New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamzFanz]

The Rams support the EFFORTS of the new stadium. I think that's a key word that's missing from @RamzFanz post. This has been quoted, I think, 2-3 times by Demoff.

Fair enough.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Don't worry MrMotes, the only thing blocking your view will be "My big ass". :eek:

 

[MrMotes]

More Demoff:

Is it a possibility that the Rams are playing football in St. Louis in 2016?

"I think that's absolutely a possibility. Nothing is impossible at that point. Nothing is a given. I think our goal...is to focus on the year at hand on the field, on the product, on the marketing side and then really look at the stadium issues separately. To say right now in 2016 do we know where we're playing? I don't think anybody has any idea but it's certainly possible that it could be in St. Louis. I don't think that's off the table or unlikely. It could be just as likely as it is unlikely."

 

[RamFan503]

Not inclined to do that... you say it... guess we'll add it to the list of guesses.

Let's not be a smart ass about it - mkay?

 

[bubbaramfan]

No one from any of the parties involved, are going to say anything definite about moving. They HAVE to keep things "status quo" until the end of the season before making an announcement about ANY team moving or staying. They have to keep butts in the seats.

How many pages and posts will this thread have by then?

 

[Legatron4]

More Demoff:

Is it a possibility that the Rams are playing football in St. Louis in 2016?

"I think that's absolutely a possibility. Nothing is impossible at that point. Nothing is a given. I think our goal...is to focus on the year at hand on the field, on the product, on the marketing side and then really look at the stadium issues separately. To say right now in 2016 do we know where we're playing? I don't think anybody has any idea but it's certainly possible that it could be in St. Louis. I don't think that's off the table or unlikely. It could be just as likely as it is unlikely."

Can this quote just be repeated 3-4 times a day so I don't have to see this thread anymore? Basically, nobody has a clue what's going to happen.

 

[Isiah58]

While Stan has never said anything publicly regarding his preferences, some things are difficult to hide.

This Tuesday in Chicago, Stan will update the owners on the status of the Inglewood project. If he is secretly trying to leverage the good people of St. Louis, either he is bringing all of the NFL owners to Chicago as part of his ruse or the other 31 owners are in on the subterfuge (can you see Stan giving the other owners a big wink as he discusses his LA stadium plan?). I doubt the other 31 owners would make the trip to Chicago just to help Stan con St. Louis into giving him a new stadium, so if we are to believe that Stan's end game is to play out this leverage con as long as possible then at some point he is going to have to turn to the rest of the owners and say "Gotcha!" Does he really need to do this, when it appears that the funding hurdles for the Riverfront project are essentially cleared? It seems like we should be hearing whispers of the Rams bowing out of the LA race about now to generate good will and make a positive vibe to the '15 season, but still there is nothing. I just don't find that rational or prudent.

Also, I have read many people state that the Rams are helping or assisting with the Riverfront project. But my recollection is that Peacock said that the Rams gave "input" to the project. That "input" could be anything from major design preferences to "don't waste your time, we ain't stayin'." If the input was really substantial and substantive, it would seem like details would have come out at least a little ("the Rams asked for X amount of locker space and luxury boxes facing the eastern side of the stadium"). Instead, we just have the nebulous "input" that the Rams purported provided.

Also, it appears that the City of Inglewood was being challenged by the sheer number of permits that need to be reviewed and processed for the Inglewood Tomorrow project, so the City hired 5 firms to act as independent contractors to help process the permits. The developer (Kroenke's group) is bearing the cost of the City's hiring of these firms to expedite the process. The firms all promoted expertise in stadia evaluation, from work on the Coliseum to Dodger Stadium to Pauley Pavilion. If Stan is intending to build a Walmart on this property, as some have suggested, then why pay for the expense of expediting the permit process, and why the need for stadia expertise? It is not as if this is being used as propaganda to further spur St. Louis into action. This is the type of unspoken action that speak louder than anything Spanos or Policy or Grubman is saying.

http://www.cityofinglewood.org/agendastaffreports/07-21-15/5.pdf
[Btw, something similar may also be going on in Carson, but I am not aware of it]

The NFL may ultimately tell the Rams that they have to stay, but Kroenke is not acting like a person who is uncertain of his future. Either the owner's are going to collectively blindside this guy, or he believes that he has the votes to move and that he is going to be allowed to move one way or another.

As a caveat, it needs to be said that I have no idea what is going to happen or what Stan really wants. I am only offering my opinion on what it appears Stan is doing based on limited, third hand information. But if I were Stan and I didn't know anything certain, I would be very nervous about my chances of the owners picking my plan over the Carson alternative given: (1) The NFL's stated preference to keep teams in their current market; (2) The existence of a viable stadium plan in his current market, including a substantial amount of public funding; (3) The apparent futility of the SD and Oakland markets to offer a solution; (4) the death knell for the St. Louis market if he leaves; and (5) his stated promise to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Those factors and more strongly suggest that Inglewood is far from fait accompli, and yet the train just keeps (silently) steaming toward the station.

 

[CodeMonkey]

No one from any of the parties involved, are going to say anything definite about moving. They HAVE to keep things "status quo" until the end of the season before making an announcement about ANY team moving or staying. They have to keep butts in the seats.
How many pages and posts will this thread have by then?

Surely we will have this thing wrapped up in a page or two.

 

[Legatron4]

No one from any of the parties involved, are going to say anything definite about moving. They HAVE to keep things "status quo" until the end of the season before making an announcement about ANY team moving or staying. They have to keep butts in the seats.

How many pages and posts will this thread have by then?

Wouldnt announcing that they're staying put MORE butts in the seats? It's not like LA has a team to support at the moment. The NFL would be losing literally zero money. Personally, I think all 3 teams end up staying in their home markets. And here's why. Think of it this way, who are the most important fans? 20-30 year olds. Why? Because they will be the ones supporting the team in the long run. No offense to the older guys, but I really think a lot of this is just nostalgia to come back to LA. Most people like my age(23) don't even remember the Rams being in LA. The Rams have been in STL for 20 years. The Raiders have been in Oakland for 20 years. The NFL is all about the future. I know I sound like a dick, but I just think that's the way it goes with pretty much everything.

 

[MrMotes]

Wouldnt announcing that they're staying put MORE butts in the seats? It's not like LA has a team to support at the moment. The NFL would be losing literally zero money. Personally, I think all 3 teams end up staying in their home markets. And here's why. Think of it this way, who are the most important fans? 20-30 year olds. Why? Because they will be the ones supporting the team in the long run. No offense to the older guys, but I really think a lot of this is just nostalgia to come back to LA. Most people like my age(23) don't even remember the Rams being in LA. The Rams have been in STL for 20 years. The Raiders have been in Oakland for 20 years. The NFL is all about the future. I know I sound like a dick, but I just think that's the way it goes with pretty much everything.

But L.A. has more 20-30 year olds than smaller markets do. Doesn't the NFL want in on that?

 

[bubbaramfan]

Good post 58. The one big difference between Inglewood and Carson is Inglewood is shovel ready and Carson is not, and may not be for two years. Does the NFL want to wait that long for San Diego and Oakland?

 

[tonyl711]

No, those two things aren't related at all. Its not that he bought land, its that he has designed a stadium for that land, prepped the land, spent money to speed up approval for a stadium. The question was has Stan spent money on moving to LA, the answer is yes. He could take what he has spent as a loss and not move, but he has still spent money.

explain to me how you get that he bought land in LA means he is moving there, all it means is he bought land there, untill a stadium starts bieng built thats all it means.

 

[Legatron4]

But L.A. has more 20-30 year olds than smaller markets do. Doesn't the NFL want in on that?

Yes, but they haven't grown up with a team in LA. They aren't the ones fighting for them to come back as much as the 40-50 year olds who were there when the Rams played in LA. I've noticed more and more in this world as I've gotten older that it's "all about the kids". And I believe the NFL thinks the same way. You know who will be buying season tickets in 20 years? 25 year olds. They've grown with Oakland and STL being an NFL city. And I think the league looks at that.

 

[tonyl711]

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?


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

talk in circles all you want, the fact is LA has been used for leverage for 20 years, and theres no way you or anyone else know thats not what Stan is doing.

 

[tonyl711]

It will be interesting to see if they let me bring in my "Bring Back The Rams" sign when I go to Oxnard next week.

i hope they dont, that would be BS.

 

[blue4]

But L.A. has more 20-30 year olds than smaller markets do. Doesn't the NFL want in on that?

I think his point is that LA 25 yrs olds would support whatever team goes there, due to the fact that for as long as they've been old enough to pay attention it's been the St Louis Rams. It's why my son only knows about the Cardinals from his dad's boring stories shrouded in the past. You'll get that market regardless of who goes there.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Why is pointing out facts being 'intentionally difficult"? You have debated just about everything written in this thread. No one called you intentionally difficult. There seems to be a double standard here.

It's the entire "we can't trust anything that anyone says so I'm dismissing anything unless I hear it directly from Kroenke's mouth" angle. I have no problem with debate, that's the fun thing about this thread, having some healthy debate about different things. I just think it's getting more into the silly side when we're dismissing things that we don't want to hear because Kroenke hasn't directly said it. He hasn't directly said anything, which means we can essentially dismiss everything. It's one thing to say that all options are on the table because there hasn't been much to specify, I agree with that, and I agree that he could end up staying in St Louis. However when we dismiss things that have stood up against the scrutiny of the public eye, I think we're pushing past reality and more into what we want. Again, there are a lot of reporters who don't have a dog in this fight who are saying they all believe that Stan wants to go to LA, and he hasn't said anything about wanting to stay in St Louis. If that was something that was just made up, it's pretty likely there would be some reporters saying otherwise.

And what have those actions been? I think what he has done is... partnered with The Stockbridge Group to buy some land in Inglewood. Started some infrastructure and obtained some permits. For what? We don't know. Those are his actions. The rest is what the media is reporting. That's the facts.

He bought the land and then partnered with Stockbridge group, slight difference there. However he announced a stadium, he's lined up all EJD contracts to end early next year, he's put money and time making sure that his project got approved quickly, started prepping land, etc. Some of that stuff can be rolled over into a different project, some of it cannot. Either way those actions all speak to moving to LA, it sets him up to have a project ready to start digging as soon as they say okay, which gives him an advantage, and it sets him up with a very good project overall as well. Those are his actions and they indicate a move to LA. He's hedging his bets, but he's still preparing for an easier move.

Well, that is a fact, though. Until he does say something, it's not factual. You don't have to "buy it" but it's true nonetheless.

I don't deny he hasn't said anything, but I think it's something we can safely assume is the case, for the reasons I specified earlier.

What's "good enough" for you to "buy it" may not be good enough for me or others. But let's not categorize people who do not "buy it" as intentionally difficult.
I'm sorry too... I don't buy into believing what the media reports as fact without actually hearing from the utlimate source... and I don't buy into the concept that, just because they keep writing the same things over and over again, it somehow magically becomes fact. In fact, I have a healthy skepticism when it comes to the media... and I suspect many Americans do as well.

Good enough for me personally is when something is reported repeatedly and then doesn't get disputed. Take for example the letter from the "NFL" that came out, and then it ended up getting debunked pretty quickly. When these things surface members of the media instantly start talking to their sources about the information. If the sources haven't heard anything you will typically see reporters hedging their bets and putting a disclaimer on it, at least if they're a good reporter, they don't want to get burned. Look at someone like Brian Williams, it comes out that he lied and he lost his job. Reporters, especially big name ones, don't want to risk that.

If it was a few beat writers, I wouldn't really believe it. However it's not just a few beat writers, it's national writers, it's NFL executives and owners. It's essentially everyone.

 

[MrMotes]

I think his point is that LA 25 yrs olds would support whatever team goes there, due to the fact that for as long as they've been old enough to pay attention it's been the St Louis Rams. It's why my son only knows about the Cardinals from his dad's boring stories shrouded in the past. You'll get that market regardless of who goes there.

I agree but Legatron used it as a reason why all 3 teams will stay in their current cities...

 

[bluecoconuts]

explain to me how you get that he bought land in LA means he is moving there, all it means is he bought land there, untill a stadium starts bieng built thats all it means.

You took one part of the equation, ignored the rest and then asked how I got to the conclusion which you didn't even read correctly.

I never said he was moving there, in fact I'm pretty open about being split down the middle. I have it at nearly 50/50 that the Rams stay or go, which is better than a lot of people, including St Louis media and a few others.

It's not just simply that he bought land though, it's what he's done with the land, all of those point to him wanting to move there. However the question was still "has he spent money to move to LA" and yes he has. He has spent money that he would need to spend in order to move to LA. He can still take a few losses and not move, I don't doubt that, but if he stays in St Louis then he will have lost money in LA. Not a lot compared to how much he has but still some.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

I'm 26, FWIW.