New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • 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
Not open for further replies.

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Anything about the Avs?

I figured that was going to happen, so if there is going to be something to entice Kroenke to stay, doesn't seem like that'll be it. Now the question is what could they do if it were to come to it? We've heard quite a few times the owners will make sure that everyone comes out happy, so how do you make him happy?
Not sure if it's possible. I've thought that Stan wanted to stay in St Louis all along but the allure of LA was too good to not at least try to have as option 1b. I'm not liking the vibe I'm getting from the stuff coming out today. If he actually IS talking about "what went wrong" in St Louis, it sounds like something completely soured him on the city. Not sure if that is actually the case but if he was talking that way, it doesn't sound good.

The problem for him is still that if the Peacock proposal is indeed a very good proposal, I don't see how he gets to LA without a court battle. I'm having a hard time seeing the St Louis Raiders as someone in the media brought up again today.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Not sure if it's possible. I've thought that Stan wanted to stay in St Louis all along but the allure of LA was too good to not at least try to have as option 1b. I'm not liking the vibe I'm getting from the stuff coming out today. If he actually IS talking about "what went wrong" in St Louis, it sounds like something completely soured him on the city. Not sure if that is actually the case but if he was talking that way, it doesn't sound good.

The problem for him is still that if the Peacock proposal is indeed a very good proposal, I don't see how he gets to LA without a court battle. I'm having a hard time seeing the St Louis Raiders as someone in the media brought up again today.

Yeah, I dunno it's all pretty tricky, I'm about 50/50 on the Rams staying or going, but part of that was while I've been under the impression Stan wants to go and has wanted to go, they could eventually offer him something that would convince him to stay. If it's not cross ownership, and it's not that he'll own and operate the stadium, what else is there to dangle? I just don't trust the NFL to force their second richest owner to stay put if he's bent on leaving. I'm not sure Spanos or Davis have the cash to go into a court battle, I get the feeling that they're going to try to repair the Spanos Kroenke relationship next.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Not sure if it's possible. I've thought that Stan wanted to stay in St Louis all along but the allure of LA was too good to not at least try to have as option 1b. I'm not liking the vibe I'm getting from the stuff coming out today. If he actually IS talking about "what went wrong" in St Louis, it sounds like something completely soured him on the city. Not sure if that is actually the case but if he was talking that way, it doesn't sound good.

The problem for him is still that if the Peacock proposal is indeed a very good proposal, I don't see how he gets to LA without a court battle. I'm having a hard time seeing the St Louis Raiders as someone in the media brought up again today.

Yeah, I dunno it's all pretty tricky, I'm about 50/50 on the Rams staying or going, but part of that was while I've been under the impression Stan wants to go and has wanted to go, they could eventually offer him something that would convince him to stay. If it's not cross ownership, and it's not that he'll own and operate the stadium, what else is there to dangle? I just don't trust the NFL to force their second richest owner to stay put if he's bent on leaving. I'm not sure Spanos or Davis have the cash to go into a court battle, I get the feeling that they're going to try to repair the Spanos Kroenke relationship next.

The NFL might want to avoid court after reading the transcripts so far from the Brady trial and all the other loses over the last few years.

Like blucoconus said it's Spanos and Kroenke since both legally have the right to relocate so they will eventually have to come to terms if the both really want LA.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The NFL might want to avoid court after reading the transcripts so far from the Brady trial and all the other loses over the last few years.

Like blucoconus said it's Spanos and Kroenke since both legally have the right to relocate so they will eventually have to come to terms if the both really want LA.

It'll be interesting to see if Davis does anything if it does come down to Kroenke and Spanos working things out. Thus far he seems to just be along for the ride, I don't think he's really done anything other than tag along.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Yeah, I dunno it's all pretty tricky, I'm about 50/50 on the Rams staying or going, but part of that was while I've been under the impression Stan wants to go and has wanted to go, they could eventually offer him something that would convince him to stay. If it's not cross ownership, and it's not that he'll own and operate the stadium, what else is there to dangle? I just don't trust the NFL to force their second richest owner to stay put if he's bent on leaving. I'm not sure Spanos or Davis have the cash to go into a court battle, I get the feeling that they're going to try to repair the Spanos Kroenke relationship next.
Maybe so.

I sure would like to know what he said as what went wrong though. I just can't buy in that he spent all that time and effort in getting a team to St Louis and then getting a team from LA only to want to move them back. It makes no sense to me unless something or someone really pissed him off.

Hell. Who knows. It could have just been being told no but I suspect there was some real bad blood being spilt between he and the CVC. Either way, you do have to wonder what it might take to mend fences. I wonder also if he were to be told no by the NFL what his next step would be. My guess would be that he would just build his own stadium and the NFL would find ways to use some relocation money and the G4 to make it more attractive. Either way, I get the feeling, Stan is not willing to work with those he has dealt with in the past. But maybe I'm reading more into this than there is.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
It'll be interesting to see if Davis does anything if it does come down to Kroenke and Spanos working things out. Thus far he seems to just be along for the ride, I don't think he's really done anything other than tag along.

Davis was really looking to set up his office permanently at Sam's Hofbrau so I am sure he will be upset but not much he can do.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,624
Name
Stu
Davis was really looking to set up his office permanently at Sam's Hofbrau so I am sure he will be upset but not much he can do.
It'll be interesting to see if Davis does anything if it does come down to Kroenke and Spanos working things out. Thus far he seems to just be along for the ride, I don't think he's really done anything other than tag along.
It's funny really. My uncle used to be a business partner of Al Davis'. He hasn't exactly had the most glowing things to say about the chosen son. I have to wonder if the NFL owners have the same impression of him. If so, that isn't going to buy him many preference points.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,008
It's funny really. My uncle used to be a business partner of Al Davis'. He hasn't exactly had the most glowing things to say about the chosen son. I have to wonder if the NFL owners have the same impression of him. If so, that isn't going to buy him many preference points.
The Davis factor has me wondering too. I could have missed some but so far as I can remember Davis has spoken once right after the Carson project was announced where he said Carson was a fall back and that he'd prefer to work things out with Oakland. The guy seems not want to be seen, heck we've seen more talk from his former GM than we have from him in this whole matter. We heard quotes/talk that was attributed to Kroenke and Spanos today this big owners meeting about moving to LA but has anybody heard anything from Davis or a Raiders rep?
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
That doesn't factor in the PSL. Like I said, if you put PSL under owner, as San Diego did, the numbers are about the same, no?

Uh no the difference between what's offered and proposed is still different , and don't forget the amount for psl in San Diego is pretty absurd. Read the article I posted by Kevin acee
 

MrMotes

Starter
Joined
May 6, 2014
Messages
954
I sure would like to know what he said as what went wrong though. I just can't buy in that he spent all that time and effort in getting a team to St Louis and then getting a team from LA only to want to move them back. It makes no sense to me unless something or someone really pissed him off.

Kroenke wanted to own an NFL team. His in was as minority owner of the Rams. But that only happened if they moved to St. Louis. So of course he worked for that.

Now that he's majority owner, St. Louis isn't necessary, and maybe he wants something different.

I guess what i'm saying is: It's entirely possible that nothing changed.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
It's funny really. My uncle used to be a business partner of Al Davis'. He hasn't exactly had the most glowing things to say about the chosen son. I have to wonder if the NFL owners have the same impression of him. If so, that isn't going to buy him many preference points.
The Davis factor has me wondering too. I could have missed some but so far as I can remember Davis has spoken once right after the Carson project was announced where he said Carson was a fall back and that he'd prefer to work things out with Oakland. The guy seems not want to be seen, heck we've seen more talk from his former GM than we have from him in this whole matter. We heard quotes/talk that was attributed to Kroenke and Spanos today this big owners meeting about moving to LA but has anybody heard anything from Davis or a Raiders rep?

The talk up through last fall was that the NFL wanted Davis out and that they would never allow the team to move to LA as long as he owned the team. Al never gave him any real responsibility at the Raiders, managing the internal company store and the Raderettes doesn't count but he has at least brought in football people in to run the team.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,008
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...-tells-owners-st-louis-does-not-work-for.html

The National Football League will resolve which teams will relocate to L.A. by the Super Bowl, said Carmen Policy, who is overseeing the Carson stadium project for the Chargers and Raiders.

Speaking shortly after the two teams presented to owners, Policy said the stadium could be ready by 2019 and offered the NFL the best opportunity to resolve the California stadium problem of the Raiders and Chargers playing in outdated venues. “It cures the California dilemma, and you are not only curing it, but with California teams,” he said.

The Carson presentation, which included the team owners, Policy and a Goldman Sachs rep, lasted 30 minutes. Owners asked three questions, Policy said, declining to describe them. After the Carson presentation, Rams OwnerStan Kroenke presented his vision for a project in Inglewood. A Rams rep had not spoken to the assembled media at the meeting as of presstime. A source said the Rams spent some of their time on why St. Louis did not work for the club.

Policy said as part of the Carson project, the teams would make available to the league eight acres rent free for use as it sees fit. The teams have proposed the league relocate NFL media operations there. Asked if a Carson project would essentially solve the NFL’s St. Louis problem by keeping the Rams there, Policy said he could not speak on another market. However, he then said, "If the owners go with Carson and the Chargers and Raiders, it accommodates the goals of the National Football League, not only in California but elsewhere."

I guess that also solves the debate on the allotted time for each team. This article says the Chargers/Raiders spent 30 minutes and an earlier article said the Rams took an hour.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
40,008
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sport...ssibilities-roger-goodell-20150811-story.html

Roger Goodell: NFL will consider all L.A. possibilities

By SAM FARMER

Relocation-minded NFL teams made their pitches Tuesday, but it will take months to know how well they performed.

That's when the league's owners are expected to decide which teams, if any, will be given permission to move. The vote could come as early as December, although the situation remains fluid.

In a special one-day meeting taking place at a hotel near O'Hare Airport, owners of the league's 32 teams heard presentations of competing L.A.-area projects. St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is proposing a stadium in Inglewood, while San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis are touting a stadium in Carson.

"There is not a possibility that's being taken off the table," NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell said when asked about different permutations in the three-team, two-stadium game of musical chairs. (There will not be two new stadiums constructed in the market.)

"We're just looking for the right solution."

The Chargers and Raiders, represented by former NFL team executive Carmen Policy, made a Carson presentation that lasted 30 minutes in the closed-door meeting, plus five minutes of questions and answers. Owners asked three questions about that proposal, although Policy didn’t disclose what was asked.

"We were able to cover everything we thought was important, and I honestly couldn't have asked for a more attentive audience," Policy said.

The Rams went longer, almost an hour, and talked about a "Los Angeles Entertainment Center" on the nearly 300-acre Inglewood site. In addition to sporting events, they talked about the potential to host the Grammys, Golden Globes and Academy Awards.

In an encouraging note for the city of San Diego, NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, who is overseeing the process, said that city has made "a significant amount of progress" but noted there are still many open questions about the bid for a new stadium there.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Uh no the difference between what's offered and proposed is still different , and don't forget the amount for psl in San Diego is pretty absurd. Read the article I posted by Kevin acee

The offer for the stadium is a $6oo million in St Louis and close to $1 billion in San Diego which can house Super Bowls so yes still different. I ran the commercial construction costs and they both average out at 120% of the national average,
 

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Different approaches to L.A. relocation could shift momentum to Carson
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...-to-relocation-could-shift-momentum-to-carson

As team owners weigh the different options for relocation to Los Angeles, the winner may end up being the one that was best advertised.

SCHAUMBURG, Ill. -- Right, wrong or indifferent, no matter how you view the NFL's race to return to Los Angeles, there's no denying the fact that the approach taken by those representing the Carson project and those representing the Inglewood project are polar opposite.

Never was that more abundantly clear than Tuesday afternoon at the Hyatt Regency hotel outside Chicago. It's also why it would be no surprise if the public perception starts to shift momentum toward Carson over Inglewood.

After a 45-minute presentation to the assembled league owners, Carmen Policy, the man representing the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders in their pursuit of relocation to a new stadium in Carson, spent about 20 minutes speaking to the media.

After their own 45-minute presentation, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke and chief operating officer Kevin Demoff went to lunch. Demoff did speak to the media later on for about seven minutes but didn't provide much insight into the proceedings.

Such is the difference between an appointed consultant working on behalf of, but not for, the teams he represents and an executive vice president trying to find the delicate balance between selling tickets in his home market and pitching a potential move to the rest of the league.

"I never viewed this as a competition," Demoff said. "I viewed this as an opportunity for the NFL to hear about both projects."

But that opportunity for the NFL to hear about both projects serves as a step in the process of what can't be seen as anything but a competition. It would be naive to think that what's currently taking place is something other than a battle to offer the best and brightest opportunity for the NFL to return to Los Angeles.

Behind closed doors, Policy joined Goldman-Sachs in presenting the Carson project while Demoff and Kroenke unveiled the Inglewood proposal. There's no way of knowing how those presentations were received as most owners declined to discuss specifics but from the outside, there was clearly one project pushing harder than the other.

"Let me just say this: The Raiders and Chargers are committed to L.A. and they've spent a lot of money [on L.A.]," Policy said.

Since he was named as the point man for Carson back in May, Policy hasn't been too hard to find.

Not only did Policy take the time to talk Tuesday, he had plenty of insight into how he sold the Carson project to the owners. At the top of that list was an emphasis on how the Carson project solves the stadium problem for two California teams without removing them from their home state.

"It cures the California dilemma," Policy said. "You’re not only curing the California dilemma but you’re curing it with California teams. These teams were born and bred in California. They’ve never left California. They’ve always been in California. So it just fits."

Policy went on to count the other ways that Carson makes sense, including it's location near the freeway, the ample onsite parking it offers, how it would help create a larger footprint in California extending from Santa Barbara to Mexico and various other selling points. He also made it known that the Carson project allots for eight acres of rent-free land for the NFL to use to help build whatever the league sees fit, up to and including a home for the NFL Network, NFL digital ventures and perhaps even a western wing for the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

Policy spared no detail in his media session, even pinpointing the number of follow up questions he got from the owners. (Three, for those wondering).

As you'd expect, the Rams took the opposite approach. Demoff repeatedly referred to the Inglewood presentation as a chance to "show the NFL’s opportunities in Los Angeles and what can be done." Per custom, Kroenke declined to speak to the media.

Unlike Policy and Carson, the Inglewood project offers no such public face for the project. Throughout the process, the Rams have maintained some semblance of plausible deniability by never coming out and explicitly stating that they want to move to Los Angeles. Instead, they've focused their message on "creating options" for themselves on the rare occasions that they've discussed it.

As directed by the NFL, Policy, Demoff and the rest of those involved have not discussed projects other than their own. It seems to be the only thing off limits to Policy, who still managed to make his point when asked about progress by the St. Louis stadium task force.

"If they build with Carson and the Chargers and Raiders, it accommodates the goals of the National Football League, not only in California but elsewhere," Policy said.

Jaguars owner Shahid Khan said after the meeting that he views Tuesday's update as the true "beginning of the process." When this is all said and done, the winner in Los Angeles will ultimately be determined by a group of owners that probably won't care which way the wind is blowing when it comes to outside perception but until they meet again, their only updates will come courtesy of what they see and hear in the media.

The Rams might believe their project is better -- and that very well might be the case -- but just like anything else involving sales, when two options are on the table the one that's better doesn't always overcome the one that is advertised the most.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,293
Outside of the brand new stadium being top-tier it has no value.

It is the Lease you are speaking about? If so, it still has bearing on the outcome. The Lease terms are what enticed the Rams to move to St Louis in the first place. If the CVC, or the city, are to say they don't want keep their end of the agreement, they can't then say the Rams still have to stay and pay for a good percentage of a new Stadium.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
I guess this is what Grubman meant for litigation risk.


http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...appeal-judge-s-ruling-on-stadium.html?ana=twt

City residents appeal judge’s ruling on stadium financing
Aug 11, 2015, 2:46pm CDT

HOK

A rendering of the proposed north riverfront stadium released Thursday, April 23, 2015.


Jacob Kirn

Digital Producer- St. Louis Business Journal
Email | Twitter | Facebook
Three city of St. Louis residents have appealed a judge’s ruling that voided an ordinance requiring voter approval for any tax dollars used for a professional sports facility.

Saint Louis University School of Law professor John Ammann, who’s representing the residents, said the filing was made Tuesday to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Ammann said he would argue St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley made three errors in his ruling, which was handed down earlier this month, apparently making it easier for the city to use bond proceeds for a new $1 billion Mississippi riverfront stadium without a public vote.

Ammann’s appeal says Fawley erred by denying Ammann’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit. (Ammann argued the city could not be trusted to defend its ordinance, and, he says, the city’s decision not to appeal proves his point.) It also says Frawley’s ruling that the ordinance is vague is incorrect, and that Frawley misinterpreted the term “adjacent.”

Frawley’s ruling said the 2002 ordinance, for example, did not clearly state which city official or entity would act as a governing body to determine when a ballot measure would be submitted to a public vote. The ruling also said “adjacent” means “near or close at hand,” and not necessarily touching. The Edward Jones Dome is separated from the new stadium site only by the interstate, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) has argued.

Ammann said he would ask for an expedited appeals process, which, even in a best-case scenario, would take “a few months.”

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has said the city will not appeal Frawley’s ruling because keeping St. Louis a National Football League town is too important. He also said the St. Louis Board of Aldermen would have a say on financing. The Board of Aldermen does not reconvene until next month. Nine of the city’s 28 aldermen in May called for a public vote on the use of city tax dollars for a new stadium.

The financing plan for the stadium, put forth by Gov. Jay Nixon's task force, includes $66 million in RSA bond proceeds from the city of St. Louis and $135 million in RSA bond proceeds from the state of Missouri. St. Louis County would not contribute funds.

The combined $201 million would be paired with $200 million from the NFL’s G4 loan program; $250 million from an NFL team owner; $187 million in tax credits, Missouri Development Finance Board contributions and other state or city incentives; and about $160 million in seat licensing sales, a figure lower than an NFL market study indicated St. Louis could provide.
 

8to12

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Camp Reporter
Joined
Aug 16, 2014
Messages
1,293
Im glad Stan feels the need to freak over STL fans cause he wasn't vocal about a breach of contract. It's your team Stan, don't blame other people. You should have taken care of it.

You lost me with that.......
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
I guess this is what Grubman meant for litigation risk.


http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...appeal-judge-s-ruling-on-stadium.html?ana=twt

City residents appeal judge’s ruling on stadium financing
Aug 11, 2015, 2:46pm CDT

HOK

A rendering of the proposed north riverfront stadium released Thursday, April 23, 2015.


Jacob Kirn

Digital Producer- St. Louis Business Journal
Email | Twitter | Facebook
Three city of St. Louis residents have appealed a judge’s ruling that voided an ordinance requiring voter approval for any tax dollars used for a professional sports facility.

Saint Louis University School of Law professor John Ammann, who’s representing the residents, said the filing was made Tuesday to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District.

Ammann said he would argue St. Louis Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley made three errors in his ruling, which was handed down earlier this month, apparently making it easier for the city to use bond proceeds for a new $1 billion Mississippi riverfront stadium without a public vote.

Ammann’s appeal says Fawley erred by denying Ammann’s motion to intervene in the lawsuit. (Ammann argued the city could not be trusted to defend its ordinance, and, he says, the city’s decision not to appeal proves his point.) It also says Frawley’s ruling that the ordinance is vague is incorrect, and that Frawley misinterpreted the term “adjacent.”

Frawley’s ruling said the 2002 ordinance, for example, did not clearly state which city official or entity would act as a governing body to determine when a ballot measure would be submitted to a public vote. The ruling also said “adjacent” means “near or close at hand,” and not necessarily touching. The Edward Jones Dome is separated from the new stadium site only by the interstate, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) has argued.

Ammann said he would ask for an expedited appeals process, which, even in a best-case scenario, would take “a few months.”

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has said the city will not appeal Frawley’s ruling because keeping St. Louis a National Football League town is too important. He also said the St. Louis Board of Aldermen would have a say on financing. The Board of Aldermen does not reconvene until next month. Nine of the city’s 28 aldermen in May called for a public vote on the use of city tax dollars for a new stadium.

The financing plan for the stadium, put forth by Gov. Jay Nixon's task force, includes $66 million in RSA bond proceeds from the city of St. Louis and $135 million in RSA bond proceeds from the state of Missouri. St. Louis County would not contribute funds.

The combined $201 million would be paired with $200 million from the NFL’s G4 loan program; $250 million from an NFL team owner; $187 million in tax credits, Missouri Development Finance Board contributions and other state or city incentives; and about $160 million in seat licensing sales, a figure lower than an NFL market study indicated St. Louis could provide.

This is most likely a non-issue since the appeals court helped guide Frawley to his ruling. I'm not counting anything out of the court system, though. Anything COULD happen.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
The offer for the stadium is a $6oo million in St Louis and close to $1 billion in San Diego which can house Super Bowls so yes still different. I ran the commercial construction costs and they both average out at 120% of the national average,

750 million nfl and 330 public is a big difference than nfl 550 million and 400 public. Not to mention public vote and the rent for the chargers.

Still not detracting from the fact that it's too much nfl and not enough public
 
Status
Not open for further replies.