New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

The St. Louis stadium plan by the numbers
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16150/the-st-louis-stadium-plan-by-the-numbers

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- As local politicians and officials continue working toward making the St. Louis stadium proposal a reality, more information on the form of that project is starting to come available.

While there are still a number of obstacles (especially financing) to clear before the proposal can really be considered by the St. Louis Rams (or another team), the site of the potential stadium is gaining some clarity. Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced Tuesday that a deal with Ameren Missouri utility company and Terminal Railroad Association has been struck to help clear the land involved in the plan.

Along with that, the leaders released some further information about the site on the north riverfront and what they'll be dealing with as they attempt to procure the land.

89 percent of the parcels likely to be in the development footprint of the project are vacant lots or unoccupied buildings.

72 percent of the site is held by 10 primary property owners.

There are 18 privately held parcels owned by 11 owners within the footprint of the actual stadium site.

The only residential structure in the site is the Hammond Apartments, a 52-unit subsidized, affordable housing project. According to the release, the apartments are all single-room occupancy with no families or children living there.

The actual stadium structure would be constructed within the existing flood wall.

The majority of the historic building along North Broadway would remain in place and the city would encourage reinvestment opportunities.

One of the stadium entrances would be seven blocks from the Eads Bridge MetroLink station.

According to Nixon, the cost of the power line and transmission tower relocation would cost $20 million and the relocation of the rail line would be $3 million. Both prices were already accounted for in the initial cost proposal of the stadium. Both are also contingent upon a financing plan getting approval and the project actually getting underway.

The local leadership estimates the addition of a new stadium would generate up to $20 million in incremental economic benefit coming from the use of the Edward Jones Dome for more conventions and events during the months that would normally be taken by football.

 

[LosAngelesRams]

I have to disagree. The St. Louis stadium plan was put in motion well before the Inglewood plan.

I think the perception you are describing is exactly what Kroenke is orchestrating to happen. He was aware that the STL plan was going to be announced when it was, so what did he do? He had his Inglewood plan announced 5 days before to make it appear the STL announcement was a reaction. Same thing yesterday...Nixon has a presser to announce a major hurdle, Kroenke gets word out about a development on the Inglewood front.

Dave Peacock has publicly stated he's been working on the stadium project for over a year. Nixon made an official task force this past fall. All of this is prior to the Inglewood announcement. I think the urgency to get a stadium in St. Louis was clear and present and in motion far prior to the Inglewood project, but Kroenke is doing a heckuva job creating a much different perception.

That's interesting, master orchestrator indeed if true.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I have to disagree. The St. Louis stadium plan was put in motion well before the Inglewood plan.

I think the perception you are describing is exactly what Kroenke is orchestrating to happen. He was aware that the STL plan was going to be announced when it was, so what did he do? He had his Inglewood plan announced 5 days before to make it appear the STL announcement was a reaction. Same thing yesterday...Nixon has a presser to announce a major hurdle, Kroenke gets word out about a development on the Inglewood front.

Dave Peacock has publicly stated he's been working on the stadium project for over a year. Nixon made an official task force this past fall. All of this is prior to the Inglewood announcement. I think the urgency to get a stadium in St. Louis was clear and present and in motion far prior to the Inglewood project, but Kroenke is doing a heckuva job creating a much different perception.

Stan bought the land over a year ago, and by some accounts bought the team with eyes towards LA. He looked to buying the Dodgers back in early 2012, bought the Inglewood Land in 2014, and announced he was building a stadium in 2015. Given that he wanted to buy the Dodgers, even though it would have been a violation with the cross town ownership rules (which he plans on fixing in the next few months according to Albert Breer), my guess is he told the league he's looking to move the Rams to LA, that's why he was trying to make the purchase.

It's just a guess, but we know he's been working on the stadium for over a year, and I think the attempt for the Dodgers indicate he's been looking west for a while. It would explain why they asked for so much in the initial CVC offer, almost knowing for certain the CVC would turn them down, giving them the out and excuse he needed. I believe they started working on the riverfront stadium after the Inglewood purchase though, and got serious with it after elections.

 

[blue4]

Don't know how reputable this site is, but www.insidebayarea.com is reporting Raiders withholding $400000 rent payment.

I believe we have some riverfront property available to unhappy teams.

 

[Sum1]

Stan bought the land over a year ago, and by some accounts bought the team with eyes towards LA. He looked to buying the Dodgers back in early 2012, bought the Inglewood Land in 2014, and announced he was building a stadium in 2015. Given that he wanted to buy the Dodgers, even though it would have been a violation with the cross town ownership rules (which he plans on fixing in the next few months according to Albert Breer), my guess is he told the league he's looking to move the Rams to LA, that's why he was trying to make the purchase.

It's just a guess, but we know he's been working on the stadium for over a year, and I think the attempt for the Dodgers indicate he's been looking west for a while. It would explain why they asked for so much in the initial CVC offer, almost knowing for certain the CVC would turn them down, giving them the out and excuse he needed. I believe they started working on the riverfront stadium after the Inglewood purchase though, and got serious with it after elections.

I think there is a lot of circumstantial events there. Kroenke as sports ventures in almost every sport. The Dodgers were for sale. I think perhaps if he'd bought the Dodgers it would have been attractive for him to build a football stadium there, but I don't necessarily think that he was looking to buy the Dodgers simply because they were in LA...again, they were for sale while no other team was.

And Stan bought that land about a year ago but up until December it was still speculation that it would be for a stadium (though I think we all knew better than to believe anything different, even those of us that didn't want to). I think it is as naive to believe that the announcements weren't timed according to what St. Louis was planning just as I believe it was naive to think Kroenke bought that land as nothing more than a real estate developer.

It has been mentioned by Peacock and government officials that Peacock has been working on a stadium to some degree for over a year, that would date that to before Stan bought the land. So again, I really dismiss the idea that the Inglewood announcement started the St. Louis stadium movement, it just made it more relevant to the national scene.

 

[Boffo97]

I have to disagree. The St. Louis stadium plan was put in motion well before the Inglewood plan.

I think the perception you are describing is exactly what Kroenke is orchestrating to happen. He was aware that the STL plan was going to be announced when it was, so what did he do? He had his Inglewood plan announced 5 days before to make it appear the STL announcement was a reaction. Same thing yesterday...Nixon has a presser to announce a major hurdle, Kroenke gets word out about a development on the Inglewood front.

Dave Peacock has publicly stated he's been working on the stadium project for over a year. Nixon made an official task force this past fall. All of this is prior to the Inglewood announcement. I think the urgency to get a stadium in St. Louis was clear and present and in motion far prior to the Inglewood project, but Kroenke is doing a heckuva job creating a much different perception.

Honestly, I think the notion of which plan was in motion first is both unanswerable (since there are different standards of just what "in motion" means) and irrelevant. What is relevant is which plan is closer to reality now.

The Inglewood plan has its financing worked out, is on a fast track towards approval either by ballot or the city council, and has the will of the owner behind it. The riverfront plan has two major holes in its financing (the public financing may be easier said than done, and I don't think Kroenke is going to contribute money if his plan is shot down).

Don't know how reputable this site is, but www.insidebayarea.com is reporting Raiders withholding $400000 rent payment.

I believe we have some riverfront property available to unhappy teams.

While the concept of the St. Louis Raiders would be kind of odd at first, it would set up a really nice cross-state division rivalry with the Chiefs.

 

[RamFan503]

I think there is a lot of circumstantial events there. Kroenke as sports ventures in almost every sport. The Dodgers were for sale. I think perhaps if he'd bought the Dodgers it would have been attractive for him to build a football stadium there, but I don't necessarily think that he was looking to buy the Dodgers simply because they were in LA...again, they were for sale while no other team was.

And Stan bought that land about a year ago but up until December it was still speculation that it would be for a stadium (though I think we all knew better than to believe anything different, even those of us that didn't want to). I think it is as naive to believe that the announcements weren't timed according to what St. Louis was planning just as I believe it was naive to think Kroenke bought that land as nothing more than a real estate developer.

It has been mentioned by Peacock and government officials that Peacock has been working on a stadium to some degree for over a year, that would date that to before Stan bought the land. So again, I really dismiss the idea that the Inglewood announcement started the St. Louis stadium movement, it just made it more relevant to the national scene.

And you think the Governor and his task force would be moving this fast if not for the fast tracking going on in Inglewood? No way to really prove anything I suppose but I find it hard to believe. It's cool though. Whatever gets it done in St Louis is best for St Louis as far as I can see.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think there is a lot of circumstantial events there. Kroenke as sports ventures in almost every sport. The Dodgers were for sale. I think perhaps if he'd bought the Dodgers it would have been attractive for him to build a football stadium there, but I don't necessarily think that he was looking to buy the Dodgers simply because they were in LA...again, they were for sale while no other team was.

And Stan bought that land about a year ago but up until December it was still speculation that it would be for a stadium (though I think we all knew better than to believe anything different, even those of us that didn't want to). I think it is as naive to believe that the announcements weren't timed according to what St. Louis was planning just as I believe it was naive to think Kroenke bought that land as nothing more than a real estate developer.

It has been mentioned by Peacock and government officials that Peacock has been working on a stadium to some degree for over a year, that would date that to before Stan bought the land. So again, I really dismiss the idea that the Inglewood announcement started the St. Louis stadium movement, it just made it more relevant to the national scene.

I don't doubt that Stan has "jumped" the announcements intentionally, I just don't think that the Inglewood project is that recent. He's bought late 2013 apparently (or at least that's when the group that owns MSG the land had been sold already), I think it's been in the work for a very long time. Whichever one was first, it doesn't really matter though.

I'm not sure he was looking to buy the Dodgers just because they were in LA, I also think it was because they were for sale. However given that he knows he would be in violation of the cross town ownership rules and would have to move to someone else, it seems weird that he would make the purchase knowing he has to move them away anyway. Granted it's not as if he's not still going to see returns on the different teams, but seeing how hard he's looking to LA now, it would seem to connect. I don't think that his desire to return is a new thing that came about when the CVC said no.

 

[Sum1]

Honestly, I think the notion of which plan was in motion first is both unanswerable (since there are different standards of just what "in motion" means) and irrelevant. What is relevant is which plan is closer to reality now.

The Inglewood plan has its financing worked out, is on a fast track towards approval either by ballot or the city council, and has the will of the owner behind it. The riverfront plan has two major holes in its financing (the public financing may be easier said than done, and I don't think Kroenke is going to contribute money if his plan is shot down).


While the concept of the St. Louis Raiders would be kind of odd at first, it would set up a really nice cross-state division rivalry with the Chiefs.

The point of the conversation isn't whether the time line is relevant or not...the statement by Stu was that the Inglewood project is what has driven the St. Louis project, and there is a definitive timeline there that states otherwise. The only relevance it has is on perception by the media and by the league. It certainly doesn't dismiss any other hurdles that are present.

 

[Sum1]

I don't doubt that Stan has "jumped" the announcements intentionally, I just don't think that the Inglewood project is that recent. He's bought late 2013 apparently (or at least that's when the group that owns MSG the land had been sold already), I think it's been in the work for a very long time. Whichever one was first, it doesn't really matter though.

I'm not sure he was looking to buy the Dodgers just because they were in LA, I also think it was because they were for sale. However given that he knows he would be in violation of the cross town ownership rules and would have to move to someone else, it seems weird that he would make the purchase knowing he has to move them away anyway. Granted it's not as if he's not still going to see returns on the different teams, but seeing how hard he's looking to LA now, it would seem to connect. I don't think that his desire to return is a new thing that came about when the CVC said no.

Again, my statement is a response to Stu stating that the Inglewood announcement was driving the St. Louis stadium plan.
It is clear that St. Louis has been working on a stadium solution since before that. At best, the Inglewood plan has only raised the level of urgency, which was clearly already very high.

 

[Boffo97]

The point of the conversation isn't whether the time line is relevant or not...the statement by Stu was that the Inglewood project is what has driven the St. Louis project, and there is a definitive timeline there that states otherwise. The only relevance it has is on perception by the media and by the league. It certainly doesn't dismiss any other hurdles that are present.

Fair enough. Although I do believe that to a certain degree NOW, both projects are pushing each other.

 

[Sum1]

And you think the Governor and his task force would be moving this fast if not for the fast tracking going on in Inglewood? No way to really prove anything I suppose but I find it hard to believe. It's cool though. Whatever gets it done in St Louis is best for St Louis as far as I can see.

The St. Louis stadium plan was introduced less than a week after the Inglewood plan. At that presser it was laid out what the next steps were going to be.
I've been paying attention to the St. Louis stadium stuff since before the official announcement of Peacock and Blitz. The concern over the Ameren property has been in discussion for months. This didn't just develop in the past 5 or 6 weeks.

 

[Boffo97]

I'm going to start a new thing. Green text is text of whatever link I'm posting and not something I'm personally saying.

http://kfwbam.com/2015/02/11/breaking-news-inglewood-has-the-verified-signatures-for-nfl-stadium/

BREAKING NEWS: Inglewood has the verified signatures for NFL stadium initiative

Inglewood Mayor James Butts called in to The Fred Roggin Show with some breaking news regarding the “City of Champions” project to build an NFL stadium on the Hollywood Park land, a project that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is a part of.


“We have the verified signatures and the initiative did pass,” proclaimed the proud Mayor, referring to the Initiative Measure Regarding the Proposed Development of a Sports and Entertainment Zone, including a Stadium, within the Previously Approved Hollywood Park Mixed-Use Development.


This seems to be one more giant leap towards the NFL, and specifically the Rams, returning to Los Angeles. According to the Mayor, there will be a public hearing on February 24th.

 

[Sum1]

Fair enough. Although I do believe that to a certain degree NOW, both projects are pushing each other.

I think it is fair to say that it could be viewed as a "race"...I think St. Louis is to a larger degree following a timeline that they must have all their ducks in a row and the plan have no loose ends by next fall.

 

[iced]

It's just a guess, but we know he's been working on the stadium for over a year, and I think the attempt for the Dodgers indicate he's been looking west for a while. It would explain why they asked for so much in the initial CVC offer, almost knowing for certain the CVC would turn them down, giving them the out and excuse he needed. I believe they started working on the riverfront stadium after the Inglewood purchase though, and got serious with it after elections.

Or that he really wants a better stadium and was playing the correct leverage hand... think about it - he had a binding agreement that an arbitrator ruled his proposal met the requirement of top 25% of the league, and the CVC's didn't... That's not a "ploy" to get out of a contract per say - that's making sure the other side lives up to their agreement.

If the stadium the Rams currently have couldn't host a superbowl - then as a business man, you want to build a stadium that can be a host. And i don't think the EJD is ever gonna get one

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I'm going to start a new thing. Green text is text of whatever link I'm posting and not something I'm personally saying.

http://kfwbam.com/2015/02/11/breaking-news-inglewood-has-the-verified-signatures-for-nfl-stadium/

BREAKING NEWS: Inglewood has the verified signatures for NFL stadium initiative

Inglewood Mayor James Butts called in to The Fred Roggin Show with some breaking news regarding the “City of Champions” project to build an NFL stadium on the Hollywood Park land, a project that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is a part of.


“We have the verified signatures and the initiative did pass,” proclaimed the proud Mayor, referring to the Initiative Measure Regarding the Proposed Development of a Sports and Entertainment Zone, including a Stadium, within the Previously Approved Hollywood Park Mixed-Use Development.


This seems to be one more giant leap towards the NFL, and specifically the Rams, returning to Los Angeles. According to the Mayor, there will be a public hearing on February 24th.

That's it. This was the last step. They could start digging now.

 

[RamFan503]

The St. Louis stadium plan was introduced less than a week after the Inglewood plan. At that presser it was laid out what the next steps were going to be.
I've been paying attention to the St. Louis stadium stuff since before the official announcement of Peacock and Blitz. The concern over the Ameren property has been in discussion for months. This didn't just develop in the past 5 or 6 weeks.

Sorry Sum but it seems to me that if they have been working it this hard for as long as you are indicating, they have been better about not communicating than Stan has. I have seen where Peacock has said he was working on ideas for about a year but not in any official capacity. I get the whole election thing and all but regardless, I don't buy that this sense of urgency is completely self motivated. I could certainly be wrong but when I look back at all the news on the subject it is void of any real indications of what you are saying until the recent activity. It seems apparent to me that the projects are competing with each other and competition gets everyone more active. You believe otherwise and that is fine too.

 

[Boffo97]

That's it. This was the last step. They can start digging now.

They're not QUITE there yet. This is California. There's going to be a protest that years of environmental studies haven't been done yet. And they'll need to get FAA clearance given how close they are to Los Angeles International Airport, but that should be less of a thing than the environmental studies.

But yeah, they seem pretty close.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think it is fair to say that it could be viewed as a "race"...I think St. Louis is to a larger degree following a timeline that they must have all their ducks in a row and the plan have no loose ends by next fall.

Agreed, I don't think they can afford to not do that. Unfortunately for St Louis LA is "ahead" in the sense they have less hurdles to overcome, but if St Louis tries to cut corners and stumbles, they're screwed.

I'm going to start a new thing. Green text is text of whatever link I'm posting and not something I'm personally saying.

http://kfwbam.com/2015/02/11/breaking-news-inglewood-has-the-verified-signatures-for-nfl-stadium/

BREAKING NEWS: Inglewood has the verified signatures for NFL stadium initiative

Inglewood Mayor James Butts called in to The Fred Roggin Show with some breaking news regarding the “City of Champions” project to build an NFL stadium on the Hollywood Park land, a project that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is a part of.


“We have the verified signatures and the initiative did pass,” proclaimed the proud Mayor, referring to the Initiative Measure Regarding the Proposed Development of a Sports and Entertainment Zone, including a Stadium, within the Previously Approved Hollywood Park Mixed-Use Development.


This seems to be one more giant leap towards the NFL, and specifically the Rams, returning to Los Angeles. According to the Mayor, there will be a public hearing on February 24th.

Sounds like there were indeed a lot of support then, wonder if the public hearing will be about pushing forward with a vote, or if they can just skip it and start construction now. I'd really like to see detailed concepts of the stadium itself, the inside, etc. With word that they're going to sink it 100 feet into the ground so they're good with the FAA, does that change the design at all, or was that always the plan, and how does that work with being "green".. I know the City of Industry one (which is still one of my favorite designs for a stadium) said that by building it down into the hill they would lower the cost for cooling, electricity, etc, so perhaps this would as well?

Or that he really wants a better stadium and was playing the correct leverage hand... think about it - he had a binding agreement that an arbitrator ruled his proposal met the requirement of top 25% of the league, and the CVC's didn't... That's not a "ploy" to get out of a contract per say - that's making sure the other side lives up to their agreement.

If the stadium the Rams currently have couldn't host a superbowl - then as a business man, you want to build a stadium that can be a host. And i don't think the EJD is ever gonna get one

Can the riverfront proposal host a Super Bowl then? I thought I heard someone said they may be able to get more parking, but from first glance it doesn't seem to be the case.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They're not QUITE there yet. This is California. There's going to be a protest that years of environmental studies haven't been done yet. And they'll need to get FAA clearance given how close they are to Los Angeles International Airport, but that should be less of a thing than the environmental studies.

But yeah, they seem pretty close.

According to a map only flights from Chicago and St Louis go over the site, and they were planning on sinking the stadium 100 feet into the air so it was short enough, I think they're good there. The Inglewood Mayor laughed the other day when someone asked him that question, said it wasn't an issue.