New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

The reason is that they say there a building no matter what. Stadiums can make a profit even without an NFL team playing there.

There's no reason to build a stadium with 80,000 seats unless you're playing some kind of football there, in the USA.

 

[blue4]

As opposed to giving up gigantic leverage of threat of building without approval and scrapping plans projected to see revenue well in excess of multiple billions of dollars outside of just football (A-list award shows, the Olympics, World Cup, etc.). Thinking in terms of ROI on the stadium is probably thinking too small. That seems like a much less smart move, if anything.

Sorry, but this all seems like speculation. A list award shows in a football stadium? Multiple billions without football? I'm afraid I can't buy into that. Has anyone ever made money by NOT paying attention to ROI? The whole point of investment is ROI.

 

[blue4]

Not if it's part of the the Olympic plans and other events that they have proposed.

Privately funded by Stan Kroenke? A part of the Olympic plans privately funded by Stan with no guarantee of a football team yet. I'm sorry, this seems like a reach.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Btw, Sam Farmer's been reporting SK's got the votes to vote down the Carson project, bu also that there likely won't even be a vote. What does that even mean?

Means the NFL won't do a vote because they would both fail. They're going to figure out a deal, which likely means seeing who blinks first. It's going to be hard to get Kroenke to blink if he's set on LA.

 

[blue4]

Making those videos are pretty cheap and easy, a high school kid could do it. It's a cool video and cool project, but in terms of presentation, its more costly and more impressive when they are going into details, the nuts and bolts of the project, that shows more commitment and understanding.

I'm assuming Carson has that, but they haven't released it as Inglewood has. I don't think Kroenke is trying to win them over with flashy videos, he's showing them the details, which is probably more important anyway.

These videos are for the public, not the owners.



I don't think so, if he was then so would the Carson project, and I don't see it. I think Toronto would be a city that the NFL starts looking at closer, there's quite a bit of money there, and they enjoy their sports. The problem is the NFL wants to be the big show in town, and they're not passing the Leafs in that city. However they can easily fill a stadium anyway.

I'm not sold on San Antonio at all.

The Carson project is a reaction, two teams combining really before either was actually ready in self defense of what they see as their market. I don't forsee this being a trendsetter.


Once you pay the additional taxes and the relocation fee, is there really enough money in Toronto to justify a move? Would the citizens there be willing to get into a bidding war with say Cincinnati? This type of speculation based on a totally unique and probably once in a lifetime situation is probably pointless IMO.

I think it's safe to assume that Carson is a legitimate project, until proven otherwise. Saying that it's just a high school animation project that fooled several billionaires at the owners meetings who deal with these things on a daily basis is way too conspiracy theory for me.
It's important to remember that Stan has had his project in the works since 2010 (I've no doubt of that at all) or 2012 and Spanos/Davis are firing on the fly to catch up. Carson being behind at this point is to be expected, but that doesn't make it a fake project.

 

[blue4]

Sam Farmer also said Spanos has the votes to block Stan as well. Why was that part left out?

 

[ChrisW]

Making those videos are pretty cheap and easy, a high school kid could do it. It's a cool video and cool project, but in terms of presentation, its more costly and more impressive when they are going into details, the nuts and bolts of the project, that shows more commitment and understanding.

I'm assuming Carson has that, but they haven't released it as Inglewood has. I don't think Kroenke is trying to win them over with flashy videos, he's showing them the details, which is probably more important anyway.

These videos are for the public, not the owners.

So a video with Jack Bauer narrating isn't impressive enough for you? Man, you really want Inglewood, don't you?

 

[RamzFanz]

Oakland doesn't have a plan? Interesting.

When did I say they didn't have a plan?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Saying that it's just a high school animation project that fooled several billionaires at the owners meetings who deal with these things on a daily basis is way too conspiracy theory for me.

I'm not saying its a high school animation project that fooled billionaires, I'm saying that it's a basic presentation that a high school student could do. My father does computer animation for a living, and my brother was making things like this when he was in 7th grade. Its not a technically difficult video. As I said, it's more for the fans to get them excited, its a flashy video that doesn't go into details, and details is what the owners will want. I said I assume Carson has given details to the owners, which is what they will want.

It's similar to the Riverfront video, that's not what they show the owners and then say "vote!" Its what they show the fans to get them excited. The show the owners the details, exactly what it offers and how they will do it, etc.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So a video with Jack Bauer narrating isn't impressive enough for you? Man, you really want Inglewood, don't you?

I don't even know who the fuck Jack Bauer is, why would that do anything for me?

 

[RamzFanz]

As for signs the debate on the Rams not allowing signs in St Louis practices? Oh right you said Demoff was lying when he said it had been Rams policy since what 2009 or 2008? That's right I forgot Demoff's a well known liar.

This isn't a debate. I'm not quoting sources. I was there every single open practice. I'm telling you, as have others who were there, they allowed signs. Big signs. Their rules sign at the gate even says they allowed signs.

 

[The Ripper]

There's no reason to build a stadium with 80,000 seats unless you're playing some kind of football there, in the USA.

Isn't that what San Antonio and St Louis did? The Alamo Dome has still made money without an NFL team there and they're willing to build another one.

Privately funded by Stan Kroenke? A part of the Olympic plans privately funded by Stan with no guarantee of a football team yet. I'm sorry, this seems like a reach.

If it can make money either way it wouldn't matter.

 

[beej]

So a video with Jack Bauer narrating isn't impressive enough for you? Man, you really want Inglewood, don't you?

WOW! They went all Jack Baur on 'em. there is only one thing for Kroenke to do now. CHUCK NORRIS! just remember you heard it here first. LOL

 

[RamzFanz]

 

[RamzFanz]

 

[OldSchool]

Oakland hasn't even presented a plan. Saint Louis has a plan, has options on the land, has jumped the legal hurdles, and is dedicated to keeping its team even though its current stadium isn't even aged. The land is being razed, the financing is in place, the unions have been bought, the politicians smell the money.

This is like the signs dispute we had where you relied on tweets. I'm here, I see what is going on.

The stadium here WILL be built. I'm giving 70% odds that the Rams, who agree that it is being built for them and have contributed to the planning, will play here.

When did I say they didn't have a plan?

As for the signs im not debating they have let signs in to practice. Demoff said they had a rule against them. And it looks like they finally decided to enforce it. My guess is they decided to enforce them when people started putting the owner in them. They seemed to be fine with keep the team in StL and signs supporting the players and team. But my guess is when signs negative to the owner came around they decided to enforce the rule.

 

[ChrisW]

My guess is they decided to enforce them when NFL Network came to practice

Fixed it for ya.

 

[ChrisW]

Isn't that what San Antonio and St Louis did? The Alamo Dome has still made money without an NFL team there and they're willing to build another one.

I never said NFL, I said Football. Rosebowl gets the bowl game in LA. If you think Stan is going to break up that marriage, then GL.

 

[The Ripper]

I never said NFL, I said Football. Rosebowl gets the bowl game in LA. If you think Stan is going to break up that marriage, then GL.

The Rose Bowl isn't the only bowl game plus it can house other sporting events besides football. It still goes back to putting pressure on Carson and anything that could take away revenues is a threat to the financing. Another issue is what is the real timeline for Carson and what if other issues are discovered that could delay the project or how much remediation really needs to be done.

 

[OldSchool]

Fixed it for ya.

I disagree, the negative signs would be out there to be seen even if the NFLN wasn't there. If the signs kept to keeping the Rams in town and the fans love their Rams we probably aren't having this talk. But people's hate of Stan was too much and they had to include him in there. You think Fisher, who doesn't want media questioning the players about relocation, wants the players to see those sign, or would he rather them see signs supporting them and the team? One guy on national radio mentioned last night he was cut off from players because after being told to not ask about relocation he told one "I was told not to ask your opinion on relocation so I won't" of course the player talks about it. Now that journalist is cut off.