New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[OldSchool]

i hope they dont, that would be BS.

The Rams have already said that when they're in Oxnard it's the Cowboys decision not theirs.

 

[OldSchool]

View: https://twitter.com/kdemoff/status/629683429085421568

 

[RamFan503]

I have decided that I like the Heath Klondike bars more than the cookie dough version.

My favorite candy bar in an ice cream bar? How could you go wrong with that?

Maybe I missed it... but all I recall is that Demoff has done the presentatons. Kroenke remains silent. If there is a link, let me know?

I suppose that if the articles say that Stan gave the presentation, that means nothing.

He did? I must have missed it where it was clearly reported that Stan Kroenke, himself, did the presentation.

He doesn't seem like the kind of guy that gets down to that level... probably had Demoff do the talking.

It says it pretty clearly and NFL channel also reported that KD did part of the presentation and then Stan did the actual Inglewood presentation. Not sure why they would separate the two for no reason.

Have you missed anything? The fact the Rams haven't committed to stay in St Louis. It's always funny how somebody will bring up the Rams haven't announced their intention to relocate, like they would be stupid enough to do now and create a lame duck season, and fail to acknowledge they haven't said they will stay. Be realistic here, for the sake of ticket sales and game day revenues nothing will be announced until the season is over or very near to over. Doing it sooner is a foolish business decision and Kroenke, Davis, Spanos and the NFL won't do that.

Keep it about the post - not the poster.

Believe Demoff gave the presentation

Both

I think it's rather clear that Stan wants to leave St Louis for LA. The clues started years ago, with the Dodgers. What's not clear to me is whether or not he's desperate to force the issue, or whether or not his forcing everyone's hand is going to go favorably for him. Any way you slice it he's caused a crisis in three markets. No NFL vote is a forgone conclusion. What's not clear to me at all is if Stan could prevail in a three way court battle with Spanos/Davis and the NFL. In the rush to paint Spanos as an evil villain people forget that every right Stan has, he also has. Any court battle Stan wins to move his team opens it up for Spanos and Davis as well. Every argument Stan can muster up, he's got those too, plus 12 years extra. I'd be surprised if it comes to court myself. Think how odd that would be. You're trying to beat them to LA, yet every court battle won to facilitate that helps them as well. There's no judge that's going to rule one team can move and no one else. To me there are only 2 sure scenarios. St Louis fails and SD does not fail to get financing. Or Carson fails. Anything else is shrouded in mystery, regardless of what some members of the media think.

That would possibly be true if Spanos is suing at the same time for the same reasons. Otherwise, not so much. Still - probably a moot point.

Please don't tell me I'm being intentionally difficult when I am stating facts.

Gotta say, it seems you are more into dismissing statements than stating facts. It comes off as your being intentionally difficult to me as well.

im not ignoring the lease in all of this, what i am saying is the top tier clause was moot as soon as Stan went year to year. im sure the lease will have to be a very good one, but i also think the NFL will bend over backwards for Stan if he isnt allowed to move, promise of a SB perhaps? i also think if Stan doesnt get a green light to LA he will add more than what he is being asked to contribute to a new stadium, just to stoke his ego, that way he still gets his palace and he comes out a hero here.

Not sure what a SB would do for Stan if he doesn't own anything but... doesn't really matter. I'm just saying it will play into any deal that gets done. The top tier clause will be a factor in determining if what is being offered to Stan is commensurate with what the CVC was responsible for providing as part of the lease.

Read on Twitter that the team has people confiscating posters at the gates for the NFL network live camp broadcast today. Apparently they don't want pro St. Louis "propaganda" representing the team today.

I wonder what we can expect from the Oxnard broadcast...

I'm sure that is the whole story.

And People don't think Kroenke is doing stuff to kill the fan base, but Georgia Frontiee was the devil?

guess ignorance is bliss

Think the bolded is a little providential? Turns out nothing nefarious about it at all.

You know, they'll probably let LA fans bring in whatever crap they want too. This is such garbage. I keep trying not to get upset and just concentrate on the Rams but it's extremely difficult when they keep shoving it up our asses.

Let's not just jump on some tweet as if it tells the whole story - eh? On this or any other tweet.

Did these twitter people say why they were asked not to bring signs in? Providing details and info maybe even links of said tweets would be helpful instead of just posting this without any additional info.

Exactly.

Mayor Butts has been on the radio multiple times and it has been discussed at the multiple city council meetings.

Mayor Butts has refused to say that the Rams have said anything to him about moving there.

I don't like it and I think the NFL would be horribly wrong, but, so be it. I won't abandon my team, just as some LA fans didn't, but I'll hate the owner and NFL for letting it happen over potential profits.

I think most LA or long time Rams fans can appreciate this - probably a fair number of newer fans as well.

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.

It's been pretty widely reported - including by the NFL channel. He is going to present the plan to the owners at an owners only meeting.

There is really no reason to doubt it but go ahead if you wish.

Wow, you are confused here.

Knock this kind of shit off. Everyone needs to stop with the smart ass responses and statements directed at each other and stick solely to the points of the posts.

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?

There was a report in this thread that outlined the expenditures on the different proposals. IIRR Stan has spent pretty significant funds on designs, signature gathering, political advertising, etc... Again, IIRR he has spent roughly twice as much on stadium related items than St Louis. Doesn't prove anything but the money I am talking about would be of no use for another project outside of the stadium and 6,000 seat music venue.

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 has paid for the plans and drawings. He paid millions for signature gathering, political ads, promotions, and approval expediting for nothing other than a stadium and music venue. Those are facts. Do they mean that he is hell bent on moving? No. But those actions are a pretty good indication. However, they are also monies well spent if it gets him what he may have always wanted in his home state. Leveraging a few million to get several hundred in return may work out well for him.

Lol and the games continue, LA Times reports something it's rumor and guesses. The Post Dispatch reports something write it down as the gospel truth!

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. This kind of glass house finger pointing has been going on by both sides and it really needs to stop.

I'm really not a fan of the whole LOL thing as it gets used to belittle what someone else said and in turn is an attempt to belittle them personally.

Everyone needs to keep in mind that smug, smart ass comments are not going to play well here and if I continue to see them, I will just start blocking members from the thread. Hell, I can keep up plenty a riveting conversation without any of you anyways.

So just be decent to each other.

And BTW - it is the job of the moderators to occasionally make posts directed at the member rather than the point of the post. So if someone wants to call my hypocritical - save it.

 

[RamFan503]

I wonder if these kinds of signs have anything to do with the policy. I can't imagine why they would want to prevent people from holding a big sign in front of other fans so that they can get their weak commentary in.

 

[OldSchool]

I'm pretty sure he didn't say that. This kind of glass house finger pointing has been going on by both sides and it really needs to stop.

I'm really not a fan of the whole LOL thing as it gets used to belittle what someone else said and in turn is an attempt to belittle them personally.

There are countless posts in this thread where people say that a source isn't reliable because it's the LA Times or it's Roggin or another Southern California personality. And anytime something said in the PD is disputed you're called a hater or a denier or something along those lines. I agree the finger pointing needs to stop and I've said it many times. But that statement was pointing out a hypocrisy that does in fact happen a lot in this thread.

 

[OldSchool]

I wonder if these kinds of signs have anything to do with the policy. I can't imagine why they would want to prevent people from holding a big sign in front of other fans so that they can get their weak commentary in.
View attachment 8869

If those posters started in 2009 then it's possible. As the tweet I posted above says the Rams are saying this has been policy since 2009.

 

[RamzFanz]

They allowed signs, many signs, in training camp until the NFLN day. The signs were put on the railings, not held up. In no way were they disruptive to the practice or visitors. I was impressed they were being tolerant, until they weren't.

 

[RamFan503]

There are countless posts in this thread where people say that a source isn't reliable because it's the LA Times or it's Roggin or another Southern California personality. And anytime something said in the PD is disputed you're called a hater or a denier or something along those lines. I agree the finger pointing needs to stop and I've said it many times. But that statement was pointing out a hypocrisy that does in fact happen a lot in this thread.

Right but I think he actually said the opposite. IIRR, he said that people like Bernie et al have no facts either. Regardless, I would like everyone to get away from accusing the other of being biased. Of course people are biased. So instead of making that a point and thus using it to attack the poster, just stick to the points themselves. Not just you by any stretch - but in general.

 

[dbrooks25]

Kroenke has said he's in support of the Riverfront stadium? I know that Demoff has thrown in input, but as far as I know that's about it.

FWIW, Peacock said way back in February that he saw SK at the Superbowl festivities and was told that he was doing a great job and he liked everything. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

 

[dbrooks25]

View: https://twitter.com/nwagoner/status/629684955375882240

So everyone read this, correct? So if we see any LA Rams signs, please don't overreact one way or the other. I know this post will fall on deaf ears. Sigh...

 

[dbrooks25]

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?

Hell, they waited 20 years so far. LOL

 

[dieterbrock]

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.

I'm not talking in circles. Where has Kroenke said/implied/was rumored that he wants public money to build a stadium?
He owns the building his NBA/NHL teams play in, can understand he'd want the same for his NFL team

 

[dbrooks25]

There are countless posts in this thread where people say that a source isn't reliable because it's the LA Times or it's Roggin or another Southern California personality. And anytime something said in the PD is disputed you're called a hater or a denier or something along those lines. I agree the finger pointing needs to stop and I've said it many times. But that statement was pointing out a hypocrisy that does in fact happen a lot in this thread.

Sorry dude, but it goes both ways. The number of posts that you are describing are about 50/50 Stl and L.A.

 

[bluecoconuts]

FWIW, Peacock said way back in February that he saw SK at the Superbowl festivities and was told that he was doing a great job and he liked everything. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

Yeah I know, but obviously we can't really trust Peacock because he could just be trying to give the pubic hope.

 

[WillasDad]

Is it actually true that nobody but SK knows what he's doing? He's probably told some people. The trick is finding out who it is.

 

[OldSchool]

FWIW, Peacock said way back in February that he saw SK at the Superbowl festivities and was told that he was doing a great job and he liked everything. I'm paraphrasing, but that was the gist of it.

But according to the games in this thread, we didn't hear that from Kroenke himself so how can we trust something that somebody else said he said.

 

[snackdaddy]

Is it actually true that nobody but SK knows what he's doing? He's probably told some people. The trick is finding out who it is.

I'm on it. I'll be hiding out near his house. Might overhear some critical info.
I'm on it. I'll be hiding out at his house trying to overhear some things.

 

[WillasDad]

 

[8to12]

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.

Nice post Legatron. I agree mostly with what you are saying. However, those in their 20's are lower wage earners then those in their 40's and 50's. Also, if they're not single they probably do not have enough disposable income to afford PSL's and season seats. I think the older crowd are the ones who have more disposable income.
In my case, I had season seats in Anaheim for 2 years. Then I got married and could only afford to go to a game here and there. It wasn't until 2006 that I could afford PSL's at the Ed & fly out to see a game or two per season.

 

[bubbaramfan]

Wondering what they will tell us what went on in the meeting. My guess is, not much, and what they do give us will be much of same we've already been hearing. I'd love to be a fly on the wall! I can hear Dean Spaonos "That SOB that lives 3 blocks from the stadium site blew our cover on the remediation, now what do we do to BS the public"?