New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bubbaramfan]

503--Concerning the Carson site:

Montrose Chemical Corp. (another superfund site) occupied the property directly west of the proposed stadium site). They made mustard gas for the military during WWll, and after the war, DDT and PCB's for transformers. Their waste product was put in 55 gallon drums and then deposited in the landfill. On the other side, east of the landfill was a Shell Oil Refinery. Their waste was also put in the landfill. Other corporations throughout So. Cal. used the landfill for their toxic waste. There are an estimated 100,000 plus 55 gallon drums that have been deposited in that landfill over a 60 year period. These 55 gallon drums are rusting and corroding, and some of it is leaking to the surface. Here's the problem: Pilings have to be sunk to bedrock (estimated 40-50 feet deep), because of "liquefaction" (whenever there is an earthquake, like a building built on wet sand it will sink into the ground). cassions (pilings), sunk every 20 feet and filled with cement, keep this from happening, but this ground is not solid. there are some places where the garbage is 40 feet thick and turning to liquid sludge. There is also the concern that sinking the pilings will puncture more of the 55 gallon drums, creating more problems that it solves.

There are real environmental, health and engineering problems with this property that have NOT been solved yet. Calif. State Board of Health and the EPA are not going to certify the site as "cerifiably safe" until all their conditions are met, and there are other problems that I haven't outlined here. (Ground water contamination is another).

google "Montrose Chemical SoCal" or "EPA Del Amo Superfund Region 9" and you will find a plethora of information on the history of the proposed stadium site.

My whole reason for posting here is to bring the readers of ROD the reality of the proposed Carson stadium site. The media, the Chargers, the Radiers and NFL have painted a rosier picture than what really is. I'm pleased that folks here are reading and taking note. Like I've said before, I don't like being mis-led or lied too. And that's what they're doing concerning the Carson stadium site,

 

[8to12]

So - do we all agree that when the NFL owners vote on this thing that the vote - however that vote goes - that the decision will be honored by all teams? Can we agree that no owner is going rogue?

12inthebox, I believe the question is still too difficult to answer. IMO, the onion hasn't been peeled back far enough to expose Kroenke's end game.

Let me ask you, why did Kroenke make a bid for the Dodgers? My first thought was that owning the Dodgers in LA and then moving the Rams to LA keeps both teams within the NFL rules of cross ownership, not withstanding the existing issues with his Denver teams. He did not win the bid for the Dodgers, but within a year after the new Dodger ownership took over, a new TV Network deal was struck with Time/Warner for exclusive Dodger broadcasts ; 8 billion over 25 years. That equates to 320-Mil per season, which is double the amount NFL teams receive from the existing NFL TV deal. I have to think there was more to just owning both teams in LA.

In addition to this, I'm not sure many are aware that in 2013, Kroenke Sports & Entertainment acquired the Outdoor Channel based in Temecula Calif. ( half way between Anaheim and San Diego) for 227-Mil. So, this leads to a question about Kroenke going rogue ; if the NFL wanted to punish him by taking his share existing TV revenue (156-Mil per season) couldn't he make more by broadcasting Rams games in Southern California on his own Network?

And, talking about going rogue, did the NFL do anything to stop Jerry Jones from keeping his merchandising revenue? It is supposed to be shared among the league but he said no. There was an agreement reached which I don't remember the specifics, but he is basically excluded from the NFL sharing and keeps almost all of his merchandising revenue. With the Cowboys as a recent example, I'm not sure how far the NFL (league office) is willing to go to punish someone like Kroenke for relocating against the will of the majority. And, I'm not saying I'm for it, but rather there's not enough information to make a educated guess.

 

[8to12]

She's on record recently that her opinion is that the Raiders are going to be the team that moves to LA. So I'm not sure how she gains.

She was pretty specific about what the NFL could do 503. It didn't read as if it was her opinion. And as the CEO of the team I am sure she was on the call and read the memo and understands the changes as well as anyone could.

Here is a slice of the article:
But as Trask said, with a chuckle, “It’s not like the olden days in that regard. The league really battened down the hatches to prevent teams from acting as rogue agents.”


Since that “relocation era,” the league has tweaked and added to its relocation policies. The league has also implemented financial penalties for teams that move without league approval.

But if Kroenke changes his mind and moves without league approval, there are penalties involved that weren’t there in the ’80s and ’90s.

(later in the article there is this)

“The league has put in place a number of safeguards, if you will, which make it very, very, very hard for a team to ... act as a rogue agent,” Trask said.

“These safeguards are really draconian. They involve financial penalties and other penalties that really should deter teams from doing things like that without (league approval).”

Among them are forfeitures of part of a team’s annual share of leaguewide television revenue. Another is forfeiture of a team’s share of leaguewide income from NFL Properties — the league’s merchandising arm.


Linkage

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_460da03e-0329-58b5-977b-bc5167ce952c.html

IMO there isn't an owner in the NFL that is stupid enough to go rogue.

.....that's all....that's it? take away his TV revenue and Merchandising revenue? Like I just posted, Kroenke already owns a Cable Network in Temecula, Ca. He would probably earn more revenue with his own Network, without having to share any of it, than sharing in the NFL TV deal.
Between Corporate Club and private box sales, along with his own network, I don't see how the NFL could make life financially difficult for Kroenke IF he opted to go rogue.

 

[Spike14]

@LesBaker - clearly he is new here.

Yeah....joined in October, but never really got on here. I think the topic of relocation was verboten at that time. Just blew through 2 beers over the past hour reading your conversation regarding the various nuances of the bylaws and the rogue potential. Great reading after spending a chunk of a blistering afternoon scraping goo off of my deck. Well done, gents!

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah....joined in October, but never really got on here. I think the topic of relocation was verboten at that time. Just blew through 2 beers over the past hour reading your conversation regarding the various nuances of the bylaws and the rogue potential. Great reading after spending a chunk of a blistering afternoon scraping goo off of my deck. Well done, gents!

Well belated welcome aboard.

BTW in case you didn't see it, several of us are going to converge on the Lou for the season opener and a memorial for one of our fallen members.

Check out the events thread on it if you think you might want to join us.

 

[MrMotes]

o - do we all agree that when the NFL owners vote on this thing that the vote - however that vote goes - that the decision will be honored by all teams? Can we agree that no owner is going rogue?

I don't see how any of us can know that. Owners have gone rogue before and won. Stan Kroenke is no stranger to suing when it suits his interest.

I think the NFL will find a way where nobody wants to go rogue. Most likely scenario, imo, is they come up with a solution that everyone agrees to and then they vote, no surprises, no losers...

 

[MrMotes]

You're missing what I am saying. Every game has two broadcasts - the home, and the visiting team, except for night games.

Say what? Preseason (non-network), sure, but regular season is one network broadcast per game...

 

[RamFan503]

503--Concerning the Carson site:

Montrose Chemical Corp. (another superfund site) occupied the property directly west of the proposed stadium site). They made mustard gas for the military during WWll, and after the war, DDT and PCB's for transformers. Their waste product was put in 55 gallon drums and then deposited in the landfill. On the other side, east of the landfill was a Shell Oil Refinery. Their waste was also put in the landfill. Other corporations throughout So. Cal. used the landfill for their toxic waste. There are an estimated 100,000 plus 55 gallon drums that have been deposited in that landfill over a 60 year period. These 55 gallon drums are rusting and corroding, and some of it is leaking to the surface. Here's the problem: Pilings have to be sunk to bedrock (estimated 40-50 feet deep), because of "liquefaction" (whenever there is an earthquake, like a building built on wet sand it will sink into the ground). cassions (pilings), sunk every 20 feet and filled with cement, keep this from happening, but this ground is not solid. there are some places where the garbage is 40 feet thick and turning to liquid sludge. There is also the concern that sinking the pilings will puncture more of the 55 gallon drums, creating more problems that it solves.

There are real environmental, health and engineering problems with this property that have NOT been solved yet. Calif. State Board of Health and the EPA are not going to certify the site as "cerifiably safe" until all their conditions are met, and there are other problems that I haven't outlined here. (Ground water contamination is another).

google "Montrose Chemical SoCal" or "EPA Del Amo Superfund Region 9" and you will find a plethora of information on the history of the proposed stadium site.

My whole reason for posting here is to bring the readers of ROD the reality of the proposed Carson stadium site. The media, the Chargers, the Radiers and NFL have painted a rosier picture than what really is. I'm pleased that folks here are reading and taking note. Like I've said before, I don't like being mis-led or lied too. And that's what they're doing concerning the Carson stadium site,

Thanks man. These old dump sites always concern me.

They had plans to build a rather extensive Lewis and Clark interpretive center on one near Portland. In the process, they realized that certain areas would need much more time to "age" and would need to have the wells/collection/test equipment in place for another 5 years before they could finish the project. They went ahead and allowed a lease on the land for someone to put in a driving range and have since renewed that lease. The project was supposed to be ok for completion over ten years ago and has still not been given the go ahead. And that was a dump site that apparently had very little waste from some ship building operations but mostly household garbage.

I suppose that each site is different and they could have already done much more elaborate remediation in Carson than they did at the Oregon site but it seems they never know until they open up the earth and finding all kinds of nasty secrets that end up delaying or completely blocking a project.

I just seriously have my doubts on the Carson project. I almost think it is more likely that Stan sells an approved site in Inglewood at great profit than the idea that the Carson project ever gets built.

I've thought all along anyway that Stan would stay in St Louis if it at all made sense to him to do so. I still think that is his preference.

 

[RamBill]

NFL in L.A.? Here are some predictions for the next few months
By Sam Farmer

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-la-20150713-story.html

The next few months are crucial for the NFL.

With St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke proposing a stadium in Inglewood, and the owners of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders backing a competing project in Carson, the stars are aligned for something to happen. The league could be on the verge of solving a 20-year riddle and returning to Los Angeles.

Then again, this could all fall apart just like every other plan.

Some predictions about what we will see unfold in the next several months as it relates to the NFL in L.A.:

Prediction: There won't be any major developments coming out of the Aug. 11 NFL owners meeting in Chicago.

Roger Goodell has informed clubs there won't be any votes at this meeting. So it's not as if we'll get a strong indication which way the owners are leaning. They'll probably emerge with comments that are generic and familiar, such as, "It's encouraging that we have two viable options in Los Angeles," and, "We're closer to returning than we've ever been, but there's a lot of work to be done."

On Aug. 10, representatives from the cities of San Diego and St. Louis will make presentations to the NFL's committee on L.A. opportunities. This will be the first time most owners will hear full presentations on the two proposals.

Eventually, the league will compress and move up (to the fall) the window for teams to file relocation applications, but that's unlikely to happen at the August meetings. Currently, that six-week window opens on Jan. 1, but that doesn't give a relocating team much time to set up shop in its new city.

The league will get a lot of the necessary background work done before teams formally announce they plan to leave their current markets. On the L.A. committee are the chairmen of the NFL's stadium, finance, labor and broadcast committees, so those committees will be kept up to speed on what's happening.

Prediction: The focus of October meetings in New York will be the home markets, but owners will only hear from two of those three cities.

St. Louis and San Diego have put together serious proposals — although the Rams and Chargers aren't impressed. But Oakland is lagging in a big way, so much so that representatives from that city likely won't even be invited to New York for the meetings.

If the league does invite Oakland, it will be so that owners can see what little progress that city has made.

Prediction: The NFL will have signed leases with one or two temporary stadiums by the end of the year, and the Coliseum will be one of those.

The Rose Bowl bowed out of the interim stadium derby, but the Coliseum is still in play. The NFL shouldn't have much trouble striking a deal there, as the Chargers quietly got far down the road in negotiations with that venue last year.

The Coliseum could be a two-year home for either the Rams or the Chargers, but USC would probably object to bringing back the Raiders.

If the league only signs a lease with the Coliseum — and doesn't secure one with StubHub Center, Dodger Stadium or Angels Stadium — that's not a guarantee that it's the Rams who will move. The league has spitballed various scenarios in which two teams move, but there's only one temporary stadium available in L.A. Those scenarios include the Raiders staying in Oakland for two more seasons while an L.A. stadium is built, or the Chargers staying in San Diego and possibly playing two games per season in London.

Prediction: The NFL will begin counting potential L.A. season-ticket holders this fall.

Want season tickets to an L.A. NFL team? The line starts here.

Watch for the league to begin building a priority list of potential customers, possibly by taking refundable deposits on season tickets — even when it's unknown which team(s) would move and where the stadium would be. That could mean plunking down, say, $100 to get in line for low-end season tickets, and more for club seats and suites.

There's a debate in the league about whether there should be a fee for getting on that priority list, but the NFL is leaning toward charging one to find the fans who are truly interested. Once the team(s) and site are determined, the people on the list could either get their money back or apply it to season tickets.

Prediction: In the coming months, the NFL will assume a much higher profile in San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland.

Watch for league staff to host public meetings and solicit public comment in those cities, talking to business leaders and everyday fans, not just politicians. Those won't necessarily be pleasant affairs, but they're a necessary step in understanding the full picture and giving everyone a voice.

Prediction: A showdown pitting Kroenke versus the Chargers' Dean Spanos and Raiders' Mark Davis? This process will never come down to a vote for all the marbles.

Think of L.A. as a game of musical chairs, with three participants and a maximum of two chairs. The worst-case scenario for the league would be to have one of those three teams lose a vote and be forced to return to a city it tried to leave.

Watch for the NFL to manage the process so that the tough choices are made before anything goes to a vote. This isn't like awarding a Super Bowl to one city over another. Over the next few months, the league will be able to tease out the clear preferences of the ownership — all before the three teams actually apply for relocation — then proceed accordingly.

That could mean the league goes to one or more of the owners and says, "Look, you're not going to have the required support to do this. It's best for everyone involved if you stand down, but we will help you in the following ways…"

This process probably will wind up with a grand bargain.

From the league's perspective, that beats a battle royal.

 

[The Ripper]

NFL in L.A.? Here are some predictions for the next few months
By Sam Farmer

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-la-20150713-story.html

The next few months are crucial for the NFL.

With St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke proposing a stadium in Inglewood, and the owners of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders backing a competing project in Carson, the stars are aligned for something to happen. The league could be on the verge of solving a 20-year riddle and returning to Los Angeles.

Then again, this could all fall apart just like every other plan.

Some predictions about what we will see unfold in the next several months as it relates to the NFL in L.A.:

Prediction: There won't be any major developments coming out of the Aug. 11 NFL owners meeting in Chicago.

Roger Goodell has informed clubs there won't be any votes at this meeting. So it's not as if we'll get a strong indication which way the owners are leaning. They'll probably emerge with comments that are generic and familiar, such as, "It's encouraging that we have two viable options in Los Angeles," and, "We're closer to returning than we've ever been, but there's a lot of work to be done."

On Aug. 10, representatives from the cities of San Diego and St. Louis will make presentations to the NFL's committee on L.A. opportunities. This will be the first time most owners will hear full presentations on the two proposals.

Eventually, the league will compress and move up (to the fall) the window for teams to file relocation applications, but that's unlikely to happen at the August meetings. Currently, that six-week window opens on Jan. 1, but that doesn't give a relocating team much time to set up shop in its new city.

The league will get a lot of the necessary background work done before teams formally announce they plan to leave their current markets. On the L.A. committee are the chairmen of the NFL's stadium, finance, labor and broadcast committees, so those committees will be kept up to speed on what's happening.

Prediction: The focus of October meetings in New York will be the home markets, but owners will only hear from two of those three cities.

St. Louis and San Diego have put together serious proposals — although the Rams and Chargers aren't impressed. But Oakland is lagging in a big way, so much so that representatives from that city likely won't even be invited to New York for the meetings.

If the league does invite Oakland, it will be so that owners can see what little progress that city has made.

Prediction: The NFL will have signed leases with one or two temporary stadiums by the end of the year, and the Coliseum will be one of those.

The Rose Bowl bowed out of the interim stadium derby, but the Coliseum is still in play. The NFL shouldn't have much trouble striking a deal there, as the Chargers quietly got far down the road in negotiations with that venue last year.

The Coliseum could be a two-year home for either the Rams or the Chargers, but USC would probably object to bringing back the Raiders.

If the league only signs a lease with the Coliseum — and doesn't secure one with StubHub Center, Dodger Stadium or Angels Stadium — that's not a guarantee that it's the Rams who will move. The league has spitballed various scenarios in which two teams move, but there's only one temporary stadium available in L.A. Those scenarios include the Raiders staying in Oakland for two more seasons while an L.A. stadium is built, or the Chargers staying in San Diego and possibly playing two games per season in London.

Prediction: The NFL will begin counting potential L.A. season-ticket holders this fall.

Want season tickets to an L.A. NFL team? The line starts here.

Watch for the league to begin building a priority list of potential customers, possibly by taking refundable deposits on season tickets — even when it's unknown which team(s) would move and where the stadium would be. That could mean plunking down, say, $100 to get in line for low-end season tickets, and more for club seats and suites.

There's a debate in the league about whether there should be a fee for getting on that priority list, but the NFL is leaning toward charging one to find the fans who are truly interested. Once the team(s) and site are determined, the people on the list could either get their money back or apply it to season tickets.

Prediction: In the coming months, the NFL will assume a much higher profile in San Diego, St. Louis and Oakland.

Watch for league staff to host public meetings and solicit public comment in those cities, talking to business leaders and everyday fans, not just politicians. Those won't necessarily be pleasant affairs, but they're a necessary step in understanding the full picture and giving everyone a voice.

Prediction: A showdown pitting Kroenke versus the Chargers' Dean Spanos and Raiders' Mark Davis? This process will never come down to a vote for all the marbles.

Think of L.A. as a game of musical chairs, with three participants and a maximum of two chairs. The worst-case scenario for the league would be to have one of those three teams lose a vote and be forced to return to a city it tried to leave.

Watch for the NFL to manage the process so that the tough choices are made before anything goes to a vote. This isn't like awarding a Super Bowl to one city over another. Over the next few months, the league will be able to tease out the clear preferences of the ownership — all before the three teams actually apply for relocation — then proceed accordingly.

That could mean the league goes to one or more of the owners and says, "Look, you're not going to have the required support to do this. It's best for everyone involved if you stand down, but we will help you in the following ways…"

This process probably will wind up with a grand bargain.

From the league's perspective, that beats a battle royal.

The Raiders shut out from a temp stadium and having to stay in Oakland will kill the already impossible task of building corporate support. If it's 2 teams that are approved both will come at the same time or they will approve only one initially and the other will stay to work on the proposed stadium in hopes of it coming together.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Its a given that they will string the relocation along giving hope to each city that they have a chance to keep their team, thereby ensuring ticket sales for the upcoming season.

Don't discount the Stub Hub Center. They can add seating up to 41,000 for pro football. That 27,000 number is for soccer configuration. Pro football field is smaller, allowing more temporary seating, which they have done for Charger pre-season and high school playoff games.

503-- Carson stadium proposed site: Pandora's Box?

 

[snackdaddy]

Its a given that they will string the relocation along giving hope to each city that they have a chance to keep their team, thereby ensuring ticket sales for the upcoming season.

Don't discount the Stub Hub Center. They can add seating up to 41,000 for pro football. That 27,000 number is for soccer configuration. Pro football field is smaller, allowing more temporary seating, which they have done for Charger pre-season and high school playoff games.

503-- Carson stadium proposed site: Pandora's Box?

If, and I say if, the Rams are moving, I gotta think the NFL already knows. Announcing that they're relocating to LA before or during the season would be a PR nightmare for both the Rams and the NFL.
I can see the banners and signs all over the stadium. Some might be pleading, but I wouldn't be surprised if some are pissed enough to say "don't let the door hit your ass on the way out".

What would happen if Joe Buck did a Rams game? That would be awkward for the NFL. No, if the NFL knows they're moving they ain't saying anything till the end of the season. Of course, if they know they're not they can announce that anytime.

 

[RamFan503]

503-- Carson stadium proposed site: Pandora's Box?

Can't help but think so.

 

[bluecoconuts]

When Jerry Jones opened his mouth and puked out some serious misinformation some smart reporters got her on the phone and asked good questions. You can look around and find them.

I'm still catching up on everything posted, but while Jerry Jones is a bit of a loud mouth, he isn't stupid. I would take his word over Amy. I'm sure Amy is very smart, but we're talking about who knows the ins and outs more... A current and 26 year owner in the NFL, or a sports analyst who was a CEO for a one of the teams for about 16 years. Again I'm not saying that Amy is dumb or doesn't know what she's talking about... But I'd say that Jerry Jones has a better pulse on things right now. He's in the club, she never was. Close to someone in the club yes, but never herself.

 

[The Ripper]

Its a given that they will string the relocation along giving hope to each city that they have a chance to keep their team, thereby ensuring ticket sales for the upcoming season.

Don't discount the Stub Hub Center. They can add seating up to 41,000 for pro football. That 27,000 number is for soccer configuration. Pro football field is smaller, allowing more temporary seating, which they have done for Charger pre-season and high school playoff games.

503-- Carson stadium proposed site: Pandora's Box?

Not too sure AEG will be too accommodating for the Chargers and Raiders if they get the nod. That's if they can ever build on their site.

 

[bluecoconuts]

BTW - not sure what this means. But the Dodgers have a local deal, the Yankees certainly do through the YES network, Stan owns the network his Avs, Nuggets, and Rapids (?) play on when they are not nationally televised games. In fact, I think NFL teams even have some local market deals not shared with other owners. Not sure on that last one but why in the world would the Rams be spending the kind of money they have expanding into other regional markets if they really have no more to gain? What would LA, Las Vegas, Santa Barbara, etc.. be worth as a local TV market?

Lakers have a 20 year deal worth 3 billion dollars, Dodgers have a 25 year deal worth 8.35 billion. If an NFL team was free to make their own deal in LA, it would probably be in the neighborhood of 8-10 billion or so.

 

[Irish]

Lakers have a 20 year deal worth 3 billion dollars, Dodgers have a 25 year deal worth 8.35 billion. If an NFL team was free to make their own deal in LA, it would probably be in the neighborhood of 8-10 billion or so.

For 16 , 3 hour games a year?

I highly doubt that...

 

[bluecoconuts]

For 16 , 3 hour games a year?

I highly doubt that...

I don't. Direct TV pays a billion dollars a season to the NFL. If they did a 20 year deal that's only 500 million per year.

 

[Irish]

I don't. Direct TV pays a billion dollars a season to the NFL. If they did a 20 year deal that's only 500 million per year.

I don't see what your point is.

The reason the Dodgers, Lakers, and Angels contracts are so gaudy is because they have a captive audience for hundreds of games a year for advertising dollars. You can't DVR and fast forward the commercials.

You can justify paying so much when you have a captive audience for so many dates. A single NFL team isn't worth NEARLY as much to advertisers, I don't care if they play in LA. Directv pays a Billions dollars because they get 32 games, and dominate from noon central time until the end of the day. Their exclusivity all but forces out of market fans across the US to use Directv as their television provider all of those weeks that the NFL isn't playing. Sunday Ticket pays for itself not during football season, but rather all of the new contracts forced to continue to pay after the season is finished. Your scenario also doesn't account for lost games to Monday Night Football and Thursday Night Football.

A single NFL team just doesn't provide enough hours to justify the type of dollars you are talking about.

 

[RamFan503]

Meh. Really don't think it would come to this even if (and it's a HUGE if) Stan went rogue. Something will get hammered out behind closed doors and then they'll formulate some story to feed the fans. Neither side is going to upset the apple cart to that extent.