New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RhodyRams]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_40013176-cc56-5137-bd05-6c561530b7c7.html

In his annual Super Bowl press conference early Friday afternoon in Glendale, Ariz., NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did not address the St. Louis Rams/Los Angeles issue during his nine-minute opening statement, but he did, however, touch on the subject early in the the question-and-answer period.

Following are those questions and answers:

Question from Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: I have a two-part question for you. What is the league's level of commitment to keeping a franchise in St. Louis, especially given the region's efforts to build a new stadium for the Rams for the second time in 20 years? And secondly, Rams' ownership, by all appearances, seems to be more interested in the L.A. project than the St. Louis stadium project. How does this meet relocation guidelines, which call for teams to exhaust every opportunity in their own market before moving?

Goodell's response: Jim, the first answer to your initial question is that we want all of our franchises to stay in their current markets. That's a shared responsibility. That's something that we all have to work together on. The league has programs, including stadium funding programs, that we make available and we will and have worked with communities, including St. Louis. We also will make sure that we're engaging the business community and the public sector in a way that can help us lead to solutions that work in those communities, in your case St. Louis. And then make sure it works for the community as well as for the the team, so our teams can be successful over the long term.

The second part of your question, Jim, was the interest of the ownership. You know Stan (Kroenke) has been working on the stadium issue in St. Louis, as you know, for several years. They had a very formal process as part of their lease. That process, they went through that entire process; it did not result in a solution that works either for St. Louis or for the team. So I don't think the stadium is a surprise to anybody in any market that is having these issues. There's quite a bit of discussion about it and the St. Louis representatives seem determined to build a stadium. That's a positive development, something that we look forward to working with them (on).

Question from Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times: (The year) 2015 marks the 20th year without a franchise in the nation's second-largest market _ and coincidentally, the 20th consecutive year I've asked this question. Earlier this month, as Jim (Thomas mentioned, Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans for an 80,000-seat stadium at Hollywood Park. Considering he has the land, the vast resources, both financial and political, can anyone else win this race? What's the criteria that the league is going to use to determine which team or teams are able to relocate to Los Angeles? And what if an owner decides to go rogue and, without the NFL's blessing, says, 'I'm just going to move my team no matter what you say.'?

Goodell's response: Sam, several points you made there and let me be responsive to all of them. First, let me start with your second question. The ownership takes very seriously the obligation for us all to vote on any serious matter, including relocation of a franchise. There's a relocation policy that is very clear. We have shared it with our ownership over the last several years. We have emphasized the point in each of those meetings that there will be at least one vote, if not multiple votes, if there is any relocation. We would have, potentially, the relocation itself, potential stadium funding, potential Super Bowls, so a lot of things would likely be subject to a vote. And our ownership takes that seriously. And we take that seriously. So any relocation would be subject to to a vote.

As it relates to the first part of your question, there have been no determinations of us going to Los Angeles, any particular team going to Los Angeles or going to any particular stadium. We have several alternatives that we're evaluating, both from a site standpoint _ there are teams that are interested but are trying to work their issues out locally. And so, as a league, we haven't got to that stage yet. It will all be subject to our relocation policy; there are requirements in that policy, as you know, particularly as it relates to cooperation and working to make sure they solve the issues in their local market. But I'm confident all of that will be covered within the relocation policy and with our membership approval.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eates-stadium-task-force-including-jim-steeg/

San Diego mayor creates stadium task force, including Jim Steeg
Posted by Darin Gantt on January 30, 2015

While Roger Goodell was talking about the potential for the Rams to move to Los Angeles, another possible suitor was talking about plans to stay put.

Via David Garrick of U-T San Diego, mayor Kevin Faulconer announced a nine-member task force to create a proposal for a new Chargers stadium.

The group includes longtime NFL executive Jim Steeg, who worked for the Chargers for five years, but left in 2010. Steeg spent 26 years working for the league prior to that stint.

The group also includes local business leaders, but having Steeg on board will provide the kind of insight into league business they need, if they’re going to find a viable way to keep the Chargers for looking elsewhere.

But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell urged Faulconer to get moving during his press conference Friday.

“I’m glad to hear he’s got a task force going,” Goodell said. “But they’ve been working at this for 12 years, and it’s something we need to see tangible results sooner rather than later.”

That’s a fairly broad swipe at the city, which hasn’t been able to come up with a deal to upgrade one of the worst stadiums in the league.
-----------
While it’s true that San Diego is broke they can’t afford not to build a new stadium. I live in San Diego and there is no sense of urgency to get this deal done. While sure It would be ideal for Spanos to pay for it, the fact is they could pack up and leave San Diego for greener pastures. So corporate welfare, billionaire welfare what ever you want to call it – let’s do it. NFL is a privilege, not a right and the Chargers leaving would leave a big void in this city. We don’t have NBA and all there would be left is the Padres.

They’re talking about building a 200 million dollar ferris wheel on Coronado. What if the Chargers left San Diego and we were stuck with a Ferris Wheel???
----------
If Spanos is not happy about the Rams moving to LA, then he must be furious if the Raiders move there also! 2 NFL teams right up the road?
-----------
It’s going on 13 years and still San Diego and the Chargers can’t figure out how to build a new stadium? I’ve lived here my whole life and for the longest time that’s all I’ve been hearing is we need a new stadium but no one really wants to start really getting their hands dirty with it. Well someone is going to get filthy now or the Chargers are bolting up to LA.
----------
It’s VERY tough to build a stadium with public money in the State of California:

San Diego – approved public funding for Padres 15 years ago, but as part of larger East Village redevelopment project. No progress at all toward an NFL stadium

Los Angeles – both baseball parks date from the 1960s. The most recent football stadium was built there in the 1920s. Everyone agrees that the next NFL stadium will be built with only private funds, or not built at all.

SF Bay Area – SF Giants built with their own park without public financing. The 49ers built in Santa Clara with some public funds, but most of the money came from the team and NFL. The Oakland A’s are trying to build a ballpark without public funds but no one will give them the land. The Oakland Raiders are in the same boat, except Mark Davis has less ability to build on his own.

This is why LA makes so much sense: The land is available, and the market size will justify the project economically even with no public funding. That’s not true in San Diego and Oakland.
---------
The Chargers are going to Los Angeles.

This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

More than likely the announcement will come on Superbowl Sunday.

The reality is the NFL wants 2 franchises in LA and could care less about having one in San Diego.

Dean Spanos is a crooked coward and I’ll be glad to see him take his poorly managed product elsewhere.

If Dean was half as loyal as his fans were to him, the stadium would have been built 10 years ago.

 

[blue4]

Selfishly, I hope SD can't build a stadium. Or Oakland. If we lose the Rams we're going to need a team. Not to mention that it makes it harder for them to move if others need LA leverage.

 

[RamBill]

Former Rams Players, Coach Sound Off on Relocation Talk
Brendan Marks posted on January 30, 2015 17:25

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...ayers-Coach-Sound-Off-on-Relocation-Talk.aspx

CBS Sports 920's Joe Roderick and Jay Randolph Jr. were in Arizona this week for Super Bowl XLIX and spoke to several former Rams players and coach Dick Vermeil.

The subject of the possibility of the Rams leaving St. Louis came up repeatedly, and we wanted to share each of their thoughts on the topic. Feel free to click on each person's name to listen to their complete interview.

Marshall Faulk: "I haven't spoke on this in this manner yet, but I'm going to say it. I'm disappointed that the powers to be in the city of St. Louis waited until now to make a proposal," Faulk told Joe Roderick and Jay Randolph Jr. "If I was (Rams owner Stan Kroenke), I'd be just as upset. Why do you wait so long? And now we're looking at this man like 'oh please don't take your team.' It's a business. That's how the Rams got there."

Kurt Warner: "I'm a St. Louis guy and being that the St. Louis Rams are synonymous with a huge part of my history, I want the Rams to stay in St. Louis. I'm also realistic and understand the connection to LA. I understand how it's a natural fit to take the Rams back there because when we were going good in St. Louis and we'd go out to LA, we'd have a million fans there that followed us. If you're a player that played in the history of St. Louis, it'd be a shame if a team's not in St. Louis. If you're one of those fans that have been a part of that whole thing and, great sports town, to not have a team, I think that's a travesty too. I just believe and hope that they stay in St. Louis. It's unfortunate the way it looks like it's going."

Torry Holt: "Selfishly I would love to see the team stay in St. Louis. We got some good history there. The city loves the Rams. They show us so much love when we go back. But I understand it's a business. For Kroenke and a lot of these owners it's the bottom line. I think moving to Los Angeles for obvious reasons makes sense to him. It'll be interesting to see how that whole process shakes out. It won't be an easy process. I know on my Twitter timeline the fans are going crazy."

Orlando Pace: "Anytime you get to where you win a Super Bowl in the community, all of your football memories are in St. Louis, it means something. You don't want to be the St. Louis (football) Cardinals, who are really without a home. When we get together we want to be able to come back to St. Louis, celebrate as a team and do it in the community we won. I think everyone who played in St. Louis probably feels the same way."

Dick Vermeil: I would like to see them stay. I think Stan Kroenke will do what's best for the team as a business and a team. To me that's what they are now. If he sees it's not going to be the best thing for the organization as a company, then they'll go back there. I hope he doesn't.

Jack Youngblood: "I didn't like (former Rams owner Georgia Frontierre) when she moved it to St. Louis. I understood why. I totally bought into that. The thing of the stadium is the big issue. To have a house that can fascilitate a franchise and a Super Bowl. I see where Kroenke is going...I think the govenor of Missouri should be given at least a chance to listen to what he wants to do." (Youngblood talks more about St. Louis stadium situation)

Adam Archuleta: "I grew up here in the desert...so when I went to St. louis it was a bit of a culture shock. And I got to be honest I didn't like it, I didn't enjoy it. But then as the years went on and especially when I left I started to say, 'OK, that's what was special about St. Louis, that is a really cool, really unique town.' I wish I would've taken more advantage of playing there quite honestly. I think St. Louis is a great town. I think if the Rams do move to Los Angeles it would be unfortunate. I think the fans in St. Louis are great fans. I think they deserve a football team. But I also undertand the economic part of it as well. When you're a business owner...if the city can't compete...I do understand where they're coming from. St. Louis certainly deserves a football team and they're some of the best fans I've been a part of."

 

[RamFan503]

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_40013176-cc56-5137-bd05-6c561530b7c7.html

In his annual Super Bowl press conference early Friday afternoon in Glendale, Ariz., NFL commissioner Roger Goodell did not address the St. Louis Rams/Los Angeles issue during his nine-minute opening statement, but he did, however, touch on the subject early in the the question-and-answer period.

Following are those questions and answers:

Question from Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: I have a two-part question for you. What is the league's level of commitment to keeping a franchise in St. Louis, especially given the region's efforts to build a new stadium for the Rams for the second time in 20 years? And secondly, Rams' ownership, by all appearances, seems to be more interested in the L.A. project than the St. Louis stadium project. How does this meet relocation guidelines, which call for teams to exhaust every opportunity in their own market before moving?

Goodell's response: Jim, the first answer to your initial question is that we want all of our franchises to stay in their current markets. That's a shared responsibility. That's something that we all have to work together on. The league has programs, including stadium funding programs, that we make available and we will and have worked with communities, including St. Louis. We also will make sure that we're engaging the business community and the public sector in a way that can help us lead to solutions that work in those communities, in your case St. Louis. And then make sure it works for the community as well as for the the team, so our teams can be successful over the long term.

The second part of your question, Jim, was the interest of the ownership. You know Stan (Kroenke) has been working on the stadium issue in St. Louis, as you know, for several years. They had a very formal process as part of their lease. That process, they went through that entire process; it did not result in a solution that works either for St. Louis or for the team. So I don't think the stadium is a surprise to anybody in any market that is having these issues. There's quite a bit of discussion about it and the St. Louis representatives seem determined to build a stadium. That's a positive development, something that we look forward to working with them (on).

Question from Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times: (The year) 2015 marks the 20th year without a franchise in the nation's second-largest market _ and coincidentally, the 20th consecutive year I've asked this question. Earlier this month, as Jim (Thomas mentioned, Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans for an 80,000-seat stadium at Hollywood Park. Considering he has the land, the vast resources, both financial and political, can anyone else win this race? What's the criteria that the league is going to use to determine which team or teams are able to relocate to Los Angeles? And what if an owner decides to go rogue and, without the NFL's blessing, says, 'I'm just going to move my team no matter what you say.'?

Goodell's response: Sam, several points you made there and let me be responsive to all of them. First, let me start with your second question. The ownership takes very seriously the obligation for us all to vote on any serious matter, including relocation of a franchise. There's a relocation policy that is very clear. We have shared it with our ownership over the last several years. We have emphasized the point in each of those meetings that there will be at least one vote, if not multiple votes, if there is any relocation. We would have, potentially, the relocation itself, potential stadium funding, potential Super Bowls, so a lot of things would likely be subject to a vote. And our ownership takes that seriously. And we take that seriously. So any relocation would be subject to to a vote.

As it relates to the first part of your question, there have been no determinations of us going to Los Angeles, any particular team going to Los Angeles or going to any particular stadium. We have several alternatives that we're evaluating, both from a site standpoint _ there are teams that are interested but are trying to work their issues out locally. And so, as a league, we haven't got to that stage yet. It will all be subject to our relocation policy; there are requirements in that policy, as you know, particularly as it relates to cooperation and working to make sure they solve the issues in their local market. But I'm confident all of that will be covered within the relocation policy and with our membership approval.

Pretty funny. You always hear the name Silent Stan. But did you ever hear so many words that said absolutely nothing? Yo Rog! you may want to take a page from Stan's book. I'd rather hear nothing than blathering nonsense that means just as much.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Haha...did he tell you that?

If there is one thing I have learned from working with the Rams the past few years...they don't get into contract situations that they will potentially owe money on that they aren't going to utilize.

If Stan is worth 5 billion (which he is worth more) then 250K is like .005% of his worth. It would be like someone who makes 100K a year giving up 5 dollars.

That doesn't mean that he is or isn't going to do something, but 250K is chump change to a guy of his worth.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Pretty funny. You always here the name Silent Stan. But did you ever hear so many words that said absolutely nothing? Yo Rog! you may want to take a page from Stan's book. I'd rather hear nothing than blathering nonsense that means just as much.

The second part of the Jim Thomas response is bothersome. That looks like a huge cop out by the NFL already, saying that he's been working at it for years and hasn't gotten anything done. Allows the NFL to say all options were realistically exhausted, to agree to a move.

 

[Dagonet]

The second part of the Jim Thomas response is bothersome. That looks like a huge cop out by the NFL already, saying that he's been working at it for years and hasn't gotten anything done. Allows the NFL to say all options were realistically exhausted, to agree to a move.

Agreed. That was kind of weird..

 

[RamFan503]

The second part of the Jim Thomas response is bothersome. That looks like a huge cop out by the NFL already, saying that he's been working at it for years and hasn't gotten anything done. Allows the NFL to say all options were realistically exhausted, to agree to a move.

I agree. But I also don't really know that he hasn't actually been working on it with people within the NFL or even St Louis for that matter. I know the rhetoric is that he hasn't but there may have been some efforts on Stan's behalf that we simply don't know about. I suppose it's possible.

 

[Dagonet]

Jack Youngblood complete interview..

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/PrimeTime/Jack%20Youngblood.mp3[/av]

Dick Vermeil complete interview.

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Primetime/Dick%20Vermeil%20.mp3[/av]

Kurt Warner complete interview.

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Primetime/Kurt%20Warner.mp3[/av]

Orlando Pace complete interview.

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Primetime/Orlando%20Pace.mp3[/av]

Torry Holt complete interview.

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Primetime/Torry%20Holt.mp3[/av]

Archie..

[av]http://www.insidestlaudio.com/PrimeTime/Adam%20Archuletta.mp3[/av]

Marshall Faulk complete interview.

It tells me file is invalid for Marshall's interview, so you'll have to go to the page yourself I guess. Linkage to page..

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...-Interview-Former-Rams-RB-Marshall-Faulk.aspx

 

[Dodgersrf]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...eates-stadium-task-force-including-jim-steeg/

San Diego mayor creates stadium task force, including Jim Steeg
Posted by Darin Gantt on January 30, 2015

While Roger Goodell was talking about the potential for the Rams to move to Los Angeles, another possible suitor was talking about plans to stay put.

Via David Garrick of U-T San Diego, mayor Kevin Faulconer announced a nine-member task force to create a proposal for a new Chargers stadium.

The group includes longtime NFL executive Jim Steeg, who worked for the Chargers for five years, but left in 2010. Steeg spent 26 years working for the league prior to that stint.

The group also includes local business leaders, but having Steeg on board will provide the kind of insight into league business they need, if they’re going to find a viable way to keep the Chargers for looking elsewhere.

But NFL commissioner Roger Goodell urged Faulconer to get moving during his press conference Friday.

“I’m glad to hear he’s got a task force going,” Goodell said. “But they’ve been working at this for 12 years, and it’s something we need to see tangible results sooner rather than later.”

That’s a fairly broad swipe at the city, which hasn’t been able to come up with a deal to upgrade one of the worst stadiums in the league.
-----------
While it’s true that San Diego is broke they can’t afford not to build a new stadium. I live in San Diego and there is no sense of urgency to get this deal done. While sure It would be ideal for Spanos to pay for it, the fact is they could pack up and leave San Diego for greener pastures. So corporate welfare, billionaire welfare what ever you want to call it – let’s do it. NFL is a privilege, not a right and the Chargers leaving would leave a big void in this city. We don’t have NBA and all there would be left is the Padres.

They’re talking about building a 200 million dollar ferris wheel on Coronado. What if the Chargers left San Diego and we were stuck with a Ferris Wheel???
----------
If Spanos is not happy about the Rams moving to LA, then he must be furious if the Raiders move there also! 2 NFL teams right up the road?
-----------
It’s going on 13 years and still San Diego and the Chargers can’t figure out how to build a new stadium? I’ve lived here my whole life and for the longest time that’s all I’ve been hearing is we need a new stadium but no one really wants to start really getting their hands dirty with it. Well someone is going to get filthy now or the Chargers are bolting up to LA.
----------
It’s VERY tough to build a stadium with public money in the State of California:

San Diego – approved public funding for Padres 15 years ago, but as part of larger East Village redevelopment project. No progress at all toward an NFL stadium

Los Angeles – both baseball parks date from the 1960s. The most recent football stadium was built there in the 1920s. Everyone agrees that the next NFL stadium will be built with only private funds, or not built at all.

SF Bay Area – SF Giants built with their own park without public financing. The 49ers built in Santa Clara with some public funds, but most of the money came from the team and NFL. The Oakland A’s are trying to build a ballpark without public funds but no one will give them the land. The Oakland Raiders are in the same boat, except Mark Davis has less ability to build on his own.

This is why LA makes so much sense: The land is available, and the market size will justify the project economically even with no public funding. That’s not true in San Diego and Oakland.
---------
The Chargers are going to Los Angeles.

This is not an opinion. This is a fact.

More than likely the announcement will come on Superbowl Sunday.

The reality is the NFL wants 2 franchises in LA and could care less about having one in San Diego.

Dean Spanos is a crooked coward and I’ll be glad to see him take his poorly managed product elsewhere.

If Dean was half as loyal as his fans were to him, the stadium would have been built 10 years ago.

I want to see what a 200 million dollar ferris wheel looks like.

 

[RamBill]

Stan Kroenke working behind scenes to make L.A. jump

By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News

http://www.dailybulletin.com/20150130/rams-owner-stan-kroenke-working-behind-scenes-to-make-la-jump

PHOENIX — It’s typical when the reigning NFL commissioner delivers his state of the league address ahead of the Super Bowl for most of the league’s 32 owners to be in attendance.

So it seemed conspicuous when three prominent owners were no-shows Friday as Roger Goodell took the podium at the Phoenix Convention Center — and in one of their cases didn’t even send a representative.

Conspicuous in a very Los Angeles sort of way, I might add.

Dean Spanos, Mark Davis and Stan Kroenke were nowhere to be found. Considering their San Diego Chargers, Oakland Raiders and St. Louis Rams are simultaneously fighting for new local stadiums while also privately — and in some cases publicly — casting an adoring eye on the wide-open market that is Los Angeles, their absence hardly seemed coincidental.

Los Angeles has become such a hot topic in terms of the Rams or Chargers or Raiders relocating there — especially with Kroenke recently joining forces with Stockbridge Capitol Group to build an 80,000-seat football stadium on the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack in Inglewood — it makes sense all three likely wanted to avoid the hassle of dealing with the 200 or so reporters covering Goodell’s speech.

Not that Los Angeles wasn’t a major topic, with Goodell doing his annual tap dance about where the league stands on finally returning to the second-biggest market in the country.

Or not.

“There have been no determinations of us going to Los Angeles, any particular team going to Los Angeles or going to any particular stadium,” Goodell said. “We have several alternatives that we’re evaluating from a site standpoint. There are teams that are interested, but are trying to work their issues out locally. As a league, we haven’t gotten to that stage yet, and it will all be subject to our relocation policy.

“There are requirements in that policy, as you know, particularly as it relates to cooperation and working to make sure they solve the issues in their local market. I’m confident that all of that will be covered within the relocation policy and with our membership approval.”

That was in front of the cameras.

Behind them, the league confirmed Kroenke’s Los Angeles flirtation is absolutely within the guidelines specifically crafted for the L.A. market. Primarily, consulting with the NFL before taking any action.

“You could think about it, prospect it, look at stadium plans,” said NFL Executive vice president Eric Grubman, the point man on the league’s return to Los Angeles. “But before anyone was going to buy a piece of land or tie up something in negotiations, they had to keep the league office informed. With that as the standard, I’m very satisfied that Mr. Kroenke met that standard.”

A pretty good sign the NFL will eventually be on board with him eventually moving the Rams to Los Angeles, wouldn’t you say?

Yes and no.

Keep in mind there are 32 owners, 24 of whom will eventually have to approve any relocation. And while Grubman might approve the Rams and Los Angeles — he didn’t specifically say — or Goodell might be on board with it or Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones might be in favor of it, nothing matters unless 24 owners give their OK.

“Relocation is subject to a vote,” Grubman reiterated.

That means Kroenke has some work ahead of him.

And while he was nowhere to be found Friday when Goodell gave his annual speech, don’t think for a second his presence wasn’t felt all the way from the Mississippi River to Los Angeles.

In fact, an NFL source told me Kroenke has covertly begun the process of collating support from fellow owners should he actually decide to move the Rams to Los Angeles.

Short of just uprooting his franchise without permission from the NFL — and that seems an unlikely path — Kroenke understands he can’t do it alone.

“That’s one of the key questions to sort out. Is he going to be able to get 24 guys to come along with him?” the source told me.

Kroenke, it seems, is taking steps to help ensure he gets what he needs.

“I think I’ve seen some bridge building on the part of Mr. Kroenke. I’ve seen him trying to build relationships league wide,” the NFL source said. “I don’t know that he can just power through what he thinks he can do without support.

“It still comes down to — I would think 24 — but if not, you certainly need momentum and support within the ownership. You can’t go rogue. That’s not the way the league works,” the source added.

Whether he gets it remains to be seen. Kroenke has yet to publicly state what his true intentions are — whether Los Angeles is truly his end game or if he’s using it as leverage to get a new stadium built in St. Louis.

But his actions seem to indicate Los Angeles is where he wants to be. Now begins the process politically and within the league to make that happen.

“He’s got some work to do, but from what I can see he’s begun that,” the NFL source said. “And now that he’s put it out there, he’ll be more high profile (within in the league). He’s working on it.

“I’ve seen some movement on his part to start to build some support within the league, and with the other owners.”

LOWDOWN: Rams owner Stan Kroenke was nowhere to be found when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell delivered his state of the league address

HOWEVER: An NFL source tells Los Angeles News Group Kroenke is working behind the scenes to build bridges with fellow owners to garner support for a potential move to Los Angeles

WHAT THE LEAGUE THINGS: So far, so good on Rams flirtation with Los Angeles

 

[Dagonet]

I agree. But I also don't really know that he hasn't actually been working on it with people within the NFL or even St Louis for that matter. I know the rhetoric is that he hasn't but there may have been some efforts on Stan's behalf that we simply don't know about. I suppose it's possible.

From reports on the radio today, Stan was mainly working on the arbitration here in STL . That's pretty much true.. I'm of the ilk of why he waited so long to step up and claim his right to buy the Rams, and knock Khan out of the picture, was him contemplating this move from the start. I mean why do you wait until the last minute? I could be wrong..

 

[Boffo97]

Stan Kroenke working behind scenes to make L.A. jump

I don't see how that will help!

 

[ramfan46]

I think back to last year when it was announced Kroenke acquired the 60 acres in Inglewood and a lot of STL thought he was bluffing. It doesn't look like he's bluffing at all to me. This is what a modern relocation process looks like IMO.

 

[RamBill]

Goodell cites 'positive development' in St. Louis
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_4ccd6ed3-47ea-585a-be3e-5b4b1bf03adc.html

PHOENIX • NFL commissioner Roger Goodell had his annual Super Bowl news conference Friday and answered several Rams-related questions concerning the stadium initiative in St. Louis, Stan Kroenke's plans for Los Angeles, and the league's willingness to enforce its rules on franchise relocation.

Here's a summary of Goodell's remarks:

• Post-Dispatch football writer Jim Thomas asked Goodell about the ongoing St. Louis effort to build a second NFL stadium in 20 years in a bid to keep the Rams.

"We want all of our franchises to stay in their current markets," Goodell said. "That's a shared responsibility. That's something we all have to work together on. The league has programs, including stadium-funding programs, that we make available. And we will work and have worked in communities including St. Louis.

"We also will make sure we're engaging the business community and the public sector in a way that can help us lead to solutions that work in those communities, in your case St. Louis. And make sure it works for the community as well as the team. So our teams can be successful over the long term."

• Follow-up from Thomas: "Rams ownership, by all appearances, seems to be more interested in the LA project than a St. Louis stadium project. How does this meet relocation guidelines which call for teams to exhaust every opportunity in their own market before moving?"

Goodell's response indicated that he believes Kroenke has made an effort to resolve the stadium issue in St. Louis _ an obvious reference to the Rams/CVC dispute over the Edward Jones Dome lease. Kroenke and the Rams won in arbitration in early 2013 and gained the right to convert to a year-to-year lease beginning in 2015. The Rams will play in St. Louis in 2015, and Kroenke may try to move the team after the '15 season.

By suggesting that Kroenke has worked to find a solution, Goodell is clearly trying to give the league an "out" to justify approval of a Kroenke move if it comes to that. But do not be alarmed; the NFL never boxes itself in and always leaves some wiggle room when fielding questions on sensitive matters.

"Stan has been working on the stadium issue in St. Louis for several years," Goodell said. "They had a very formal process (arbitration) as part of their lease. They went through that entire process (and) it did not result in a solution that works either for St. Louis or the team. I don't think the stadium is a surprise to anybody, in any market, that is having these issues. There's been quite a bit of discussion about it."

Goodell was pleased by the effort being made on the new-stadium front in St. Louis.

"The St. Louis representatives seem determined to build a stadium," he said. "That's a positive development and something we look forward to working on with them."

• Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times asked Goodell about Kroenke's proposed stadium project for LA, and whether Kroenke's rush into Inglewood would win the race for the Los Angeles market.

"There have been no determinations of us going to Los Angeles, any particular team going to Los Angeles, or going to any particular stadium," Goodell said. "We have several alternatives that we're evaluating from a site standpoint. There are teams that are interested but are trying to work their issues out.

"And so as a league, we haven't got to that stage yet. And it will all be subject to our relocation policy. There are requirements in that policy, particularly as it relates to cooperation and working to make sure they solve the issues in their local market. I'm confident all of that will be covered within the relocation policy and with our membership approval."

(A team would need 24 ownership votes to gain approval to move.)

• Farmer asked: what if an owner went "rogue" and moved without league approval?

"The ownership takes very seriously the obligation for us all to vote on any serious matter including relocation of a franchise," Goodell said. "There's a relocation policy that is very clear. We have shared it with our ownership over the past several years. We have emphasized the point in each of those meetings _ that there will be one vote if not multiple votes if there is any relocation. We would have the relocation itself, potential stadium funding, potential Super Bowls ... so a lot of things that likely would be subject to a vote. And ownership takes that very seriously, and we take that very seriously. Any relocation would be subject to a vote."

— Bernie

 

[Dagonet]

LA Times poll on "Which NFL team would you like to see come to L.A.?" It's kind of interesting, but you can vote more than once, so that kind of blows the whole thing out of the water. Linkage..

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-poll-nfl-los-angeles-20150130-htmlstory.html

And to all my STL brethren... Don't be going there and voting the Raiders or Chargers, especially voting multiple times.. opcorn:

 

[RamFan503]

From reports on the radio today, Stan was mainly working on the arbitration here in STL . That's pretty much true.. I'm of the ilk of why he waited so long to step up and claim his right to buy the Rams, and knock Khan out of the picture, was him contemplating this move from the start. I mean why do you wait until the last minute? I could be wrong..

Why would you offer to match an offer that hasn't gone to the point of being verifiable? He had first right of refusal. He is not going to match offers in the beginning stages. That's just not how it works. If there is the slightest chance the deal can fall through, you wait until it is concrete, otherwise you wait until the next offer, rinse, wash and repeat.

What I wonder is if Stan's people hadn't urged the CVC to get something going or work on presenting something to him and they didn't actually respond with anything. I don't know and I'm not sure anyone else outside the negotiations does either. As it turns out, it's not even the CVC taking up the negotiations. So who was Stan supposed to be communicating with? The CVC? The city? The Governor? Was it his position to present anything? If so, to whom? Was he supposed to chase down the persons in charge of presenting him with an offer? And who would that have been pre-task force?

Personally, it looks to me like whoever was supposed to try to get something done that would keep the Rams in St Louis either dropped the ball or chose to wait for whatever reason. Stan's people did present a proposal as did the CVC. When arbitration sided with Stan, wouldn't you think that meant the CVC was on the clock to come back with a solution? Or at minimum hand it off to someone who could?

 

[Dagonet]

Why would you offer to match an offer that hasn't gone to the point of being verifiable? He had first right of refusal. He is not going to match offers in the beginning stages. That's just not how it works. If there is the slightest chance the deal can fall through, you wait until it is concrete, otherwise you wait until the next offer, rinse, wash and repeat.

Well said, but Kahn was sincere. Why the meeting with Khan? You're taking the team from him. As Colonel Hogan would say, something's rotten in Denmark.

What I wonder is if Stan's people hadn't urged the CVC to get something going or work on presenting something to him and they didn't actually respond with anything. I don't know and I'm not sure anyone else outside the negotiations does either. As it turns out, it's not even the CVC taking up the negotiations. So who was Stan supposed to be communicating with? The CVC? The city? The Governor? Was it his position to present anything? If so, to whom? Was he supposed to chase down the persons in charge of presenting him with an offer? And who would that have been pre-task force?

Not chase down, but yeah contact them and open communication. Stan was the one "wanting" public money. No? Why should political leaders have to chase after him? It's a 2 way street man. if I want free money, the people I'm getting from most certainly do not come to me. That doesn't make sense.

Personally, it looks to me like whoever was supposed to try to get something done that would keep the Rams in St Louis either dropped the ball or chose to wait for whatever reason. Stan's people did present a proposal as did the CVC. When arbitration sided with Stan, wouldn't you think that meant the CVC was on the clock to come back with a solution? Or at minimum hand it off to someone who could?

I believe that has been done?

@RamFan503
PS. This quote system is not good.. lol

 

[RamFan503]

I believe that has been done?

Which?