New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

It's pretty hard to figure which topic has been beat to death the most but that one is right up there.

Sure can't wait for some sort of decision in all of this.

Yeah, I can't wait either. We seem to be going around and around on every single topic regarding relocation. It's funny, I come on here everyday to see if there are any updates and then I get sucked right in. Mainly by comments that don't sit well with me.

 

[dbrooks25]

I don't live in SD. I don't know the ins and outs there. I know the stadium is old. I think it's been at least ten years since they started talking about a new stadium, I remember reading about it. I don't know who's at fault for no stadium being built.

What I do know is comparing STL situation with SD is comparing apples to doughnuts. There is no similarities other than both cities are now involved in this mess. I know that wondering why and criticizing St Louis for not starting plans on a new stadium in 2005 is silly. We were one year from the playoffs, the dome rocked every Sunday, and the facility was a mere ten years old. The bathrooms were still in mint condition for God's sake. So I can't speak for SD, but the criticism on this is invalid. Because it's completely divorced from reality. Top tier? Certainly open for criticizing, hindsight it was dumb, born of desperation. But to criticize for not starting in 2005 is completely invalid.

People forget that, while we are the 21st size market and have a few million people around here, the people who are building and paying for the new stadium are only about 350,000. Things are going to get creative. There are far more crooked deals trying to shovel in Stan's Wal-Mart's then what's going on to build this stadium.

Let's also not underestimate the importance of committed owner. I imagine if it was still Georgia either the dome would still be in play with some modest improvements or the g4 loan would have already cleared and Riverfront would be underway. Not because she was a good and fair person, because she wanted to be here. We're not only fighting the realities of a small city building a stadium, we're fighting an ownership that works to stymie our efforts. Does anyone really think if a vote were to happen that Stan and his money wouldn't be quietly involved with ads and support for the opposition? That the principals of democracy would hold sway and no outside money from interest groups would be used to run campaigns?

So, trying to compare us to SD or Oakland isn't fair. What they have to do is easier. Just float a decent plan, and their owners will stay. We've already done enough here to satisfy what Davis and the Raiders want from Oakland for sure.

This is a very good point. Many like to say St. Louis should have talked about building a new stadium in 2005 as if we had a crystal ball and knew Georgia would not be here in a few years, her kids couldn't afford to keep the team, and then sell it to Kroenke (who had a small hand in bringing the team here in the first place) who in turn tries to make a move back to L.A. (if that's indeed his intention). I too imagine if Georgia was still alive, we wouldn't be going through this. And again, who talks about putting up a new stadium or paying hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade a 10 year old facility?

 

[RAGRam]

I just hope that Peacock has put together a team to work on New Riverfront Stadium for 2045, if he leaves it any longer it might be too late for some people.

 

[RamBill]

Strauss: Stadium aside, Rams must prove their worth
• By Joe Strauss

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_cdf76577-85c4-5fd0-929f-2e88a392bef5.html

While competing local entities still argue over the definition of “adjacent,” the National Football League has scheduled an Aug. 11 meeting in Chicago to update owners on the progress, or lack thereof, toward new stadiums in Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis.

To some, the delay created by placing a November referendum before city voters regarding public financing of a riverfront facility would be ruinous.

But is it a worst-case scenario?

Is allowing city residents to give a thumbs up or down on helping to underwrite a $985 million project too abhorrent to contemplate?

Whether one believes extending government bonds to facilitate construction of a new home for the Rams represents new taxation or not, might it be just as useful to ask if current ownership has so poisoned the well that no outcome is satisfactory as long as Stan Kroenke controls the franchise?

To claim there’s disconnect between Kroenke and his fan base is like saying Nixon (Richard, not Jay) edged out McGovern in ’72.

If Kroenke gets what he wants — the NFL’s blessing to relocate the Rams from here to Inglewood, within two miles of Los Angeles International Airport — the issue morphs. Does another team relocate to St. Louis? Is expansion possible?

Without a team in place, what happens to stadium financing since all involved insist construction won’t begin without a franchise and the league contributing more than $400 million to the project?

Kroenke has said nothing publicly since the matter mushroomed. Yet he’s made clear his commitment to southern California, where the Rams’ value likely trebles.

That’s Kroenke’s right. It’s his team — not yours, not mine — something that numerous personal seat license holders have taken to heart. There is a strong possibility that attendance for the’ Sept. 13 opener will fall short of 40,000 when the defending NFC champion and division rival Seattle Seahawks visit. If the Rams can’t pull ’em in for Pete Carroll, Richard Sherman and Russell Wilson, what’s it going to be like on Oct. 25 against Cleveland or before a national television audience Dec. 17 against Tampa Bay? Small wonder the Rams placed single-game tickets on sale three months earlier than usual and have aggressively marketed other cities. The Pittsburgh Steelers, Chicago Bears and Detroit Lions may find the Jones Dome a home away from home.

The NFL clearly wants to expedite the relocation process that will likely see two stadium-challenged franchises playing in either the Coliseum or the Rose Bowl in 2016.

What if owners opt for the so-called California Solution that moves the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers into their former markets?

It’s difficult to envision the NFL stiffing the Spanos family, which has patiently fought the good fight for a facility in downtown San Diego.

Patriarch Alex Spanos turned over control of the franchise to his son, Dean, more than a year ago. But the father’s influence over sentiment remains strong.

As of now Spanos’ alliance with Raiders owner Mark Davis appears unshakeable as both work toward construction of a new $1.7 billion stadium in suburban Carson. With league insider Carmen Policy running point for both franchises, getting the league out of two of its worst facilities, O.co Coliseum and Qualcomm Stadium, certainly appears plausible.

Despite the legal challenges, the Rams remain the only one of the three relocation candidates with a viable in-town alternative.

To their credit, Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz adopted a two-rail approach in efforts to keep the NFL here. As point men for Nixon (Jay, not Richard), their intent has been to convince commissioner Roger Goodell, NFL executive vice-president Eric Grubman and the league’s relocation committee of St. Louis’ continued fitness as a market willing to help finance a new facility regardless of who inhabits it on Sundays.

Clear away the legal speed bumps. Let the league side with its California Solution. Retain the Rams, ostensibly to play between Lumiere Casino and the Stan Span. Then what?

Kroenke has shown his hand. There was the 2012 game in London against New England after initially agreeing to a series of three “home” games across the pond. Unimpressed by the Convention and Visitors Commission’s stance on upgrades to an obsolete Jones Dome, Kroenke looked west. He hasn’t spoken to local media or his fan base since. Now any perceived slight, such as this summer’s training layover against the Dallas Cowboys in Oxnard, Calif., strikes many as rubbing salt in an open wound. Somehow trading Sam Bradford for Nick Foles is part of the plot.

Kroenke wants out of here. Everyone gets it. And, again, that’s his right.

But what if the NFL announces this fall that the Rams are going nowhere? How does this franchise get back in its home market’s good graces?

The most obvious answer is by returning to contention within the NFC West. Complaining fans and reluctant sponsors have a way of returning when a forlorn or discredited franchise suddenly finds its way to double-digit wins and a postseason berth. Coming off a 6-10 season while enduring an 11-year wait for a winning campaign make for easy skepticism.

A new stadium would likely bring a temporary bounce. Everyone likes “new.” But barring 11-5 or 12-4, can locals ever forget this ongoing soap opera?

The Rams don’t just have a stadium problem. They have an image problem.

Folks don’t pay big bucks to attend an NFL game in hopes of glimpsing the owner.

But they’ll certainly keep their cash in pocket if given an average (or worse) product and a money man who would love to be someplace else.

The courts will eventually define “adjacent” for the city and the state.

It may then be an opportune time to address the meaning of “dilemma.”

 

[The Ripper]

The comparison on the timelines happens all the time on the board when it's said SD has been working on it for 14 years. There are plenty of factors that go into the timeline and the Chargers can take some of the blame themselves.

The timelines are what the NFL says they are. It's not just the about the new stadiums in either location. Goodell mentioned the formal process of the lease which began in 2005. Fair or not the history is what it is.

 

[dbrooks25]

I pulled this from a post from Ramstalk. Straight from Bernie, proof that the city has been working on this well before many think.
----------------------------------------------------
This also from Bernie"s Pressbox:
teresting and informative piece by David Hunn in today's P-D, retracing the "official" timeline of the STL effort and when it began (2013.)

But there was an unofficial beginning as well.

I can personally testify that Dave Peacock has been unofficially working on the stadium effort since the fall of 2011. I know this because I talked with him at the time and he explained how he planned to go about it. It began with Peacock reaching out to area politicians and/or their aides plus influential groups that include Civic Progress and Downtown STL. These conversations were exploratory and preliminary, but that's how he got the ball rolling. He wanted to seek ideas, gauge the difficulty of pulling it off, and get a read on the level of support.

When I spent a few hours with Roger Goodell one night before the Super Bowl in Indianapolis (played in early Feb. 2012) the commissioner asked about the leadership in St. Louis ... The people that Goodell worked with extensively behind the scenes on expansion in the early 1990s were no longer in power. Most had retired (like Chuck Knight) or develope serious health problems. Goodell wasn't sure who to turn to in St. Louis to get a handle on the Rams/stadium situation. I told him that his old friend Dave Peacock was already trying to take the initiative, and that Peacock would be the guy to turn to.

After his A-B days, and with his personal fortune in good shape, Peacock was very interested in taking on a leadership role that would make St. Louis a better place. Peacock was extensively involved in raising private funds for the massive Arch grounds project -- and when that's finished it will be a spectacular site. And it will directly link the the Arch grounds to downtown. This is just another example of Peacock's civic activism.

Back in late 2011, I wasn't able to disclose what I knew -- the specifics -- because the information was given to me on a condition of firm confidentiality. I was able to mention several times that "discussions were taking place behind the scenes" to form a plan to deal with the Rams/stadium/Kroenke. Some of you may recall that. I also talked about this on my radio show at the time. I was ridiculed for writing/saying that discussions were underway -- even by a columnist at my own newspaper.

I don't know how this will turn out, but as soon as Peacock took charge back in late 2011 I figured St. Louis would have a fighting chance. Without Peacock taking the lead when no one here knew what to do, or didn't want to take on the responsibility -- then St. Louis was finished. Toast. No chance to keep the Rams/NFL. None. Peacock put St. Louis back in the game. And he got to work on this much earlier than believed.

-B

 

[iced]

san diego has a proposal with alot of public money on the table too but the chargers even though they meet with csag reject and criticize. i hardly call that meeting the guidelines.

Which if their concerns are legit, have merit - and that doesn't even get into other parts of the plan. Land and financing needs to be secure - for example, saying you can find a buyer for $225 million of that stadium proposal (meanwhile you don't have one) means the financial angle isn't secured.

Just creating a proposal doesn't make a project viable

 

[tonyl711]

Which if their concerns are legit, have merit - and that doesn't even get into other parts of the plan. Land and financing needs to be secure - for example, saying you can find a buyer for $225 million of that stadium proposal (meanwhile you don't have one) means the financial angle isn't secured.

Just creating a proposal doesn't make a project viable

at least the owner in SD answers his phone, its kind of hard to negotiate with the wall.

 

[bluecoconuts]

at least the owner in SD answers his phone, its kind of hard to negotiate with the wall.

Demoff isn't a wall, I'd rather negotiate with him than with someone who sits down, doesn't really listen, and then trashes everything they see to kill the proposal before it gets off the ground.

 

[blue4]

Demoff isn't a wall, I'd rather negotiate with him than with someone who sits down, doesn't really listen, and then trashes everything they see to kill the proposal before it gets off the ground.

You don't know if Demoff does that or not

 

[ramfaninsd]

Demoff isn't a wall, I'd rather negotiate with him than with someone who sits down, doesn't really listen, and then trashes everything they see to kill the proposal before it gets off the ground.

when the chargers have met with the city the statement afterwards has come primarily from fabiani and i can't recall him saying anything good in the entire 14 years.

 

[bluecoconuts]

You don't know if Demoff does that or not

I know he doesn't trash the project because he hasn't. At least not publicly, which is the important thing, disagreements is natural afterall. We also know he has given input at the taskforce has made adjustments accordingly, so he's not just a brick wall sitting there. Therefore either way, I'd much rather negotiate with the Rams than the Chargers. I think that both teams want to leave, however the Rams are at least making sure the market isn't trashed and set up that another team could potentially fill the void, the Chargers aren't from what I can tell.

 

[8to12]

at least the owner in SD answers his phone, its kind of hard to negotiate with the wall.

But there is a big difference, the Rams have never publicly announced that they would like to work things out in St Louis and then move to LA if things don't work out. On the other hand, the Chargers said, about the time of the Carson project, that they will continue to try and get things done with San Diego and then move if they can't. All Fabiani does each time there is a meeting is trash the San Diego plan ; we never hear any counter proposal from the Chargers.
At least Kroenke is consistent in that he has announced a stadium in LA and has stated nothing else publicly about his intentions.

 

[blue4]

I know he doesn't trash the project because he hasn't. At least not publicly, which is the important thing, disagreements is natural afterall. We also know he has given input at the taskforce has made adjustments accordingly, so he's not just a brick wall sitting there. Therefore either way, I'd much rather negotiate with the Rams than the Chargers. I think that both teams want to leave, however the Rams are at least making sure the market isn't trashed and set up that another team could potentially fill the void, the Chargers aren't from what I can tell.

He may not put publicly, but you have no idea how he is behind closed doors. We don't know if he sit there like a brick wall or not, we don't know what suggestions he makes, we only know that in public they are polite. There are as many reports that say the Rams are forced to attend meetings.

As for the idea that the Rams aren't trashing the market, I assume you forgot the blue font. They started that awhile back.

As for the idea that the Rams are setting up the market for another team, I guess supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, I don't know how to respond to that. If we were having this conversation in person and you said that i would be staring at you like your head fell off. Its one of those comments where you just have to say "alrighty then" and move on. I admit there is some curiosity to find out what you think the Rams are doing to set up St Louis for another team that the Chargers aren't doing, but I think I'll just move along.

 

[bluecoconuts]

He may not put publicly, but you have no idea how he is behind closed doors. We don't know if he sit there like a brick wall or not, we don't know what suggestions he makes, we only know that in public they are polite. There are as many reports that say the Rams are forced to attend meetings.

As for the idea that the Rams aren't trashing the market, I assume you forgot the blue font. They started that awhile back.

As for the idea that the Rams are setting up the market for another team, I guess supposedly out of the goodness of their hearts, I don't know how to respond to that. If we were having this conversation in person and you said that i would be staring at you like your head fell off. Its one of those comments where you just have to say "alrighty then" and move on. I admit there is some curiosity to find out what you think the Rams are doing to set up St Louis for another team that the Chargers aren't doing, but I think I'll just move along.

Behind closed doors isn't a big deal, that's not what I'm worried about. Trashing the project publicly greatly damages the project and essentially kills it. It's very hard to garner support for a project when the team is trashing it, people don't want to agree to spend money if they figure it doesn't matter anyway.

Demoff hasn't done that.

The fact that the taskforced has said that they made changes based on the input of Demoff and the Rams shows that he hasn't been just a brick wall. Forced to be there or not, he has at least made some input on the project that the taskforce has listened to. Therefore we do know he hasn't been a brick wall.

I don't see how the Rams are trashing the market, wanting to leave? Sure, but trashing it? No. If they wanted to they could embark on a PR campaign, much like Spanos and Fabiani have done, to just trash and kill the Riverfront stadium. If that happens then the Rams are gone and there's no chance that the project is able to continue, which makes it much harder to attract any team that may look to relocate in the future. Letting the taskforce continue without mudslinging (despite a little bit being tossed at them) allows them to essentially get most of the boxes checked off, which in the future if a team needs to relocate they know they have a solid option in St Louis.

Again, I believe that both teams want to leave, but if I had to deal with one of them, I'd much rather the Rams. They may have one foot out the door, but at least they're civil about it.

 

[tonyl711]

I know he doesn't trash the project because he hasn't. At least not publicly, which is the important thing, disagreements is natural afterall. We also know he has given input at the taskforce has made adjustments accordingly, so he's not just a brick wall sitting there. Therefore either way, I'd much rather negotiate with the Rams than the Chargers. I think that both teams want to leave, however the Rams are at least making sure the market isn't trashed and set up that another team could potentially fill the void, the Chargers aren't from what I can tell.

lol, so you would rather negotiate with someone who has no real say in how something goes, than with the person who has all the say on how it goes? really? that doesnt make sense to me.

 

[blue4]

Behind closed doors isn't a big deal, that's not what I'm worried about. Trashing the project publicly greatly damages the project and essentially kills it. It's very hard to garner support for a project when the team is trashing it, people don't want to agree to spend money if they figure it doesn't matter anyway.

Demoff hasn't done that.

The fact that the taskforced has said that they made changes based on the input of Demoff and the Rams shows that he hasn't been just a brick wall. Forced to be there or not, he has at least made some input on the project that the taskforce has listened to. Therefore we do know he hasn't been a brick wall.

I don't see how the Rams are trashing the market, wanting to leave? Sure, but trashing it? No. If they wanted to they could embark on a PR campaign, much like Spanos and Fabiani have done, to just trash and kill the Riverfront stadium. If that happens then the Rams are gone and there's no chance that the project is able to continue, which makes it much harder to attract any team that may look to relocate in the future. Letting the taskforce continue without mudslinging (despite a little bit being tossed at them) allows them to essentially get most of the boxes checked off, which in the future if a team needs to relocate they know they have a solid option in St Louis.

Again, I believe that both teams want to leave, but if I had to deal with one of them, I'd much rather the Rams. They may have one foot out the door, but at least they're civil about it.

I'll remember how polite and civil the Rams are being when I watch the preseason games and follow some of training camp live from California.

What mud is being tossed at them that they haven't earned?

Whatever the Chargers are saying about their cities plan is irrelevant to SD getting another team.

The reason we get sympathy from people in regards to getting another team is because we have a solid plan on a good stadium. And because we are healthy market. Not because the Rams "no comments" on it. People understand that city that supported a team historically bad doesn't deserve to lose them the minute they sniff .500. Not because of anything the Rams say and do, that doesn't make the slightest bit sense.

I gotta stop coming to this thread every day. From the notion that the city should have started stadium plans before the paint dried on the ED, to this new idea that the Rams are being gracious to St Louis for not falsely trashing a perfectly good stadium proposal they barely look at, it's getting a bit out there.

 

[dbrooks25]

I'll remember how polite and civil the Rams are being when I watch the preseason games and follow some of training camp live from California.

What mud is being tossed at them that they haven't earned?

Whatever the Chargers are saying about their cities plan is irrelevant to SD getting another team.

The reason we get sympathy from people in regards to getting another team is because we have a solid plan on a good stadium. And because we are healthy market. Not because the Rams "no comments" on it. People understand that city that supported a team historically bad doesn't deserve to lose them the minute they sniff .500. Not because of anything the Rams say and do, that doesn't make the slightest bit sense.

I gotta stop coming to this thread every day. From the notion that the city should have started stadium plans before the paint dried on the ED, to this new idea that the Rams are being gracious to St Louis for not falsely trashing a perfectly good stadium proposal they barely look at, it's getting a bit out there.

Amen, Brother. Well said.

 

[bluecoconuts]

lol, so you would rather negotiate with someone who has no real say in how something goes, than with the person who has all the say on how it goes? really? that doesnt make sense to me.

Given that the taskforce has made changes based on Rams suggestions, that either means that Demoff has some say in how things go either personally or via proxy, or they've been negotiating with Stan. Which one would you like to pick?

I'll remember how polite and civil the Rams are being when I watch the preseason games and follow some of training camp live from California.

What mud is being tossed at them that they haven't earned?

Whatever the Chargers are saying about their cities plan is irrelevant to SD getting another team.

The reason we get sympathy from people in regards to getting another team is because we have a solid plan on a good stadium. And because we are healthy market. Not because the Rams "no comments" on it. People understand that city that supported a team historically bad doesn't deserve to lose them the minute they sniff .500. Not because of anything the Rams say and do, that doesn't make the slightest bit sense.

I gotta stop coming to this thread every day. From the notion that the city should have started stadium plans before the paint dried on the ED, to this new idea that the Rams are being gracious to St Louis for not falsely trashing a perfectly good stadium proposal they barely look at, it's getting a bit out there.

Earned or not earned, the simple fact is that the Rams could be playing that game and they're not, they've decided to be professional. Doing a camp in Oxnard is a little bit of a dick move, but playing preseason games? Since when did teams decide where they're playing their games?

Tell me which you would rather be doing, negotiating with someone that whatever you do other than bend over and listen to their every demand, is going to trash you publicly, or someone who's just going to essentially going to let you do your thing and let you know privately if he likes it or not?

I have a hard time believing that anyone on this forum, regardless of what side they're on, would rather negotiate with the first person.

 

[RamBill]

Talk commences of a possible one-year L.A. delay
Posted by Mike Florio

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/06/28/talk-commences-of-a-possible-one-year-l-a-delay/

At a time when it’s become a foregone conclusion that the NFL will return to Los Angeles in 2016, a possible caveat has emerged

The return might come in 2017.

According to an item from the Editorial board of U-T San Diego, “There is speculation that the owners at the August meeting [to discuss Los Angeles] may delay the entire process for a year to let everything percolate in [Oakland, San Diego, and St. Louis] to see what develops.”

The paper calls it the “best possible outcome” for San Diego, since it would give the local politicians more time to properly pursue a vote regarding the use of taxpayer funds. It also would give both the city and the team cover, if the voters decide to reject the use of public money — necessarily paving the way for the Chargers to return to the city where the team spent its first season in 1960, the inaugural year of the AFL.

It’s unclear where the speculation came from. It could be something that the Editorial board of U-T San Diego conjured (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) as a Hail Mary pass to keep an NFL team in town for U-T San Diego to cover. If, of course, a public vote regarding the use of taxpayer money would go against the current national trend against subsidizing billionaires’ ballparks.

Tapping the brakes could have unintended consequences. For example, if one of the three teams linked to L.A. gets too antsy about the situation, it could in theory decide to go rogue, moving without NFL approval and bracing to argue that a group of independent businesses ultimately can’t tell one of those businesses where it should conduct its business without violating the antitrust laws.

It’s also possible (“yes, there is speculation, started by us”) that the owners could decide to green light a return by the Rams to L.A. for 2016, with the question of whether the team’s new stadium in Inglewood would be shared with the Chargers or Raiders unresolved.

No amount of delay will change the fact that L.A. has quickly morphed from luxury to necessity for the NFL, with three teams having unsettled stadium situations and each circling the City of Angels. But if the eventual goal is to put two teams in L.A. and to ensure that the third has a new stadium in its current market, it could be that one more year will allow one of the teams to work out a deal locally, allowing the other two to move.

Under that scenario, it’s unlikely that the Chargers would accept an outcome that puts them in a new San Diego stadium and the Rams and Raiders back up the road in L.A. Delaying the process that would allow the Chargers to grab one of the two seats in Los Angeles increases the likelihood that, when the music stops, three franchises will be clustered into territory in which the Chargers currently enjoy their status as the only NFL show in town.

For that reason alone (and the fact that they’ve been trying for 14 years to bring this situation to a head), the Chargers probably aren’t inclined to wait any longer.