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.

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
gotta love how Fabiani is the villain and the city of San Diego gets a pass - as if there ever was a sense of urgency... it's like the Chargers have enjoyed being lease to lease over a decade and have had tons of viable proposals over the years

Good thing that last part is in blue. If lease to lease means year to year then it's incorrect. The Chargers still have a lease but can buy their way out just like the Jags. Looking at the proposals not many of them were viable.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Good thing that last part is in blue. If lease to lease means year to year then it's incorrect. The Chargers still have a lease but can buy their way out just like the Jags. Looking at the proposals not many of them were viable.

they've been year to year since 2007, or 8 years...
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620

View: https://twitter.com/LATimesfarmer/status/633324566979305472

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/17/report-nfl-to-manage-the-outcome-in-l-a/

Report: NFL to “manage the outcome” in L.A.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 17, 2015, 2:08 PM EDT

As three teams continue to circle Los Angeles with only two spots available, the situation is destined to get testy between the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders. Which means that, ultimately, the NFL will have to sort it all out.

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times explains that the NFL will “manage the outcome” in part because a traditional approach, with owners casting ballots regarding who can and can’t move, likely will fail. Farmer notes that Chargers owner Dean Spanos likely has nine votes to block the Rams from moving, and that Rams owner Stan Kroenke likely has nine votes to block the Chargers from moving.

Which means no one will be moving unless the NFL figures out a way to broker a deal. Which also means that the deal that gets brokered could entail Spanos and Kroenke joining forces in Inglewood, with the Raiders (who are currently partnered up with the Chargers at the proposed Carson location) being the odd man out.

Which would be ironic, to say the least, given that the Raiders once defied the league and moved to L.A.

 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000

View: https://twitter.com/LATimesfarmer/status/633324566979305472

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/08/17/report-nfl-to-manage-the-outcome-in-l-a/

Report: NFL to “manage the outcome” in L.A.
Posted by Mike Florio on August 17, 2015, 2:08 PM EDT

As three teams continue to circle Los Angeles with only two spots available, the situation is destined to get testy between the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders. Which means that, ultimately, the NFL will have to sort it all out.

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times explains that the NFL will “manage the outcome” in part because a traditional approach, with owners casting ballots regarding who can and can’t move, likely will fail. Farmer notes that Chargers owner Dean Spanos likely has nine votes to block the Rams from moving, and that Rams owner Stan Kroenke likely has nine votes to block the Chargers from moving.

Which means no one will be moving unless the NFL figures out a way to broker a deal. Which also means that the deal that gets brokered could entail Spanos and Kroenke joining forces in Inglewood, with the Raiders (who are currently partnered up with the Chargers at the proposed Carson location) being the odd man out.

Which would be ironic, to say the least, given that the Raiders once defied the league and moved to L.A.


Bah. You mean to tell me a league that can't handle cheaters is going to handle this?
 

Ram Pat

Rookie
Joined
Aug 25, 2014
Messages
127
I've wondered for awhile now why some seem to forget about Spanos, or assume the NFL doesn't view him favorably. He's played ball (or at least the league's version of playing ball) for a long long time. I know fans don't see him playing ball, I'm talking about from the league's perspective

I think all things being equal, meaning everyone has their financing in order, there are three things that will play heavily.

1. I do think they care about solving LA with California teams. It's the only way they don't lose markets.

2. Spanos's length of time trying for a new stadium. Again, from the league's perspective.

3. The overall conditions at the SD and Oakland stadiums. Technically, for all the top tier talk, the ED remains a perfectly fine place to play.

These are the things I think will matter if every horse is still in the race at the stretch.
I think the rest of the arguments about corporate support, ticket sales, etc will only be seen if a justification is needed. Meaning, that's what they'll bullcrap the losing markets with.

As for which horses are still running, that's where Stan has the advantage.
How is it the only way they don't lose markets? If a team moves, they have lost the market...
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
How is it the only way they don't lose markets? If a team moves, they have lost the market...




Suffice it to say after 600 pages of arguing this exact point, I disagree. If a team a team moves and there is still another team across the bridge, you haven't lost a market. If you move 113 miles away, you really haven't lost the market as its still accessible.

I'm already aware of the usual counter arguments of traffic and such. No one knows how the NFL will view it.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
they've been year to year since 2007, or 8 years...
Not year to year they can just buy out the lease and it runs through 2020. Shane's article was completely wrong. The lease was changed in 2004. The lease did away with both the ticket guarantees and the top tier clause. The Chargers got the right to negotiate with any US city and to relocate after January 1, 2008. The lease was amended in 2006 to allow other cities in San Diego County a head start in negotiations with the Chargers on a Stadium. The Chargers would have had to pay $ 61 million to get out of the lease in 2008 and it goes down each year till 2019.
 
Last edited:

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
Suffice it to say after 600 pages of arguing this exact point, I disagree. If a team a team moves and there is still another team across the bridge, you haven't lost a market. If you move 113 miles away, you really haven't lost the market as its still accessible.

I'm already aware of the usual counter arguments of traffic and such. No one knows how the NFL will view it.
I don't know about this, I really don't. I try to put myself and others' shoes, and I know as St. Louisans it's easy for us to say it's just a 113 mile move. I know we say we wouldn't care if the team moved to Columbia because it's close, but I think a lot of us are saying that because it's better than them moving way to California. Now if L.A. wasn't even brought up and the team announced they were moving to Columbia we would be PISSED. I know I would.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I don't know about this, I really don't. I try to put myself and others' shoes, and I know as St. Louisans it's easy for us to say it's just a 113 mile move. I know we say we wouldn't care if the team moved to Columbia because it's close, but I think a lot of us are saying that because it's better than them moving way to California. Now if L.A. wasn't even brought up and the team announced they were moving to Columbia we would be PISSED. I know I would.

What difference does that make though? Because that isn't the case here. LA has been brought up. (BTW after 14 years of talking about stadiums and threats, I'd be glad to see a stadium in Columbia). I've no doubt SD fans are pissed. But I'm talking about what I think the league will view as least traumatic for its overall markets, not whether or not the fans think it's fair. Hell, I doubt anyone but an LA resident can say what's happening to the 3 effected markets is fair. It's not about putting yourself in another fan's shoes, it's about putting yourself in an owners shoes and voting for a situation that's best for the NFL. I'm not trying to insult another fan base or insinuate that they are lucky or something. I'm saying that IMO Carson retains the majority of your fans overall and Inglewood will lose the majority of the 21st largest market. After all you'd be pissed if they become the Columbia Rams, but would you really stop watching them or being a fan? When they are still talked about every night on local news? When they are still accessible by motor vehicle? You'd be pissed but I bet you'd still be there.
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
What difference does that make though? Because that isn't the case here. LA has been brought up. (BTW after 14 years of talking about stadiums and threats, I'd be glad to see a stadium in Columbia). I've no doubt SD fans are pissed. But I'm talking about what I think the league will view as least traumatic for its overall markets, not whether or not the fans think it's fair. Hell, I doubt anyone but an LA resident can say what's happening to the 3 effected markets is fair. It's not about putting yourself in another fan's shoes, it's about putting yourself in an owners shoes and voting for a situation that's best for the NFL. I'm not trying to insult another fan base or insinuate that they are lucky or something. I'm saying that IMO Carson retains the majority of your fans overall and Inglewood will lose the majority of the 21st largest market. After all you'd be pissed if they become the Columbia Rams, but would you really stop watching them or being a fan? When they are still talked about every night on local news? When they are still accessible by motor vehicle? You'd be pissed but I bet you'd still be there.
Yep, I know what you are saying from the NFL standpoint, but I was just commenting from a fan standpoint. I still would be pissed. Would I still be a fan? You betcha.
 

Goose

GoosesGanders
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Messages
363
Name
Goose
$15 million in tax credits approved for St. Louis riverfront stadium
By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey

JEFFERSON CITY •
The Missouri Development Finance Board approved on Tuesday $15 million in tax credits this year for the proposed riverfront football stadium in St. Louis. It is the first step toward $50 million from the agency over three years.

Board Chairwoman Marie Carmichael urged passage, saying the money won't be sent to new stadium planners until the board is assured the credits are a good deal for the state.

"There are ample protections for our investment," said Carmichael, an appointee of Gov. Jay Nixon. "All the ducks have to be in order, all the stars have to be aligned. Everything has to be in place before any (credits) are expended."

The public entity that owns the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play, applied for the tax credits in July.


The Dome authority, under direction from Nixon's stadium task force, is funding plans to build the $998 million arena. They have proposed to pay for construction with $450 million from the National Football League and team, $201 million in bond proceeds from the state and the city of St. Louis, $160 million from the sale of seat licenses and $187 million in tax credits, according to the state application.

The finance board request is the first public tax credit application from the project. The authority is requesting $17.5 million more from the board next year and in 2017. Task force leaders have said they will apply for other tax credits soon.

The finance board program gives tax credits in exchange for project donations, up to half the amount of the gifts. The task force hopes to land $100 million in donations.

The board's executive director, Bob Miserez, recommended approval.

Miserez called the "vast majority" of the new stadium land "severely blighted." A stadium, coupled with the renovation of the Gateway Arch grounds to the south, "would transform the most visible downtown riverfront area and provide substantial economic benefit to the City and State," Miserez wrote in his recommendation.

Approval is contingent on the board's receipt of $30 million in contributions this year, plus evidence that the NFL has committed its share of the cash, and that an NFL team has executed a 30-year lease at the proposed facility.

The effort to build a new stadium in St. Louis is a latch-ditch attempt to keep the Rams, or attract another team. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has plans to build a new stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and move the team. He presented his proposal to owners last week.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_d4f8b7cd-2a31-51fb-9d02-92719d5ae4e0.html
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Not year to year they can just buy out the lease and it runs through 2020. Shane's article was completely wrong. The lease was changed in 2004. The lease did away with both the ticket guarantees and the top tier clause. The Chargers got the right to negotiate with any US city and to relocate after January 1, 2008. The lease was amended in 2006 to allow other cities in San Diego County a head start in negotiations with the Chargers on a Stadium. The Chargers would have had to pay $ 61 million to get out of the lease in 2008 and it goes down each year till 2019.

Wasn't quoting his article

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12040153/san-diego-chargers-commit-play-2015-qualcomm-stadium

"Calendar year 2015 will constitute the team's 14th year of work on a San Diego stadium solution."

Since 2007, the Chargers have had a three-month window to renew the team's year-to-year lease with the City of San Diego for Qualcomm Stadium that permits the team to terminate the lease at any time between Feb. 1 and May 1.
 

dieterbrock

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
Joined
Jan 3, 2013
Messages
23,734
I don't know about this, I really don't. I try to put myself and others' shoes, and I know as St. Louisans it's easy for us to say it's just a 113 mile move. I know we say we wouldn't care if the team moved to Columbia because it's close, but I think a lot of us are saying that because it's better than them moving way to California. Now if L.A. wasn't even brought up and the team announced they were moving to Columbia we would be PISSED. I know I would.
I agree. I live about 120 miles from Baltimore and would never travel there for a day. Cant imagine having season's tickets that require minimum 1 night stay in a hotel to enjoy a game.
Also, this is about St Louis and what the team brings to the town, jobs, tourism etc. St Louis loses all of that if they move to Columbia.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I agree. I live about 120 miles from Baltimore and would never travel there for a day. Cant imagine having season's tickets that require minimum 1 night stay in a hotel to enjoy a game.
Also, this is about St Louis and what the team brings to the town, jobs, tourism etc. St Louis loses all of that if they move to Columbia.

eh i dunno - if i were st.louis and the game were in columbia, i'd make that drive... its 60 miles from me to Tampa and 230 miles to Miami - the year the Rams played in both cities I went to both... but if you take out of state/out of driving range, that definitely puts a damper on my driving ability. And when/if they play in Jacksonville (assuming they're still the St.Louis Rams), which is 386 miles from me, I'll probably drive to that game too (however Jacksonville I wouldn't do every weekend)..

But traffic for me on the interstate isn't the same as DC/Maryland or the 101 in California (not to mention how bad LA traffic is),so it's not necessarily the same... And the drive to Sunlife (miami) is only about 2 hours/2.5
 

Angry Ram

Captain RAmerica Original Rammer
Joined
Jul 1, 2010
Messages
18,000
Myles Simmons (the Rams website guy) said the team cancelled the 3rd practice. So today is the last one.
 

RAMbler

UDFA
Joined
Aug 22, 2014
Messages
75
there also weren't relocation rues then either

What relocation rule says the owner of a brand can be forced to give up that brand?

If, as many have stated, SK has alienated the St . Louis fan base..... what do you think happens to his "ready-made" fan base in California if he showed up without the Horns? If he was moving to any other city... Maybe. But to show up in LA without the horns, IMO, would be the dumbest thing a billionaire has ever done. That idea has NO chance.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
What relocation rule says the owner of a brand can be forced to give up that brand?

If, as many have stated, SK has alienated the St . Louis fan base..... what do you think happens to his "ready-made" fan base in California if he showed up without the Horns? If he was moving to any other city... Maybe. But to show up in LA without the horns, IMO, would be the dumbest thing a billionaire has ever done. That idea has NO chance.

And as I said I could see a scenario that gives us a new expansion team - with the sole point being that St.Louis remains an NFL city. They did it for the Browns in the past in a different time era - alls I'm saying is that its not outside the realm of possibility
 
Status
Not open for further replies.