Did Kroenke’s camp plant the latest stadium story? Bernie Miklasz discusses it on The Fast Lane.
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Stories
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Stories
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
This sounds unfortunate for the city of St. Louis. Growing up watching the team when they came there, I've seen the Rams as a hometown team especially when they won the Superbowl. Now I know how LA fans feel. I'll still follow but if this happens, the league should give another team to STL. Maybe the Jags since they were almost the Stallions.
30-70 they stay in STL past 2016. I hope like hell I'm wrong. But judging from the small circle of friends and co-workers I have (20-30 regular ticket buyers and season ticket holders), the dome is going to be empty. They simply won't spend the money on a team that doesn't want to be here. Especially on a team that's been as poorly run as this one over the years. I hate to say it, but before I had these conversations with them I was optimistic. Not anymore. There's a lot of anger.
Got to believe that Kroenke put out the Inglewood deal so as to poison the well in STL! This year's attendance means little to him in terms of money and low attendance hurts the CVC as well! It's no ploy to get a new stadium in STL, that's a given!
I can't stand this! The Rams have been my only team since ive been a football fan. St Louis has done everything to support this team no matter how bad they were and now doing everything to keep it and it still probably wont be enough. St Louis has done nothing wrong and to have its team ripped away by a greedy ass owner chasing a horrible sports town just for the perceived dollar. L.A. has always been and always will be an aweful sports town, if the winning isnt there neither will the fans. I honestly don't know what to do with my fandom anymore, do I continue to invest my time and emotion into a team that can potentially leave me? Do I continue to support them after they go? Im still holding out hope that this will all work out and they will stay where they belong but its getting harder and harder. No matter what happens F you Stan for this giant shit storm you greedy bastard! Ok rant over, sorry for that but I had to get it out.
Last edited:
NateTheRam
Rookie
LA has and will always be a awful sports town?? Where the hell did u get this from?? Don't disrespect LA fans because the Rams are moving back to LA
First off, you don't know what the Rams are doing, and you sound as bad as the person you quoted above. Secondly, why the hell is everyone in favor of the Rams staying in Stl ready to jump off of a freaking bridge? Do yourselves a favor and calm down and let this thing ride out. This thing has a long ways to go and we're nowhere near the end.
Just look at every franchise in LA if they don't win the fans don't show up. Much of the population are migrant from other cities and don't have roots to LA they are fans of the cities they came from(much like Florida which has similar problems). LA is a front runner town, not to say that all fans in LA are but the majority of the city is.
Stop with the St. Louis fans vs. LA fans nonsense or this thread gets locked.
Excuse my being naive... but, what was the other option other than going year-to-year?
^^^^^^This^^^^^^
Extending the lease for 10 more years, I believe, which would have been stupid regardless of the owner's intentions.
Is the NFL Network story on the league supporting Stan Kroenke’s Los Angeles plan a cause for real concern in St. Louis? Bernie Miklasz cautions overreacting to Albert Breer’s story on the topic.
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Stories
Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium Stories
Jumping off a bridge? Preparing for likely disappointment, yes a little. The more I talk to people two things become apparent.
1. Stan's poison the well strategy is working. Quote from my coworker yesterday "they want to move, but they don't want to move in until they've sucked every dime of hot dog money out of my pocket."
2. Missouri voters and politicians are stubbornly short sighted.
Bernie: More twists in the Rams-LA game
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_3abc21b2-d1dc-59e4-b254-14ab23ddcefa.html
PHOENIX • From what I understand, the freak-out level was running high among St. Louis football fans in reaction to a story written by Albert Breer on NFL.com.
If you haven't had a chance to read the piece, here's the link.
And here's one of the key passages from Breer's story:
"The early January announcement that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is planning an extravagant Inglewood stadium sent shockwaves through NFL circles, but — according to those with direct knowledge of the proceedings — was met with quiet applause at the league office, which has been waiting for a powerful plan like this one to get behind. And despite St. Louis and Missouri officials responding quickly with their own stadium vision, the momentum here has very clearly shifted west."
I'm not as bothered by this as many of you seem to be.
A while back I came to an unfortunate conclusion: the NFL can't be trusted. And the NFL will do what it wants to do.
So in that context, nothing really surprises me.
Including Breer's story.
When commissioner Roger Goodell told me he wanted the Rams to remain in St. Louis, I wanted to believe him. And I did at the time. But a lot's changed over the past two-plus years, and it would be foolish for me (or anyone) to believe that the NFL will sincerely look out for our town's interests.
This isn't to say that the NFL won't play a positive role in facilitating the STL stadium plan organized by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz.
The league's first response — dispatch executive VP Eric Grubman to St. Louis — was encouraging.
But the level of trust in the NFL should only go so far.
When push comes to shove the league will do what's best for the league.
It's best to view all of the quotes and the stories through that prism.
The NFL (through various sources) is telling a lot of different things to different people. The league is very good at designing a message based on where the message's target audience.
This is a league that put Grubman in charge of preparing for the eventual return of NFL football to Los Angeles. But while Grubman is supervising the league's interests in Los Angeles, he's also going to meetings in St. Louis and Oakland to offer advice on how to keep their teams.
Does that sound logical to any of you?
Los Angeles lands a team only if another market loses a team. And the same powerful league executive is working both ends of the spectrum.
This seems to be a rather obvious conflict of interest.
This sets up a situation where you have one league executive (Grubman) traveling to St. Louis to try and reassure the locals ... and you have another NFL person (or persons) telling Breer that Los Angeles is looking great, and is closer to getting a team than it's been in a long time.
Part of Grubman's message during his visit to St. Louis was to make it clear that the NFL expected Kroenke to follow the league rules on franchise relocation. But Grubman also worked in the phrase "subjective judgments" several times — also letting it be known that when the owners sit down to vote, they can form their own version of reality and vote accordingly. The NFL owners can choose to ignore the rules if they want to.
I tried to stress that part in my column written after Grubman's visit.
In one 20-minute interview, Grubman reaffirmed his desire to help St. Louis ... and encouraged St. Louis to build the new stadium as quickly as possible ... but he wouldn't guarantee that a new stadium would keep the Rams in St. Louis.
All about those subjective judgments.
I can see why the NFL would have quietly applauded the Kroenke stadium plan.
I wrote this on Jan. 6:
"The NFL could decide that Kroenke represents its best opportunity to set up shop in Los Angeles. He checks off several important boxes. He has the money and the willingness to build his own stadium there. He has the real estate to house the project. He has an NFL team to anchor the Los Angeles stadium complex. The situation in Los Angeles has been a mess for 20 years, leaving a trail of flimsy stadium plans and promises. Kroenke’s all-encompassing commitment provides a neat, tidy package that can solve the NFL’s longstanding LA problem.
"Kroenke can deliver a Los Angeles solution. The NFL’s second-wealthiest owner is throwing down to go big into Los Angeles. With no other credible Los Angeles plans on the table, does the NFL have the stomach (and integrity) to cut Kroenke at the knees? Call me skeptical."
So if someone from the league (or from the Rams' front office, or both) are telling Breer that the Kroenke plan is looking pretty sweet right now, it comes as no surprise to me. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone in St. Louis.
Kroenke's plan gives the NFL a chance to get something going in LA — either by signing off on Stan's plan, or by using his plan to put pressure on groups that want to build a Los Angeles football stadium on a more attractive site.
Breer's story was also useful to Kroenke in that it changed the narrative by shifting the focus back to Los Angeles.
Peacock has been riding a pretty good wave of positive publicity over the past two or three weeks, with the national media picking up on the stadium plan here. Moreover, Peacock has been engaged in conversations with NFL owners. The pro-STL case was getting out there.
So how do you counteract that?
Steer the narrative away from St. Louis — where there has been some new momentum — and casts the sunshine on the possibilities in Los Angeles.
(By the way, just so we're clear: I'm not being critical of Breer in any way. He's just doing his job, and writing a story based on his reporting and his conversations with well-placed sources.)
Breer's also story serves a purpose in St. Louis. Let's repeat it for those who didn't understand it the first 100 times: if St. Louis wants to remain in the NFL, this is a time of urgency. Things are moving fast, and if the Peacock-Blitz plan has any chance of becoming a reality, it has to begin taking shape as soon as possible.
If the story demoralized Rams fans ... well, that's exactly what Kroenke wants.
As I've written before: one possible strategy is to poison the well and then make the claim that there's soft support for the Rams in St. Louis.
So if you want to give up, please understand three things:
1. There will be many more twists and turns to this story, so it's best to ride with it instead of overreacting to every news story, news nugget or speck of speculation.
2. By throwing in the towel, you are playing directly into Kroenke's hands, and thereby making it easier for the NFL to turn its back on St. Louis.
3. Peacock isn't giving up. Hardly. He's more driven than ever to make the stadium a reality. No matter how many times his efforts are undermined, Peacock will continue to make his case directly to the NFL, and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull the Rams out of St. Louis — if in fact the NFL wants to do that.
The best thing Peacock can do is keep working hard on the stadium project and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull out of this market — if in fact the NFL is inclined to do so.
Thanks for reading ...
— Bernie
bluecoconuts
Legend
I think a lot of what Bernie is talking about is grasping at staws. This seems perfectly logical to me, from an NFL standpoint. It lets them have their cake and eat it to. If they do indeed want the Rams to move to LA, then by doing this they get to have them move, but until then it keeps as many people buying seats as possible in St Louis until they do move, plus it allows the market to remain viable, so they can potentially move another team there. If the end goal for the NFL is a team in LA then this a good way to do it.
Nixon administration says it could take action on Rams stadium without legislative input
• By Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_3ab09064-9d43-58c1-a499-d5b10e0ebd60.html
JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon could issue bonds for a new St. Louis Rams stadium without approval by the Legislature, members of his administration asserted Tuesday.
At a state House budget hearing, Doug Nelson, Office of Administration commissioner, said a law passed more than 20 years ago allows the Nixon administration to act to issue such bonds. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease with, for example, the city and/or county.
"This is not an indication of what we're going to do," Nelson said. "This is an indication that we believe we have that authority."
Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, requested Attorney General Chris Koster's legal opinion Tuesday regarding if the law provides Nixon this authority without approval of the Legislature or Missouri voters.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke is reported to be working on a plan to build an 80,000-seat NFL stadium and 6,000-seat performance venue in the Los Angeles area. Rams management has since said they will stay in St. Louis next season. The original lease was set to expire in 2025.
This month, a two-member team appointed by Nixon revealed plans for a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis, in an effort to keep the St. Louis Rams in the city. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid for by taxpayers.
The Legislature, so far, has not responded kindly to the notion of Nixon making a decision without them.
Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson, warned of litigation if the governor takes this step without running it through the Legislature.
"If the Nixon administration chooses to bind taxpayers for ... new debt without a vote of the people and their representatives in the General Assembly, those bonds should have an asterisk to say 'subject to litigation,' " he said Tuesday.
Scott Holste, Nixon's spokesman, did not say if the governor would take this avenue for issuing the bonds.
Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard disagreed with the idea that the executive branch could unilaterally extend the bonds.
"After reviewing it, I believe they need legislative authority to agree to that," said Richard, R-Joplin. "I don't believe they can do it on their own. I believe we should be part of that discussion and that approval process," he said.
That being said, he doubted that the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature would agree to take on more debt for a sports stadium.
"The sense of it is, right now, it's meeting on deaf ears," Richard said.
Richard said he wasn't sure how he would vote on a bond extension because many details remain hazy.
"It depends on what the owners are putting in," Richard said. "I've talked to Dave Peacock about it. I'm not sure (extending the bonds is) even what they're trying to do."
If Nixon goes ahead on his own, legislators would still hold sway over appropriations bills needed for the annual debt service payments on the bonds. And they might balk at paying the tab, Richard said, a move that could put the state's credit rating in jeopardy if the state were to default on the bonds.
House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, previously has said that public money to fund the new stadium would be "a pretty hard sell." He had no further comments Tuesday.
Democrats agreed that, practically speaking, the Legislature must be consulted.
"Issuing additional bonds without approval from voters or from the General Assembly is just not a realistic option," said Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia and a member of the House Budget Committee.
"You cannot use a now-24-year-old bonding authority to add another $250-plus million that the state is obligated to pay off," Webber said. "It would be incredibly damaging for the state's bond rating, it would be incredibly damaging for the General Assembly's relationship with the entire St. Louis area. I think they would have a very difficult time passing an appropriations bill to pay off that bonding."
On Monday, senators had a similar reaction. After Nelson explained the situation to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, filed a bill that would require legislative approval to extend any existing bonds for an additional obligation amount over $50 million.
"This is between the Legislature and the governor," Schaaf said. "For the governor to think he could put us in debt ...without the action of the Legislature is outrageous."
The bill is Senate Bill 319.
Virginia Young and David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
• By Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_3ab09064-9d43-58c1-a499-d5b10e0ebd60.html
JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon could issue bonds for a new St. Louis Rams stadium without approval by the Legislature, members of his administration asserted Tuesday.
At a state House budget hearing, Doug Nelson, Office of Administration commissioner, said a law passed more than 20 years ago allows the Nixon administration to act to issue such bonds. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease with, for example, the city and/or county.
"This is not an indication of what we're going to do," Nelson said. "This is an indication that we believe we have that authority."
Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City, requested Attorney General Chris Koster's legal opinion Tuesday regarding if the law provides Nixon this authority without approval of the Legislature or Missouri voters.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke is reported to be working on a plan to build an 80,000-seat NFL stadium and 6,000-seat performance venue in the Los Angeles area. Rams management has since said they will stay in St. Louis next season. The original lease was set to expire in 2025.
This month, a two-member team appointed by Nixon revealed plans for a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis, in an effort to keep the St. Louis Rams in the city. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid for by taxpayers.
The Legislature, so far, has not responded kindly to the notion of Nixon making a decision without them.
Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson, warned of litigation if the governor takes this step without running it through the Legislature.
"If the Nixon administration chooses to bind taxpayers for ... new debt without a vote of the people and their representatives in the General Assembly, those bonds should have an asterisk to say 'subject to litigation,' " he said Tuesday.
Scott Holste, Nixon's spokesman, did not say if the governor would take this avenue for issuing the bonds.
Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard disagreed with the idea that the executive branch could unilaterally extend the bonds.
"After reviewing it, I believe they need legislative authority to agree to that," said Richard, R-Joplin. "I don't believe they can do it on their own. I believe we should be part of that discussion and that approval process," he said.
That being said, he doubted that the overwhelmingly Republican Legislature would agree to take on more debt for a sports stadium.
"The sense of it is, right now, it's meeting on deaf ears," Richard said.
Richard said he wasn't sure how he would vote on a bond extension because many details remain hazy.
"It depends on what the owners are putting in," Richard said. "I've talked to Dave Peacock about it. I'm not sure (extending the bonds is) even what they're trying to do."
If Nixon goes ahead on his own, legislators would still hold sway over appropriations bills needed for the annual debt service payments on the bonds. And they might balk at paying the tab, Richard said, a move that could put the state's credit rating in jeopardy if the state were to default on the bonds.
House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, previously has said that public money to fund the new stadium would be "a pretty hard sell." He had no further comments Tuesday.
Democrats agreed that, practically speaking, the Legislature must be consulted.
"Issuing additional bonds without approval from voters or from the General Assembly is just not a realistic option," said Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia and a member of the House Budget Committee.
"You cannot use a now-24-year-old bonding authority to add another $250-plus million that the state is obligated to pay off," Webber said. "It would be incredibly damaging for the state's bond rating, it would be incredibly damaging for the General Assembly's relationship with the entire St. Louis area. I think they would have a very difficult time passing an appropriations bill to pay off that bonding."
On Monday, senators had a similar reaction. After Nelson explained the situation to the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, filed a bill that would require legislative approval to extend any existing bonds for an additional obligation amount over $50 million.
"This is between the Legislature and the governor," Schaaf said. "For the governor to think he could put us in debt ...without the action of the Legislature is outrageous."
The bill is Senate Bill 319.
Virginia Young and David Hunn of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
- Status