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
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
I agree the number needs to be higher but the revenues to the team is substantial. The rent is a non-issue most teams pay rent and the other argument that rent goes to maintenance is just another non-issue since they identified a revenue source to cover it.
I have said the same thing about St Louis, that the team would stay if the revenues are high enough even with low public support.
Last edited:
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
and that he could see the Raiders in St Louis.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
As option , not that he could see them there , which davis has repeatedly shut down
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Yeah, I don't think he wants to deal with them either, sticking with the CVC was probably a poor choice on St Louis' part in terms of getting a long term deal with them. Even other owners might be hesitant to work with them, albeit much less than he appears to be.
Well they told Carson to remove the homage to his father, so I don't think they're really all that into Davis. They had issues with his father, and he doesn't offer them much in terms of money. I honestly think they'd love for Davis to sell the team, but that doesn't seem to be on his agenda.
Yeah, but that's not what I'm talking about. You said that the NFL probably laughed at the idea of 700 million in terms of private contribution. If we move PSL money to owner money, which apparently the NFL see's it as owner money, that makes the St Louis proposal closer to 700 million in private contribution than not.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
just repeating the rest of Rapaports quote which he said numerous times today
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
It's glitz vs. practicality in LA stadium plans
By David Hunn
SCHAUMBURG, Ill. • Two teams of football executives in dark suits and rigid ties pitched dueling visions for new stadiums in Los Angeles to National Football League owners on Tuesday.
The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders together argued that their proposed two-team stadium in Carson, Calif., is a concrete, economical solution to the league’s 20-year Los Angeles void.
St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke presented his Inglewood plans with video and waist-high drawings.
It was, some owners and team executives said afterward, a battle between a practical fix to the NFL’s problem, and a glamorous one.
Steve Tisch, co-owner of the New York Giants and himself an Angeleno, was taken by Kroenke’s plan.
“It was very polished, sexy, exciting. Great images,” he said. “But behind the images, there was tremendous detail.”
Still, he said, “the Carson plan is also very impressive.”
Tisch refused — as did many others — to declare one plan ahead of the other.
Tuesday, most said, was just the starting line in the race to L.A.
“Really, I think this is the start of the process now,” said Shahid Khan, owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and a one-time Rams suitor.
Both projects have presented to the league’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities in months prior. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force pitched its plan for a new St. Louis stadium to the committee, too, in April.
On Monday, the city of San Diego hauled in armloads of five-inch binders to make its proposal for a new waterfront stadium — its last attempt to keep the Chargers. Oakland has not been invited in front of the committee.
But Tuesday’s all-day meeting was the first presentation by any of the teams to the NFL’s full ownership.
The meetings, held at the Hyatt Regency in this northwest Chicago suburb, were closed to the public. But team officials, consultants and owners spoke some about what they heard or planned.
Carson front-man Carmen Policy, a former San Francisco 49er executive, argued that the south-Los Angeles County location is prime. It’s close to fans in Orange County, at the intersection of several highways, and easy to reach from San Diego. The two teams together, he said, have enough capital for seat luxuries, technological bonuses and fan extras. Moreover, Policy said, two teams boost the Los Angeles market by over 3.2 million people, creating a “mega market” even larger than New York, that “runs from Santa Barbara to Mexico.”
If the Carson plan was behind the Inglewood plan before, it’s not anymore, he suggested. “We’re not comparing,” he said. “But I will say this: Our plan has advanced significantly, in every area.”
Kroenke’s staff, on the other hand, said very little about their proposal.
Kevin Demoff, Rams chief operations officer, spoke to the Post-Dispatch at some length as the meeting was wrapping up on Tuesday. But he talked around some questions and simply refused to answer others.
Who presented? “We always present as a group,” Demoff said.
Are you shovel-ready in Inglewood? “I think that’s probably a better question for the NFL,” he answered.
Can you imagine a happy return to St. Louis? “I think the thing we’ve always said in this process is you have to keep your options open,” Demoff replied.
Many team owners declined to talk publicly. A few gave spare details: That Kroenke opened the presentation. That his project is advanced, with detailed stadium drawings. And that it was flashy and impressive.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrapped up the day with a news conference. He discussed interest in moving up the league’s relocation filing period, now Jan. 1 to Feb. 15.
He talked about creating a seat-deposit program, run by the league, that lets fans put money down on tickets to games in temporary Los Angeles facilities. For instance, the L.A. Coliseum, where the University of Southern California plays, has agreed to host a team until a new stadium can be built.
And officials have begun talking about relocation fees to be charged to moving teams, long speculated to crest $500 million each.
The owners have two meetings left this year on their schedule, in October and December. Most said they envisioned a final vote on Los Angeles in January.
The effort to build a new stadium in St. Louis still has hurdles. Earlier this month, a judge blocked a public vote on parts of the new stadium funding. Football fans celebrated. On Tuesday, even as NFL owners met, three city residents appealed that ruling.
But the message to St. Louis, from owners here, remained the same:
“I think St. Louis is doing a great job,” said Khan, the Jaguars owner. “They ought to keep on doing what they’re doing.”
Jim Thomas of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...a-939d-00c20f29677c.html#.Vcqnnd2szGM.twitter
By David Hunn
SCHAUMBURG, Ill. • Two teams of football executives in dark suits and rigid ties pitched dueling visions for new stadiums in Los Angeles to National Football League owners on Tuesday.
The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders together argued that their proposed two-team stadium in Carson, Calif., is a concrete, economical solution to the league’s 20-year Los Angeles void.
St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke presented his Inglewood plans with video and waist-high drawings.
It was, some owners and team executives said afterward, a battle between a practical fix to the NFL’s problem, and a glamorous one.
Steve Tisch, co-owner of the New York Giants and himself an Angeleno, was taken by Kroenke’s plan.
“It was very polished, sexy, exciting. Great images,” he said. “But behind the images, there was tremendous detail.”
Still, he said, “the Carson plan is also very impressive.”
Tisch refused — as did many others — to declare one plan ahead of the other.
Tuesday, most said, was just the starting line in the race to L.A.
“Really, I think this is the start of the process now,” said Shahid Khan, owner of the Jacksonville Jaguars and a one-time Rams suitor.
Both projects have presented to the league’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities in months prior. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force pitched its plan for a new St. Louis stadium to the committee, too, in April.
On Monday, the city of San Diego hauled in armloads of five-inch binders to make its proposal for a new waterfront stadium — its last attempt to keep the Chargers. Oakland has not been invited in front of the committee.
But Tuesday’s all-day meeting was the first presentation by any of the teams to the NFL’s full ownership.
The meetings, held at the Hyatt Regency in this northwest Chicago suburb, were closed to the public. But team officials, consultants and owners spoke some about what they heard or planned.
Carson front-man Carmen Policy, a former San Francisco 49er executive, argued that the south-Los Angeles County location is prime. It’s close to fans in Orange County, at the intersection of several highways, and easy to reach from San Diego. The two teams together, he said, have enough capital for seat luxuries, technological bonuses and fan extras. Moreover, Policy said, two teams boost the Los Angeles market by over 3.2 million people, creating a “mega market” even larger than New York, that “runs from Santa Barbara to Mexico.”
If the Carson plan was behind the Inglewood plan before, it’s not anymore, he suggested. “We’re not comparing,” he said. “But I will say this: Our plan has advanced significantly, in every area.”
Kroenke’s staff, on the other hand, said very little about their proposal.
Kevin Demoff, Rams chief operations officer, spoke to the Post-Dispatch at some length as the meeting was wrapping up on Tuesday. But he talked around some questions and simply refused to answer others.
Who presented? “We always present as a group,” Demoff said.
Are you shovel-ready in Inglewood? “I think that’s probably a better question for the NFL,” he answered.
Can you imagine a happy return to St. Louis? “I think the thing we’ve always said in this process is you have to keep your options open,” Demoff replied.
Many team owners declined to talk publicly. A few gave spare details: That Kroenke opened the presentation. That his project is advanced, with detailed stadium drawings. And that it was flashy and impressive.
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell wrapped up the day with a news conference. He discussed interest in moving up the league’s relocation filing period, now Jan. 1 to Feb. 15.
He talked about creating a seat-deposit program, run by the league, that lets fans put money down on tickets to games in temporary Los Angeles facilities. For instance, the L.A. Coliseum, where the University of Southern California plays, has agreed to host a team until a new stadium can be built.
And officials have begun talking about relocation fees to be charged to moving teams, long speculated to crest $500 million each.
The owners have two meetings left this year on their schedule, in October and December. Most said they envisioned a final vote on Los Angeles in January.
The effort to build a new stadium in St. Louis still has hurdles. Earlier this month, a judge blocked a public vote on parts of the new stadium funding. Football fans celebrated. On Tuesday, even as NFL owners met, three city residents appealed that ruling.
But the message to St. Louis, from owners here, remained the same:
“I think St. Louis is doing a great job,” said Khan, the Jaguars owner. “They ought to keep on doing what they’re doing.”
Jim Thomas of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...a-939d-00c20f29677c.html#.Vcqnnd2szGM.twitter
12intheBox
Legend
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2013
- Messages
- 10,055
- Name
- Wil Fay
It's amazes me how many experts there are on this extremely complex and quite dynamic process coming from all sides of this thing.
From my cheap seat - there is no telling how this thing is going to end - but there sure are some confident prophets out there.
And BTW - this isn't directed at anyone in particular in this thread - it's just the general feel you get on Twitter or the comments sections of just about any article on the subject.
From my cheap seat - there is no telling how this thing is going to end - but there sure are some confident prophets out there.
And BTW - this isn't directed at anyone in particular in this thread - it's just the general feel you get on Twitter or the comments sections of just about any article on the subject.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
The way you presented it was very different than he did
NateTheRam
Rookie
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Nathan
What more proof do you want, when the owner is giving this presentation himself and how passionate he is about it
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
NateTheRam
Rookie
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Nathan
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
He's said it multiple times exactly the way I said it
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Gordon: NFL faces dilemma with LA situation
• By Jeff Gordon
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_cd98c1ac-a3c8-54da-936e-448e2320f6b1.html
The “Deflategate” controversy speaks volumes about NFL leadership these days. The league let some trifling equipment shenanigans explode into a months-long scandal.
The league’s sloppy overreaction put Commissioner Roger Goodell on the spot. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady got litigious and Goodell’s most powerful ally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, went rogue.
“The league’s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting,” Kraft told reporters during a news conference last month.
This fiasco raises a question: If Goodell and his people can’t resolve a dispute over slightly altered footballs without a big hoo-ha, how will they solve the complex Los Angeles relocation puzzle?
Somehow the NFL must negotiate a sensible outcome. The league’s leaders can’t just throw this decision to an ownership vote and let the chips fall as they may. That could cause too much collateral damage.
Stan Kroenke’s voice will be heard loud and clear in this process. The NFL was getting nowhere in Los Angeles until he made the first move.
Finally somebody had the three elements necessary — franchise ownership, land ownership and bottomless pockets — to bring pro football back to that market after a two-decade absence.
Kroenke moved swiftly and decisively to plant his flag in Inglewood. This move shut down the Farmers Field campaign for downtown LA and spurred the Chargers and Raiders to bring the Carson concept to life.
And so here we are, with three teams and two stadiums on the board. By year’s end the league hopes to narrow this to two teams and one stadium.
Here are the variables:
After letting Kroenke exploit the “out” clause in his stadium lease, St. Louis shifted gears. Dave Peacock is making wheels turn. The lawyers cleared one legal hurdle, prompting Mayor Francis Slay to join Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s bandwagon.
San Diego is also putting up a belated fight. Eric Grubman, the NFL’s relocation point man, threw that city a bouquet by noting that it has made “a significant amount of progress.” Like St. Louis, that has been a good NFL market. But like the Rams, the Chargers are showing no interest in staying put in a new stadium.
Oakland is not putting up a fight. The city hasn’t put forth a serious stadium proposal. Raiders are just a tagalong with the Chargers in this whole Carson deal. Franchise owner Mark Davis has no play, despite suffering the worst stadium situation in the league.
Conversely, Kroenke is formidable. Word is, he actually spoke to fellow owners Wednesday in Chicago. This was not just a stadium proposal, the Rams’ contingent said, but an entertainment center that could host other major events.
Kroenke won’t back down easily. NFL owners slighted him back in the day, after he joined the St. Louis expansion bid at the last minute. He responded by helping the Rams jump cities. You can expect him to flex more financial muscle while trying to win the race to LA.
Chargers owner Dean Spanos is popular among his peers. He pushed for a new stadium for 16 years. How could his colleagues block him now? He cast his lot with the attractive Carson proposal.
“Two owners, one grand stadium, and no one’s a tenant, no one’s the landlord,” is how Carson front man Carmen Policy put it.
Kroenke seemed intent on getting to LA first, vacuuming up the PSL money, selling tickets, renting suites ... and then taking in a second tenant down the road. But could Kroenke switch up and cut a sweet deal with the Chargers to snuff the Carson project?
At the moment Los Angeles has temporary housing for just one team, at the LA Coliseum. The Rose Bowl declined the opportunity to host the NFL while a new stadium rises. No other option has emerged to this point. The Raiders have explored San Antonio as an interim home, but does that make sense?
If the Rams move, how does the NFL take care of St. Louis? The riverfront stadium will require significant team investment. Without that the stadium will not rise. And this city moves to the front of the line for a replacement team, what does that mean?
The Raiders have shown no interest in moving here. The Jaguars are the obvious Plan B, but franchise commitments to Jacksonville could keep that team there for a while.
On paper, NFL bylaws make it difficult for teams to move. On paper, St. Louis appears to have a good case for keeping the Rams.
But league bylaws, like middle school track-and-field records, are meant to fall. Look at how the NFL is letting Kroenke skate on his cross-ownership issue.
Will the potential for litigation influence the decision-making process? Such fear influenced the expansion selection process, allowing Jacksonville to beat out Baltimore and St. Louis after initially conceding defeat.
Competing ownership groups in Baltimore and St. Louis created unwelcome conflict. So Goodell, the NFL’s expansion point man at the time, revived the Jacksonville bid as a safe alternative.
Will the NFL choose the path of least resistance again? If it does, which path will that be?
Predictably, Goodell offered few clues after Tuesday’s ownership meeting in Chicago. “We’re just looking for the right solution,” he said.
Yeah, well, good luck with that.
• By Jeff Gordon
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_cd98c1ac-a3c8-54da-936e-448e2320f6b1.html
The “Deflategate” controversy speaks volumes about NFL leadership these days. The league let some trifling equipment shenanigans explode into a months-long scandal.
The league’s sloppy overreaction put Commissioner Roger Goodell on the spot. New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady got litigious and Goodell’s most powerful ally, Patriots owner Robert Kraft, went rogue.
“The league’s handling of this entire process has been extremely frustrating and disconcerting,” Kraft told reporters during a news conference last month.
This fiasco raises a question: If Goodell and his people can’t resolve a dispute over slightly altered footballs without a big hoo-ha, how will they solve the complex Los Angeles relocation puzzle?
Somehow the NFL must negotiate a sensible outcome. The league’s leaders can’t just throw this decision to an ownership vote and let the chips fall as they may. That could cause too much collateral damage.
Stan Kroenke’s voice will be heard loud and clear in this process. The NFL was getting nowhere in Los Angeles until he made the first move.
Finally somebody had the three elements necessary — franchise ownership, land ownership and bottomless pockets — to bring pro football back to that market after a two-decade absence.
Kroenke moved swiftly and decisively to plant his flag in Inglewood. This move shut down the Farmers Field campaign for downtown LA and spurred the Chargers and Raiders to bring the Carson concept to life.
And so here we are, with three teams and two stadiums on the board. By year’s end the league hopes to narrow this to two teams and one stadium.
Here are the variables:
After letting Kroenke exploit the “out” clause in his stadium lease, St. Louis shifted gears. Dave Peacock is making wheels turn. The lawyers cleared one legal hurdle, prompting Mayor Francis Slay to join Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s bandwagon.
San Diego is also putting up a belated fight. Eric Grubman, the NFL’s relocation point man, threw that city a bouquet by noting that it has made “a significant amount of progress.” Like St. Louis, that has been a good NFL market. But like the Rams, the Chargers are showing no interest in staying put in a new stadium.
Oakland is not putting up a fight. The city hasn’t put forth a serious stadium proposal. Raiders are just a tagalong with the Chargers in this whole Carson deal. Franchise owner Mark Davis has no play, despite suffering the worst stadium situation in the league.
Conversely, Kroenke is formidable. Word is, he actually spoke to fellow owners Wednesday in Chicago. This was not just a stadium proposal, the Rams’ contingent said, but an entertainment center that could host other major events.
Kroenke won’t back down easily. NFL owners slighted him back in the day, after he joined the St. Louis expansion bid at the last minute. He responded by helping the Rams jump cities. You can expect him to flex more financial muscle while trying to win the race to LA.
Chargers owner Dean Spanos is popular among his peers. He pushed for a new stadium for 16 years. How could his colleagues block him now? He cast his lot with the attractive Carson proposal.
“Two owners, one grand stadium, and no one’s a tenant, no one’s the landlord,” is how Carson front man Carmen Policy put it.
Kroenke seemed intent on getting to LA first, vacuuming up the PSL money, selling tickets, renting suites ... and then taking in a second tenant down the road. But could Kroenke switch up and cut a sweet deal with the Chargers to snuff the Carson project?
At the moment Los Angeles has temporary housing for just one team, at the LA Coliseum. The Rose Bowl declined the opportunity to host the NFL while a new stadium rises. No other option has emerged to this point. The Raiders have explored San Antonio as an interim home, but does that make sense?
If the Rams move, how does the NFL take care of St. Louis? The riverfront stadium will require significant team investment. Without that the stadium will not rise. And this city moves to the front of the line for a replacement team, what does that mean?
The Raiders have shown no interest in moving here. The Jaguars are the obvious Plan B, but franchise commitments to Jacksonville could keep that team there for a while.
On paper, NFL bylaws make it difficult for teams to move. On paper, St. Louis appears to have a good case for keeping the Rams.
But league bylaws, like middle school track-and-field records, are meant to fall. Look at how the NFL is letting Kroenke skate on his cross-ownership issue.
Will the potential for litigation influence the decision-making process? Such fear influenced the expansion selection process, allowing Jacksonville to beat out Baltimore and St. Louis after initially conceding defeat.
Competing ownership groups in Baltimore and St. Louis created unwelcome conflict. So Goodell, the NFL’s expansion point man at the time, revived the Jacksonville bid as a safe alternative.
Will the NFL choose the path of least resistance again? If it does, which path will that be?
Predictably, Goodell offered few clues after Tuesday’s ownership meeting in Chicago. “We’re just looking for the right solution,” he said.
Yeah, well, good luck with that.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
I also wanted to bring this up re: the appeal of the court decision.
What grounds does Amman have for appeal? Don't you have to be a party to the case to take the case to the appeal level? He was not granted the right to intervene, so I don't think he's listed as a party on the case.
disclaimer: I am by no way versed in law. This is just how I'm thinking as a lay person.
What grounds does Amman have for appeal? Don't you have to be a party to the case to take the case to the appeal level? He was not granted the right to intervene, so I don't think he's listed as a party on the case.
disclaimer: I am by no way versed in law. This is just how I'm thinking as a lay person.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
seriously? that notion was shut down months ago...........everyone knows Davis has no desire to move the team, so it's really a mootless point
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
I think people bring it up because 1-They expect Davis to be the odd man out. 2 - They don't see him getting anything done in Oakland. 3 - He's shown willingness to relocate and not just to LA, and 4 - If St Louis has a good enough offer the NFL may help Davis move there.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,624
- Name
- Stu
Except that he was also part of the group trying to land an expansion team in the Lou before signing on to buy into the Rams on the condition they relocated to St Louis. The Rams were the second team he worked to bring to his home state.
The Ripper
Starter
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2015
- Messages
- 794
- Name
- Rip
Listen to his arguments? Davis may not have any option and even though he said no now doesn't mean that he will turn it down a year from now. It may end up being his best option. How would saying that he would settle for St Louis benefit him in Oakland or LA? If he agreed today it would seriously weaken any chance of going to LA.
- Status