New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

I think there is a huge difference when comparing the two. St. Louis already has an NFL team, while LA didn't the last 20 years when they were being played around with. St. Louis will in fact be the first city to not keep an NFL team with a new stadium on the table if the Rams are allowed to move, however.

I'm pretty sure there were talks when the Oilers left Houston, or the Ravens left Cleveland, and the NFL obviously still wanted a team in those cities. It wasn't really as developed as St Louis, but St Louis was really the first city to essentially say "Well we're gonna offer it anyway and hope you're forced to take it". The theme has typically been even if the NFL doesn't want it, they will side with the owner instead of the city.

This thread is pretty hilarious if you think about it. From my recollection of all the posts I have read through, it seems that pro L.A. folks are on offense and pro Stl people are on defense. That's my take on it, anyway. Can't wait for this to be over. :X3:

I've seen it gone back and forth. St Louis was far more on the offensive before the Inglewood project was announced, since then it's gone back and forth as the roller coaster was gone. It'll happen again, and continue to do so until it's over. Then there's the inevitable fallout.

 

[Corbin]

SHIT THE SAME FUCKING DISCUSSION WITH NOTHING CHANGING IN NEWS FOR HOW MANY MONTHS????









* Note to self stay out of this thread!

 

[tonyl711]

It's funny though, what Grubman has said about San Diego can be said about St Louis as well. It all depends on how people choose to interpret his comments.



It's also interesting that you claim to know so much about the Oakland proposal as it's yet to be revealed to the public. The only people that have seen it are the Raiders, Grubman and Goodell. There is a lot of speculation but nothing is known for certain.

http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_28361806/oakland-not-releasing-raiders-stadium-plan

The only stadium so far out of St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, Carson and Inglewood that doesn't have obstacles or red flags is Inglewood. Every other location has some flaw whether it be major or minor the others all have them.

ok so now you can speculate, but others cant? tell me anything you have heard that says Oakland has an acceptable plan, you cant because there is none.

 

[drasconis]

What would those facts be? That the lease contained 2 measuring dates that the CVC didn't prepare for. In other words that in 20 years there has been no major renovations outside of the $30 million in in maintenance that the Rams agreed to in order to bring the arbitration process into the lease.

Ripper you know this well, and I am not arguing that the lease could not be ended, the fact is both sides were well inside their rights....nothing illegal or nefarious has occurred.
1. St. Louis did not violate the contract...they were aware of an escape clause and did not do what needed to be done to close it...but that is NOT violating or breaking the contract
2. Their is no evidence that St. Louis, when they entered the contract , did not know they wouldn't be able to meet this clause...not sure anyone could have foresaw the proliferation and growth/change in stadiums since the Ed was built. Not I am not saying that they didn't realize long ago that this clause would be an issue....just saying no evidence that they knew it at the time the contract was signed
3. It wasn't decided by a judge (at least not one acting as a judge at the time) but by an arbitration panel. It still was a bidding decision, but it wasn't legal decision (note I am not saying that it was illegal I am just saying it by it self did not have any governmental weight behind it)

 

[tonyl711]

Yes, that was the agreement and the CVC had 2 opportunities to come up with a proposal to satisfy the lease, both didn't even come close. The situation would have been different and much cheaper if they took the 2005 measuring date seriously

I guess you haven't looked at any of the "proposals" from the Chargers. One would force the closing of a power plant in a state where they don't have enough and have brownouts. They proposed closing of an airport in Carlsbad. Multiple sites that were too small. The only ones that could work are basically the same as the one SD proposed.



The Chargers are the ones that have put out negative information about the proposal which so far is better than St Louis's proposal. The NFL hasn't commented at all since the proposal came out. The statements were prior as stated by Grubman when he said "up to this point". You have complained that Kroenke hasn't talked, which is a good thing since they haven't attacked the St Louis proposal like Fabiani has in SD.

do i really need to see all these SD proposals to know the NFL has said none were good enough? no matter the reason, they havent satisfied the NFL. the Chargers are stopping SD from building a stadium? hmm St Louis has an owner who has done just about everything to say he is leaving yet we go forward with stadium plans? tell me again whats stopping SD from doing the same.

 

[PARAM]

Is this situation/problem going to be settled before the season is well played out?

 

[OldSchool]

ok so now you can speculate, but others cant? tell me anything you have heard that says Oakland has an acceptable plan, you cant because there is none.

The only things I've heard is the plan was presented to Goodell, Grubman and Davis. Nothing else is known. There is specualation that the plan doesn't include a stadium for the A's. There is speculation that they'll have to use future revenues and stadium naming rights to pay for the stadium(which isn't any different than other stadiums). That's all I've seen speculated on. But I'm not going to take this speculation and say that Oakland has a crap plan that has no chance at working because we don't know.

So tell me where did I speculate in that statement you quoted?

 

[The Ripper]

do i really need to see all these SD proposals to know the NFL has said none were good enough?

There's plenty of information out there on the Chargers and there efforts over the last 14 years. It's not about the NFL, most of the proposals were not viable to anyone and there were from the Chargers not from SD, Oceanside, Escondido or Chula Vista

no matter the reason, they havent satisfied the NFL.

Neither has St Louis.

the Chargers are stopping SD from building a stadium? hmm

I never said the Chargers were stopping them building a stadium just that they are trying to undercut every effort in SD unlike Kroenke who hasn't said or did anything to try to kill the proposal in St Louis.

St Louis has an owner who has done just about everything to say he is leaving yet we go forward with stadium plans? tell me again whats stopping SD from doing the same.

Exactly the same in San Diego as St Louis. All of it including working with the NFL and going ahead with the stadium proposal without the team.

 

[The Ripper]

Ripper you know this well, and I am not arguing that the lease could not be ended, the fact is both sides were well inside their rights....nothing illegal or nefarious has occurred.
1. St. Louis did not violate the contract...they were aware of an escape clause and did not do what needed to be done to close it...but that is NOT violating or breaking the contract
2. Their is no evidence that St. Louis, when they entered the contract , did not know they wouldn't be able to meet this clause...not sure anyone could have foresaw the proliferation and growth/change in stadiums since the Ed was built. Not I am not saying that they didn't realize long ago that this clause would be an issue....just saying no evidence that they knew it at the time the contract was signed
3. It wasn't decided by a judge (at least not one acting as a judge at the time) but by an arbitration panel. It still was a bidding decision, but it wasn't legal decision (note I am not saying that it was illegal I am just saying it by it self did not have any governmental weight behind it)

The lease was part of the relocation agreement between the Rams and St Louis/FANS INC/CVC and was the basis for the NFL approving relocation. The escape clause was not closed by going year to year. The lease was designed to benefit the Rams not the CVC and going year to year would only benefit the CVC so it also included the right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and relocate from the Dome. The ramifications for non-compliance with the lease was known by the NFL and the CVC prior to either measuring date and before arbitration. The NFL approves all lease and can change any of the provisions the teams leases. All sides have so far complied so nothing illegal about any of it.

Actually there is evidence that the CVC had no intention of ever complying with the first tier requirement. There are multiple quotes from those involved that there job was to bring an NFL team to St Louis and that they wouldn't be around when the provisions were to be enforced. The other evidence is that the CVC sued the NFL and the other 30 owners over the lease in 1997. The lease required that the Dome be first tier at all times with 2 measuring dates at the 10 and 20 year points. Nothing had been done in order to prepare for the 2005 measuring date. The CVC asked for and got 2 extensions for the review. They came back with $30 million for maintenance in 2007 and that's where the real problem started. With the Rams agreeing to the $30 million for getting arbitration into the lease, it virtually assured that it would be impossible for the CVC to comply in 2015.

 

[rams2050]

No matter what the CVC would have or might not have done, StanK would have had the option of attempting -- or actually moving to LA.

Where WOULD the Rams have played during the years that would have been needed to refurbish the Dome? How would THAT have set with StanK?

There are some observers who believe that by approving the most elaborate architectural renderings out there for the Dome upgrade that StanK was, essentially, thumbing his nose at the CVC, the Dome Authority and fans. You cannot tell me that first tier status couldn't have been achieved with something less than a (then) $700-million facelift.

Of course, I do believe the CVC in their counter-proposal went the opposite route: they didn't want to be out of commission while an improved palace was being built and so they low-balled StanK and the Rams with their rather meager vision of what the Dome should be.

Something in between might actually have flown but, then, we'll never really know, will we? Nor will we know if StanK would have attempted to fly the coop had something better been proposed.

 

[dieterbrock]

This thread is pretty hilarious if you think about it. From my recollection of all the posts I have read through, it seems that pro L.A. folks are on offense and pro Stl people are on defense. That's my take on it, anyway. Can't wait for this to be over. :X3:

I think what's frustrating are those of us in the middle. Seems that if we criticze St Louis, it means pro-LA.
I don't have any criticism of Kroenke because I have nothing to go on. And Carson to me is a joke

 

[dbrooks25]

There's plenty of information out there on the Chargers and there efforts over the last 14 years. It's not about the NFL, most of the proposals were not viable to anyone and there were from the Chargers not from SD, Oceanside, Escondido or Chula Vista



Neither has St Louis.



I never said the Chargers were stopping them building a stadium just that they are trying to undercut every effort in SD unlike Kroenke who hasn't said or did anything to try to kill the proposal in St Louis.



Exactly the same in San Diego as St Louis. All of it including working with the NFL and going ahead with the stadium proposal without the team.

What do you mean St. Louis hasn't satisfied the NFL? You must be talking about nailing down the financing and land acquisition, because from what has been put out there, the NFL has been quite pleased with the stadium efforts thus far. To act like Stl's task force is not well ahead of San Diego's is crazy.

 

[The Ripper]

No matter what the CVC would have or might not have done, StanK would have had the option of attempting -- or actually moving to LA.

Where WOULD the Rams have played during the years that would have been needed to refurbish the Dome? How would THAT have set with StanK?

There are some observers who believe that by approving the most elaborate architectural renderings out there for the Dome upgrade that StanK was, essentially, thumbing his nose at the CVC, the Dome Authority and fans. You cannot tell me that first tier status couldn't have been achieved with something less than a (then) $700-million facelift.

Of course, I do believe the CVC in their counter-proposal went the opposite route: they didn't want to be out of commission while an improved palace was being built and so they low-balled StanK and the Rams with their rather meager vision of what the Dome should be.

Something in between might actually have flown but, then, we'll never really know, will we? Nor will we know if StanK would have attempted to fly the coop had something better been proposed.

The CVC's plan would have required the Rams to play somewhere else also so it really didn't matter to either side.

People can complain all they want but that's is how arbitration works one side comes up with a minimally acceptable proposal and the other the maximum acceptable proposal. It's t the arbitrators job to come up with a working solution between the 2 plans, accept one or the other or come up with their own plan. The problem was that the CVC came up with a proposal that wasn't even close none of their proposal fit the top tier standard.

The CVC didn't have the counter proposal, they were required to come up with their proposal first and the Rams had agree or counter. The CVC had 30 days to accept the proposal or go to arbitration.

Kroenke wouldn't have been able to go anywhere with a valid lease in place. The NFL couldn't have stopped him but the CVC could by suing to enforce the lease which required the Rams to play in the Dome.

 

[The Ripper]

What do you mean St. Louis hasn't satisfied the NFL? You must be talking about nailing down the financing and land acquisition, because from what has been put out there, the NFL has been quite pleased with the stadium efforts thus far. To act like Stl's task force is not well ahead of San Diego's is crazy.

Quite pleased really doesn't mean anything since all steps must be actionable. Not just the financing and the land purchase. The land must be fully entitled. The construction costs and revenues must be certain.

Specifically, what makes St Louis further ahead? Renderings

 

[beej]

Quite pleased really doesn't mean anything since all steps must be actionable. Not just the financing and the land purchase. The land must be fully entitled. The construction costs and revenues must be certain.

Specifically, what makes St Louis further ahead? Renderings

Specifically what makes us behind?

 

[dbrooks25]

Yep, we have gone through the arb process round and round and I think we just need to give the shit up because that phase of this whole process is done and and over with. We know this is why St. Louis is in this mess to begin with so hearing it said over and over again is frustrating to no end. We get it.

 

[dbrooks25]

Quite pleased really doesn't mean anything since all steps must be actionable. Not just the financing and the land purchase. The land must be fully entitled. The construction costs and revenues must be certain.

Specifically, what makes St Louis further ahead? Renderings

Dude, please. You're stating things we all know around here. St. Louis is ahead, regardless of what you believe. Once this court thing is done, all of that will fall into place.

 

[The Ripper]

Specifically what makes us behind?

Dude, please. You're stating things we all know around here. St. Louis is ahead, regardless of what you believe. Once this court thing is done, all of that will fall into place.

I don't believe either city has anything right now and I am not saying either city is ahead but it keeps being said that St Louis is ahead but no one has anything to say that it is.

Why is St Louis ahead of San Diego?

 

[Rmfnlt]

Lots of posts since I last reviewed... just some thoughts:
1] I don't believe Kroenke is cheap by any means. But, as some have said, that doesn't make him a good owner. What makes him a good owner in my eyes is what he produces. And, to date, his product is less than average. That could change this year... many (myself included) are expecting that. But spending money? Means little, really... unless it has a n important positive impact (like making the playoffs for the first time in over a decade). Then, there's that part about being a recluse... and putting Inglewood out there... and changing some events for the off season... and moving TC to Oxnard for a week or so... I can't see how any of that would make him be considered a good owner in the eyes of the people of STL... you know.... the town the team currently resides in?

2] As far as whether STL is satisfying the NFL with the steps they've taken. Yes, Peacock is uber-optimistic... and if everything came from just his mouth, maybe I'd be skeptical. But Grubman has come out and said some pretty positive things about what they've done in STL thus far. So, to me, they are satisfying the NFL... and neither Oakland nor San Diego are.

OK.. time to step back and watch the fun continue...

 

[beej]

I don't believe either city has anything right now and I am not saying either city is ahead but it keeps being said that St Louis is ahead but no one has anything to say that it is.

Why is St Louis ahead of San Diego?

so in other words, you're not reading (or ignoring) the other 10,000 posts on this thread.