New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Rabid Ram]

You're assuming there will be an Inglewood pitch and that Kroenke will pitch it.

You assume a lot of things based on rumor.

You have not presented, at least to me, a single person from the Rams saying they intend to move.

Reporters say lots of things. Reporters guess and repeat rumors. I have never heard a single reporter say they KNOW for a FACT the Rams intend to move. If one has, I would love to know who it is.

I love you as a ROD brother, but until it's fact, it's not.

FACTS: Kroenke wanted an updated dome. He didn't get what he asked for. He then bought into an investment group in Inglewood. STL is dead set on building a new stadium. The NFL has to approve a move and that move has NOT been requested and NO person within the organization has stated in any way that a request to move is forthcoming.

Do Bernie and LA papers act like it's a fact that they want to move? Yes. Is that an actual fact? No.

Exactly media today are just out there to get the mighty click or channel view.

This here may be a diff subject matter but is how I view this situation and why I mostly stay out of this thread

http://on.cc.com/1rKKm9H

 

[RamzFanz]

There will be an Inglewood pitch, it's on the schedule. Kroenke is the only one able to pitch it because he's the only one able to go. Again, I feel as if this goes back to the whole "intentionally being difficult thing" we're going "well we don't actually know what he wants because he hasn't said it"

He doesn't say anything.

I mean you can say that about anything. Take politics for example, do we actually know what they think? They're politicians they lie all the time. What about our parents, they lied about Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy, so we've established they are willing to lie, so do we actually know what they think or want? Even if they say if can we really trust them? Can we trust anyone? Anyone can say anything, that's where the entire thing of actions speak louder than words. Kroenke hasn't said jack crap, but his actions all scream pretty loudly. Yes he could use it for something else, he's a smart man, he's made a lot of money doing this, he knows to give himself plenty of options, no businessman worth a crap would leave themselves without options.

Spanos has said he wants to stay in San Diego, does anyone really believe that? When he goes and shits over everything that comes up? People say that owners use LA for leverage all the time, so because they said they wanted to move to LA we are to believe that they legitimately wanted to move? Or was it for leverage?

Just because Kroenke hasn't stepped up to the microphone doesn't mean that he hasn't made his intentions clear. He has spoken about it to his fellow owners, to the people he has partnered up with, to Demoff, essentially every action he has made, from purchasing the land, to spending money to speed up the timetable, to making sure that all EJD contracts end at the same time early next year, indicate he would like to move.

I'm sorry, but I don't buy that just because Kroenke hasn't actually said it himself we can't assume it's true. Sure we can't say that it's fact, but there is very little that we can say is fact. I can safely say that what he has done, and what others who have sources that have been there to hear it, should be good enough. It's good enough for the reporters, for the task force, and for the other owners, it's good enough for me.

You assume that a schedule is reality. I have been scheduled for many things in my life that I didn't do. It's the difference between anticipation and reality. I may anticipate that a band will show, but the reality is sometimes they don't.

You are assuming that a piece of paper saying there is going to be a presentation is reality. I know better.

I'm not "intentionally being difficult", you are. I'm being factual. And placing the facts in context. He MAY show, and he MAY present, and it MAY have anything to do with the Rams, but those are not facts.

If you want to believe what no person has said on the record, so be it.

The city here has a plan that they actually speak about. The Rams have supported this stadium. The Rams have helped in the design of this stadium. Those are actions.

Until notice from actual Rams officials, there are no factual statements about the Rams moving. None. It's all rumor. There is nothing.

 

[RamzFanz]

...Yes?

Really? He spent money to make a move?

Teach me, I missed that.

 

[iced]

In the last 20 years has any owner before Kroenke spent any money to make a move to LA?

Not talking about flying in for lunch at Gladestone's.

you're right - this is the first time any NFL city has viewed LA as a credible threat

 

[bluecoconuts]

You assume that a schedule is reality. I have been scheduled for many things in my life that I didn't do. It's the difference between anticipation and reality. I may anticipate that a band will show, but the reality is sometimes they don't.

You are assuming that a piece of paper saying there is going to be a presentation is reality. I know better.

I'm not "intentionally being difficult", you are. I'm being factual. And placing the facts in context. He MAY show, and he MAY present, and it MAY have anything to do with the Rams, but those are not facts.

If you want to believe what no person has said on the record, so be it.

The city here has a plan that they actually speak about. The Rams have supported this stadium. The Rams have helped in the design of this stadium. Those are actions.

Until notice from actual Rams officials, there are no factual statements about the Rams moving. None. It's all rumor. There is nothing.

Yes I am assuming that schedule is reality. We're not talking about some little thing here, we're talking billions of dollars, we're talking flying out for a few days just for this presentation. The presentation is for him, Spanos, Davis, that's why they are having it.

Sure you may be being factual, but you're not being legocial. You're trying to hold onto the idea that Kroenke has to physically say it outloud for you to believe it. That's where the difficult thing comes into play, because I'm willing to bet there are plenty of things in your life you are willing to believe without having to see physical proof for yourself. Instead you go off what others say. Yet this is different. Why?

The evidence is there, the support for the evidence is there, and yet its not enough. And frankly I don't think Kroenke stepping up in front of a camera would be enough either, because then the argument would be that he's simply lying.

He hasn't said he supports the Riverfront stadium either, yet you're saying they do.

You holding of something that needs to be fact just haults the arguement. You know that Stan doesn't like talking, you know that Stan won't back himself into a corner, you know that Stan won't anger the league to create a lame duck season. Yet you maintain that's necessary for you to believe it. Not the actions, not the countless reporters and insiders. Just that.

Really? He spent money to make a move?

Teach me, I missed that.

Buying the land, hiring the firm, having dirt start moving, paying to speed up the process. Some of this stuff can be rolled over into another project if the NFL says no and he does something else. Some of it can't. He has spent money for a move to LA.

 

[dieterbrock]

you just answered your own question

instead of getting 60 million from the public to upgrade the CVC dome, he could now he get $400 million in public money for a new stadium - doesn't have to be how the riverfront is exactly now; he could easily pour more money into it and have a better stadium at a fraction of what he would he paying to move and build his own. And what did he spend? $2 million maybe to get $340 million less out of his pocket? NFL and owners have been doing this threat for years...not saying its his total endgame - but the threat of leverage has been there regardless.

His ROI could be pretty good here - which is good reason why I don't think Peacock has released the "financial details" that SD has - they're negotiable **=**pure speculation on my part*** (feel like i have to anecdote compared to all the false info being thrown around here)

Wow, you are confused here.
The dome required upgrades to make it top tier. Period. Comparing that to an entirely new stadium is completely apples to oranges.
Stan doesnt need public funding to build a stadium, there's just no comparison.

 

[dieterbrock]

Until notice from actual Rams officials, there are no factual statements about the Rams moving. None. It's all rumor. There is nothing.

Which of course, they cant do, say or make. So its not necassarily "rumor", its more like speculation IMO.

 

[The Ripper]

A treat has to be actionable to be a threat?! Come on dude, get real. The other party only has to PERCEIVE it as actionable.

I threaten businesses with the loss of my business all the time, and they act, with no idea if I really could or would do what I say. It's how I get Sunday Ticket every season for free.

Yes, it does because the difference here is that none cities believed that the teams could move. King County had injunction that prevented the team from playing anywhere other than in the King Dome so no Seahawks in LA. Minnesota fought back by releasing all the information in regards to the NFL and relocation to show the public it was a bluff. Plus they knew that the Vikings were lying because the team said that they had an agreement to play in the Rose Bowl but at the time Rose Bowl couldn't accommodate an NFL team. The Colts parked the team jet in LA. Teams can't move unless they have an entitled stadium, financing, a lease for both the new and a temporary stadium. Scaring the fan bases doesn't mean that the powers that be in the city perceived it as a threat. Every team that has moved has had everything actionable.

you're right - this is the first time any NFL city has viewed LA as a credible threat

What was credible about any of the threats? Saying your moving doesn't make it credible.

 

[tonyl711]

Um, not sure what you mean. They do need a stadium since they've opted out of the long term lease with the soon to be former which proved to be inadequate.
Still don't know what your point is. Are you suggesting that Peacock doesn't really think Stans a threat to go to LA and he's just grandstanding for support?

let me ask you thios, maybe it will clear it up for you, if you were running that task force, wouldnt you want people to think the Rams were leaving town unless you got a new stadium? or do you honestly think saying, hey stan might stay but lets build it anyway would rally people to your cause?

 

[tonyl711]

What leverage does Kroenke need?
Wulf wanted more public money and he got it. Spanos wants public money in San Diego.
Not understanding where you're coming from here.

what arent you understanding about that? Stan wants public money if he stays here, how is that different from the Vikings? the only difference i see is Stan actually has the money to bluff with, if he says he wants to leave you have to take notice because he can leave without needing money from the public. and yes he does need that leverage to get a stadium done with public money here.

 

[tonyl711]

Yes, it does because the difference here is that none cities believed that the teams could move. King County had injunction that prevented the team from playing anywhere other than in the King Dome so no Seahawks in LA. Minnesota fought back by releasing all the information in regards to the NFL and relocation to show the public it was a bluff. Plus they knew that the Vikings were lying because the team said that they had an agreement to play in the Rose Bowl but at the time Rose Bowl couldn't accommodate an NFL team. The Colts parked the team jet in LA. Teams can't move unless they have an entitled stadium, financing, a lease for both the new and a temporary stadium. Scaring the fan bases doesn't mean that the powers that be in the city perceived it as a threat. Every team that has moved has had everything actionable.



What was credible about any of the threats? Saying your moving doesn't make it credible.

lol, ok then why is Stan so credible,

 

[tonyl711]

The notion of using LA as leverage is just a fallacy. Not one owner that has threatened to go to LA has had a viable stadium or even a temporary one so none of them could even apply for relocation. The threat was only to scare the public.

The rest on the ROI is more than just speculation and it's right on. There has to be a reason why that part of the plan has remained secret since that part is just as important as the financing. The numbers are probably weighted towards Kroenke and I don't think they want that released.

if they were such transparent threats, why did the media fall for it? i can promise you that finding a stadium to play in would have been done, and they had people lining up to build a new stadium. you fallacy angle just dont work, and please tell me how Stans threat to move is so impossible to be the same thing others have done?

 

[tonyl711]

In the last 20 years has any owner before Kroenke spent any money to make a move to LA?

Not talking about flying in for lunch at Gladestone's.

has Stan started construction on a stadium? no he hasnt, he owns a very valuable tract of land in LA that noone knows for sure what will be built on, Stan spends big money everywhere he goes, not just LA he buys up land and developes it because thats what he is, a developer. could it be for a stadium, sure it could, could it be a developement without a stadium, sure it could,

 

[Rmfnlt]

i think what he is saying, and i agree with is, media and task forces and yes even owners all have reason to say these things, St Louis media will keep it going because any story about a move gets hits here, LA media keep it going because any story that brings the Rams back gets hits. task force wouldnt get far on a new stadium if they didnt convince the people the Rams werent leaving. as far as the owners, are you kidding me, do you really think they are going to not play all 3 teams fans? they are not going to screw another owner by saying hey dont worry NFL city your owners full of bull he is not going anywhere, and yes they also have money involved, they get the relocation fees of anyone who moves.
untill Stan says one way or another, these media and task force members and owners, have no way of stating that he wants to leave as fact.

Thanks.

 

[tonyl711]

...Yes?

how? so far he has a tract of land, is there a stadium going up we dont know about? he bought an attractive parcel of land, you do know thats what developers do right? he has all kinds of land in Montana, does that mean he is moving there too?

 

[tonyl711]

Yes, it does because the difference here is that none cities believed that the teams could move. King County had injunction that prevented the team from playing anywhere other than in the King Dome so no Seahawks in LA. Minnesota fought back by releasing all the information in regards to the NFL and relocation to show the public it was a bluff. Plus they knew that the Vikings were lying because the team said that they had an agreement to play in the Rose Bowl but at the time Rose Bowl couldn't accommodate an NFL team. The Colts parked the team jet in LA. Teams can't move unless they have an entitled stadium, financing, a lease for both the new and a temporary stadium. Scaring the fan bases doesn't mean that the powers that be in the city perceived it as a threat. Every team that has moved has had everything actionable.



What was credible about any of the threats? Saying your moving doesn't make it credible.

but not saying you are makes it credible? come on, give it a break.

 

[tonyl711]

Thanks.

i hope i was right in what you were saying, and yw

 

[dieterbrock]

let me ask you thios, maybe it will clear it up for you, if you were running that task force, wouldnt you want people to think the Rams were leaving town unless you got a new stadium? or do you honestly think saying, hey stan might stay but lets build it anyway would rally people to your cause?

The task force main goal is to get the stadium built,keep the Rams in St Louis no? So in what universe is alieniating the owner of the team the smart play? Who do you think they need to "convince"? What "people" are you talking about? The public? They dont get to vote. The media? Who needs to rally?

what arent you understanding about that? Stan wants public money if he stays here, how is that different from the Vikings? the only difference i see is Stan actually has the money to bluff with, if he says he wants to leave you have to take notice because he can leave without needing money from the public. and yes he does need that leverage to get a stadium done with public money here.

I understand it completely, you on the other hand, Im not so sure. Where has Stan said he wanted St Louis to build a stadium with public money? Please share. Stan wanted the CVC to live up to the terms of his lease and have a "top tier" stadium. Had it been "top tier" he wouldnt be out of that lease. Its that simple.
Comparing it to the Vikings is laughable. Minnesota was taking advantage of the Vikings for years, McCombs had the worst deal in sports. Then Minny built a new stadium for the Twins, then the U of Minn and still squeezed out the Vikes. It was all about public monies for a decade. It pretty much took the roof to cave in for them to put the money together and voila, new stadium. As for the Rams? There hasnt been one implication that Stan wanted St Louis to provide public money to build a new stadium

 

[Rmfnlt]

I don't know about this whole leverage thing, but to conclude that SK definitely wants to go to L.A. is just silly to me. Of course we can look at his actions and assume one thing or another, but can any of us 100% say we actually know what he wants? Of course not. I don't think Inglewood is leverage to SK, but I do think he holds it as an option. I also think that his accepting the Riverfront proposal is on the table for him. There was an article written where Howard Balzer put out an article citing a source close to this thing who said that Stan was not 100% in on anything and that his accepting the Stl deal was a legit option that he is considering. I will see if I can find it.

Anyway, we should quit with the absolutes because this thing can go either way at this point. I can tell you now that those of you who think they know what's going to happen actually don't know and you can possibly be setting yourselves up for a let down. However this thing ends, I'm willing to bet that SK is going to act like it is what he wanted the whole time.

I think you misunderstand...

If the media reports something, even without any direct quotes from Kroenke, then it is true.

And... the more they report the same thing, the more truer it gets.

 

[Rmfnlt]

You're assuming there will be an Inglewood pitch and that Kroenke will pitch it.

You assume a lot of things based on rumor.

You have not presented, at least to me, a single person from the Rams saying they intend to move.

Reporters say lots of things. Reporters guess and repeat rumors. I have never heard a single reporter say they KNOW for a FACT the Rams intend to move. If one has, I would love to know who it is.

I love you as a ROD brother, but until it's fact, it's not.

FACTS: Kroenke wanted an updated dome. He didn't get what he asked for. He then bought into an investment group in Inglewood. STL is dead set on building a new stadium. The NFL has to approve a move and that move has NOT been requested and NO person within the organization has stated in any way that a request to move is forthcoming.

Do Bernie and LA papers act like it's a fact that they want to move? Yes. Is that an actual fact? No.

Well said.

Each of us has a choice right now... we can either look at facts (things that have actually been said by Kroenke or actual things that have happened) or read all the media guesses and draw some conclusion.

I prefer to look at what has been said by Kroenke (which is nothing - means everything is still on the table.)

I really coouldn't give a damn about what the L.A. Times, STL PD , Farmer, Miklasz or any of them have to say. Every one of them has an agenda and will "report" in such a way as to forward that agenda. Not once have they reported anything about Kroenke and used actual quotation marks. Why? Because they haven't heard him say a word and know that using quotation marks would get them sued.

Their guesses are not any better than the guesses by members here... I just don't want to guess.