fearsomefour
Legend
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2013
- Messages
- 17,448
Spanos is just the worst.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2014
- Messages
- 12,173
Sir Grill and Brewmaster what do you know of such things?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,835
- Name
- Stu
Not a whole shitload - just that I think we've already been talking about the owner meeting on the stadium thread and we decided long ago that there would not be more than one thread dealing with stadium/relocation talk. If this starts to go there - which seems inevitable - it will need to either be deleted or merged.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
I'm sure we won't really get much information out of things really. A few generic answers.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,835
- Name
- Stu
I'm sure Grubman and Goodhell are warming up both sides of their face as we post.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Everybody keep working, our primary concern is to keep teams in their current market while also focusing on our primary goal to get at least one team in LA and hopefully two. BUT KEEP OFFERING US MONEY, CITIES!
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
It doesn't. That's why it's been merged into the super-duper-gigantic relocation thread where all that type of discussion belongs.
- Joined
- Aug 17, 2014
- Messages
- 4,006
What’s the over/under on this thread (views and replies) until this matter is resolved? :eek:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,835
- Name
- Stu
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
20,000 posts and 750,000 views if the Rams stay.
25,000 posts and over a million views if they move.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 5,342
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 7,069
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 22,999
- Name
- Dennis
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,835
- Name
- Stu
No problem Bubba. Just don't let it happen again.I'm fine with the move 503 I shoulda posted that here in the 1st place, my bad.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/aug/10/chargers-san-diego-stadium-plan-august-acee/
Latest stadium proposal won't work – right now
By Kevin Acee | 12:11 p.m. Aug. 10, 2015 | Updated, 3:34 p.m.
In the most constructive and convivial way possible, San Diego’s government leaders have essentially given up hope of negotiating with the Chargers and have all but abandoned the possibility a stadium solution will be achieved within an NFL-mandated timeline.
That is good news.
Really. It’s progress – at least as far as recent stadium negotiations have gone.
This isn’t getting done this year in time for an anticipated vote by NFL owners on which franchises might be allowed to relocate to Los Angeles. We pretty much knew that already, and the hand San Diego officials showed Monday erased any question.
There is no way the Chargers accept the terms of a plan laid out by city and county leaders that calls for a mere 33 percent of a $1.1 billion Mission Valley Stadium to be publicly financed. The proposal that calls for $750 million from the Chargers and NFL may get only a sound in official response. That will be the sound of laughter.
The average public contribution toward construction of the five newest NFL stadiums is 48 percent. That includes the 33 percent for the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium and 9 percent for the San Francisco 49ers’ stadium. It does not include a sixth stadium, because there was virtually zero public contribution toward Met Life Stadium, which houses the New York Giants and Jets.
Comparing the wealth and/or revenue opportunities of the Chargers/San Diego to those three markets is like comparing apples and Skittles. That’s reality. It’s going to take more public money (and probably more total money) to get a stadium built in San Diego.
But what San Diego officials did is show they are ready to play. Their latest volley is at least three first downs short of realistic, but it tangibly demonstrates a readiness and a feasible path.
“If they want an NFL franchise in the eighth-largest city in the nation, this is the time they make the decision,” City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said of the NFL. “We have demonstrated we can meet their earliest timeframes.”
Even before the city's latest proposal was made public, it was assured the team would balk at the suggested private contribution ($362.5 million from the team, $200 million from the NFL and 187.5 million from the sale of personal seat licenses) and maintain its concerns about likely legal challenges to the city and county’s expedited environmental impact report.
Indeed, minutes after the details were made public, Chargers stadium point man Mark Fabiani released a statement reiterating the team’s belief the EIR is doomed to fail in court and suggesting an objection to the city and county’s proposal the Chargers pay for construction cost overruns.
In a later statement, Fabiani said: “Both history and current polling show it will be extraordinarily difficult to persuade voters to devote hundreds of millions of General Fund tax dollars to a stadium, but in the end any funding plan is going to be dragged down into the quicksand of the City's legally inadequate environmental review process – a process that will be bogged down in court for years before it is eventually declared illegal.”
So there it is.
San Diego needs to resume talks with the Chargers within the next two weeks, because a financial term sheet must be submitted to the City Council by Sept. 11 to allow the Registrar of Voters the required 88 days review before a January election. And the Chargers aren’t inclined to engage in further talks.
In fact, even getting past the team’s objections to San Diego’s intentions, there is no incentive for the Chargers to talk right now. Everyone involved knows that. In all honesty, no one involved can blame them.
So much is yet to be decided in Los Angeles – with the Chargers and Oakland Raiders vying for approval to build a stadium in Carson and the St. Louis Rams planning a stadium in Inglewood. The Chargers cannot risk being stuck in antiquated Qualcomm Stadium if they lose out on the L.A. opportunity.
“Until the NFL makes a decision, (the Chargers) are going to continue on the path they’re on,” County Supervisor Ron Roberts said. “I’m not optimistic we’re going to have significant negotiations between now and September.”
What the city and country are basically doing is pointing their efforts around the Chargers and directly at the NFL, hoping to demonstrate that the region is serious about working out a viable plan. The thinking is that perhaps the NFL and its owners (who must approve any relocation with a three-quarter vote) will prompt the Chargers to get back to the negotiating table the team left in late June or at least give the league reason to delay its return to Los Angeles in some fashion.
San Diego officials know the region cannot compete with the Los Angeles area’s riches.
“We’re not their first choice for the prom,” Roberts said. “We’ve adjusted to that. We don’t like it. We’ve been dating for a long time, but we know we’re not their first choice. We want to work this out. We have met their challenge … We showed we did exactly what we said we could do.”
It’s not good enough. But it indicates a framework, and city officials made it clear there is room to negotiate.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer said the San Diego negotiating team’s presentation to a committee of six owners in Chicago on Monday outlined the proposed financing and alerted the owners to the completed EIR.
“They will see a real path for success in San Diego,” Faulconer said. “It’s up to them to say, ‘Chargers come back to the table.’ ”
Will that happen? No one can say. It can’t be ruled out. Three teams are competing for a maximum of two spots in the L.A. market. The NFL must make sure the one staying in its home market has a workable future.
League sources have said in the past that the league could contribute more than the standard $200 million G4 loan to help a team make its home market work. Chargers sources have implied the team could pay $300 million, though that number includes PSL revenue.
That indicates there is room on that side for negotiation as well.
Faulconer, Goldsmith and Roberts – as they have for months – alluded Monday to their willingness to work on a 2016 election if the NFL pushes back its deadline.
As has been apparent for some time, that is San Diego’s only hope. In that the NFL understand how negotiation works, Monday's proposal at least shows the city and county are serious and should be recognized as such by the league.
Latest stadium proposal won't work – right now
By Kevin Acee | 12:11 p.m. Aug. 10, 2015 | Updated, 3:34 p.m.
In the most constructive and convivial way possible, San Diego’s government leaders have essentially given up hope of negotiating with the Chargers and have all but abandoned the possibility a stadium solution will be achieved within an NFL-mandated timeline.
That is good news.
Really. It’s progress – at least as far as recent stadium negotiations have gone.
This isn’t getting done this year in time for an anticipated vote by NFL owners on which franchises might be allowed to relocate to Los Angeles. We pretty much knew that already, and the hand San Diego officials showed Monday erased any question.
There is no way the Chargers accept the terms of a plan laid out by city and county leaders that calls for a mere 33 percent of a $1.1 billion Mission Valley Stadium to be publicly financed. The proposal that calls for $750 million from the Chargers and NFL may get only a sound in official response. That will be the sound of laughter.
The average public contribution toward construction of the five newest NFL stadiums is 48 percent. That includes the 33 percent for the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium and 9 percent for the San Francisco 49ers’ stadium. It does not include a sixth stadium, because there was virtually zero public contribution toward Met Life Stadium, which houses the New York Giants and Jets.
Comparing the wealth and/or revenue opportunities of the Chargers/San Diego to those three markets is like comparing apples and Skittles. That’s reality. It’s going to take more public money (and probably more total money) to get a stadium built in San Diego.
But what San Diego officials did is show they are ready to play. Their latest volley is at least three first downs short of realistic, but it tangibly demonstrates a readiness and a feasible path.
“If they want an NFL franchise in the eighth-largest city in the nation, this is the time they make the decision,” City Attorney Jan Goldsmith said of the NFL. “We have demonstrated we can meet their earliest timeframes.”
Even before the city's latest proposal was made public, it was assured the team would balk at the suggested private contribution ($362.5 million from the team, $200 million from the NFL and 187.5 million from the sale of personal seat licenses) and maintain its concerns about likely legal challenges to the city and county’s expedited environmental impact report.
Indeed, minutes after the details were made public, Chargers stadium point man Mark Fabiani released a statement reiterating the team’s belief the EIR is doomed to fail in court and suggesting an objection to the city and county’s proposal the Chargers pay for construction cost overruns.
In a later statement, Fabiani said: “Both history and current polling show it will be extraordinarily difficult to persuade voters to devote hundreds of millions of General Fund tax dollars to a stadium, but in the end any funding plan is going to be dragged down into the quicksand of the City's legally inadequate environmental review process – a process that will be bogged down in court for years before it is eventually declared illegal.”
So there it is.
San Diego needs to resume talks with the Chargers within the next two weeks, because a financial term sheet must be submitted to the City Council by Sept. 11 to allow the Registrar of Voters the required 88 days review before a January election. And the Chargers aren’t inclined to engage in further talks.
In fact, even getting past the team’s objections to San Diego’s intentions, there is no incentive for the Chargers to talk right now. Everyone involved knows that. In all honesty, no one involved can blame them.
So much is yet to be decided in Los Angeles – with the Chargers and Oakland Raiders vying for approval to build a stadium in Carson and the St. Louis Rams planning a stadium in Inglewood. The Chargers cannot risk being stuck in antiquated Qualcomm Stadium if they lose out on the L.A. opportunity.
“Until the NFL makes a decision, (the Chargers) are going to continue on the path they’re on,” County Supervisor Ron Roberts said. “I’m not optimistic we’re going to have significant negotiations between now and September.”
What the city and country are basically doing is pointing their efforts around the Chargers and directly at the NFL, hoping to demonstrate that the region is serious about working out a viable plan. The thinking is that perhaps the NFL and its owners (who must approve any relocation with a three-quarter vote) will prompt the Chargers to get back to the negotiating table the team left in late June or at least give the league reason to delay its return to Los Angeles in some fashion.
San Diego officials know the region cannot compete with the Los Angeles area’s riches.
“We’re not their first choice for the prom,” Roberts said. “We’ve adjusted to that. We don’t like it. We’ve been dating for a long time, but we know we’re not their first choice. We want to work this out. We have met their challenge … We showed we did exactly what we said we could do.”
It’s not good enough. But it indicates a framework, and city officials made it clear there is room to negotiate.
Mayor Kevin Faulconer said the San Diego negotiating team’s presentation to a committee of six owners in Chicago on Monday outlined the proposed financing and alerted the owners to the completed EIR.
“They will see a real path for success in San Diego,” Faulconer said. “It’s up to them to say, ‘Chargers come back to the table.’ ”
Will that happen? No one can say. It can’t be ruled out. Three teams are competing for a maximum of two spots in the L.A. market. The NFL must make sure the one staying in its home market has a workable future.
League sources have said in the past that the league could contribute more than the standard $200 million G4 loan to help a team make its home market work. Chargers sources have implied the team could pay $300 million, though that number includes PSL revenue.
That indicates there is room on that side for negotiation as well.
Faulconer, Goldsmith and Roberts – as they have for months – alluded Monday to their willingness to work on a 2016 election if the NFL pushes back its deadline.
As has been apparent for some time, that is San Diego’s only hope. In that the NFL understand how negotiation works, Monday's proposal at least shows the city and county are serious and should be recognized as such by the league.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
This is Rams and NFL specific. Why would it be moved to the other sports forum?
- Status