. The very idea of a representative republic is that the citizens still have checks to hold their representatives accountable and also be able to put something into affect when they feel their representatives are not willing or able to do so.

No - the voters don't have to wait until the next election to maybe cast aside enough politicians to get their will. In many cases, their best course of action is to pass an initiative or measure that is specifically designed to carry out their will when politicians are being politicians or simply don't have the will to do so. To go against that is very contrary to the representative republic concept on which this nation (the oldest current government in existence) was founded.

This is what I have a problem with no matter what the issue. So just because I may want the Rams to stay in St Louis, I don't find the suit to disregard what the voters wanted as a good thing.

 

[RamFan503]

Peacock and Blitz did not have years, and as I have said many times it's a shame they weren't involved were earlier in the process.

So just because Peacock/Blitz picked up a dropped ball then that is when the time clock starts? I agree. They should have been involved earlier. Who is to blame that they were not?

 

[RamFan503]

And now we're seeing why Goldman Sachs may be willing to spend money to upgrade the stadium

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...rarily-moving-l-a-team-to-27000-seat-stadium/

NFL considers temporarily moving L.A. team to 27,000-seat stadium
Posted by Michael David Smith on June 26, 2015, 6:31 PM EDT

In the search for a temporary home for a future Los Angeles franchise, the NFL may go small.Really small.

Among the stadiums under consideration if the NFL moves a team to Los Angeles next season is the StubHub Center in Carson, according to NFL.com. The StubHub Center, home of the L.A. Galaxy of Major League Soccer, seats 27,000 people.

That would mean the NFL’s Los Angeles team (whether it’s the Rams, Raiders or Chargers) would be playing in by far the smallest stadium in the NFL. The smallest current NFL seating capacity also belongs to a team in a temporary stadium, the Vikings, who are using the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium while they get their own stadium built. But while TCF Bank Stadium is tiny by NFL standards, its capacity of 52,525 is nearly double that of the StubHub Center.

Other temporary stadiums under consideration are the Rose Bowl (where UCLA plays), the L.A. Coliseum (where USC plays) and Major League Baseball’s Dodger Stadium and Angel Stadium. All of those are much larger than the StubHub Center, but all of them might also have scheduling conflicts with an NFL team.

It seems hard to believe that the NFL would move into a stadium as tiny as the StubHub Center, even for one season. But at least they can be confident they’d sell out. That’s not the case in St. Louis, Oakland or San Diego.

Hahahahaha... REALLY? Not aimed at you Iced. Just REALLY?

 

[RamFan503]

Hard to have a vote on something that isn't completed - renders weren't made public and ready til earlier on this year. Which even they still had to go back and make changes too.

Working on doesn't mean they had everything laid out back then, and if they feel didn't need a public vote with the way its written, why add more obstacles?

So you wait until the team can go year to year before you formalize a plan and then you claim you have no time? Seriously? If you are so worried that you wouldn't get elected if you supported such a notion, what does that say about the notion? I'm having a real disconnect here.