New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

I would just imagine it would be smart to hold back on gloating until things are done. Until Kroenke starts writing checks in St Louis for a stadium this means very little. It's more complicated now, but its still a very long ways away, and Kroenke remains in the drivers seat for the time being.

With the SD/OAK announcement there is no drivers seat.

 

[Angry Ram]

Here's the semi-obligatory stadium concept video. Stan gotta step his game up and get one out.

Apparently the plan is to have knee high grass for sim-fans to wade through:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4pUrUcH0ic

Eww the inside looks like the 49er stadium.

 

[blue4]

Dude, who's gloating?

I asked a question... apparently, your intentions were revealed in page what? 65? I missed it. Sorry.

Although you say you'd be happy, at least to me, seems you are arguing pretty profusely on the pro-L.A. side.

I guess I'll just stay out of this mess now... getting touchy.

No need to stay out of it if you feel like talking about it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Dude, who's gloating?

I asked a question... apparently, your intentions were revealed in page what? 65? I missed it. Sorry.

Although you say you'd be happy, at least to me, seems you are arguing pretty profusely on the pro-L.A. side.

I guess I'll just stay out of this mess now... getting touchy.

It came across as a bit gloaty to me. Perhaps that was not your intention.

I've argued what I think would happen, not what I wanted to happen. Personally this move by Spanos makes absolutely no sense to me, but that's his business. He's guaranteed to play second fiddle to the Raiders in LA, he's already pissing off a lot of his fan base just by teaming up with their most hated rivals, it doesn't make much sense. If he was afraid of losing fans before by the Rams going there, he's really going to lose them now, Raiders will control the market more, and he'll lose a chunk of San Diego with the move.

From the Raiders standpoint its an awesome deal though, assuming of course they can both pay for it. Being a co-owner of the building instead of a Tennant (like with Kroenke) is better, plus they'll take most of the market vs the Chargers.

 

[Big Unit]

I'm a St. Louisan because of my career, though hoping to buy a place near Tampa to snowbird/ultimately retire in the next few years. My parents lived in Orange County for many years; have a sister who graduated from Southern Cal and married a UCLA grad; and my son goes to grad school at UC San Diego. Last year was brutal for me; hard to justify another year of season tickets. I'm a Rams fan and will remain one, IF St. Louis doesn't end up with an empty stadium. Decided that's the bottom line for me. I don't care who plays in St. Louis; I'll root for them, but in my heart remain with the Rams, regardless.

I know Kroenke is ahead of the game in Inglewood; but all the other equities are against him. He'd HAVE to have the Chargers as a tenant, not the Raiders, since he'd affect their market; so that would leave the Raiders as the NFL's "problem team" - status they've had to deal with for many years now. If the Chargers went with the Raiders to Carson, they'd be co-owners, with neither team a tenant of the other. That's a plus in their minds, I'm sure.

Plus the equation changes when it's no longer St. Louis v. Los Angeles; but instead St. Louis v. Oakland and/or San Diego. Unlike San Diego, St. Louis has NO competing market nearby, and is much further along in plans for another stadium. Unlike Oakland - once again - St. Louis has NO competing market nearby (Oakland has the SF/Santa Clara 49ers); and again is much further along in stadium plans.

Plus the Raiders and Chargers have a vote; instead of having to get approval from 24 of 32 owners, Kroenke suddenly needs approval from 24 of 30, with those two actively opposing him. (By the way, I feel bad for Rams fans in LA, but not for Kroenke - he's a developer, with plenty of alternate plans for that Inglewood site.)

It just makes sense. Oakland is a problem city; San Diego - because of it's proximity to LA - is a problem city; St. Louis is not - even though it's had a terrible product for the past dozen years. Move either the Chargers or Raiders to the NFC West, and suddenly the old LA/SF rivalry is renewed; move St. Louis to the AFC West, and they're playing home and home against the KC Chiefs.

 

[den-the-coach]

With the SD/OAK announcement there is no drivers seat.

I disagree the the person who moved first is always in the driver's seat along with the first shovel of dirt or during this melodrama the first shovel of bull excrement.

 

[TSFH Fan]

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/02/20/8538/chargers-raiders-team-up-for-1-7b-carson-stadium-announcement-actual-stadium-not-necessarily-included/

Chargers, Raiders team up for $1.7B Carson stadium announcement (actual stadium not necessarily included)
Posted on February 20, 2015 by Neil deMause

Well then:

On the field, the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders have had as bitter a rivalry as any in the NFL but in a sense, they’re now partners.

The teams will officially announce Friday that, while they work on stadium deals in their current cities, they will jointly pursue a shared, $1.7-billion NFL stadium in Carson as an alternative…

The Chargers and Raiders will continue to seek public subsidies for new stadiums in their home markets, but they are developing a detailed proposal for a privately financed Los Angeles venue in the event they can’t get deals done in San Diego and Oakland by the end of this year, according to the teams.

In a statement given to The Times on Thursday, the Chargers and Raiders said: “We are pursuing this stadium option in Carson for one straightforward reason: If we cannot find a permanent solution in our home markets, we have no alternative but to preserve other options to guarantee the future economic viability of our franchises.”​

There are two possibilities here: Either this is the biggest NFL stadium news in the history of ever, or Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis just issued a mindbendingly huge bluff. Let’s examine each of the possibilities:

• It’s for real: $1.7 billion is an awful lot of money to spend out of your own pocket for a stadium, but if you squint, it just might possibly work with two teams sharing the load. The New York Jets and Giants owners managed to build a stadium that cost almost as much on their own dime (mostly), and if Spanos and Davis can piece together, say, $400 million from naming rights, and $800 million from seat license sales (about what the New York teams managed) to fans who don’t notice what lousy investments seat licenses are, and $400 million in NFL G-4 fund money, then that’s … still not quite enough to break even, but it’s in the ballpark, as it were.

• It’s a bluff: Both Spanos and Davis are having a bad time of it in stadiums talks in San Diego and Oakland, though much of that is their own doing. What better time to announce that you’re moving to L.A., really you are, any day now, if you can’t get a deal done in your hometown, and if the other team also can’t get a deal done in theirs? (The team statements didn’t say what happens to this “stadium option” if one team decides to bail on it.) Actually moving to L.A. would require huge risks: Not only might the PSLs not sell like hotcakes, but the NFL could demand as much as $250 million in relocation fees per team (Spanos and Davis could try to fight it, but that would involve a lawsuit, which again means risk), plus the G-4 fund stipulates that “the project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club’s ‘home territory.’” Suddenly you could be looking at a $1 billion funding hole, which ain’t pretty.

There is one other likely reason for Spanos and Davis to announce this now, whether bluff or for real: What with St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announcing his own maybe-a-bluff-maybe-not stadium in Inglewood last month, and the NFL unlikely to approve more than two teams in the L.A. market (not to mention the L.A. market not likely to support more than two teams at a level sufficient to pay off two stadiums), there’s a bit of a land rush going on now to be the first to stake a claim to the market just so no one else does. Spanos, in particular, really doesn’t want two teams that aren’t his on his Southern California doorstep, so this serves as a bit of a shot across Kroenke’s bow: We’re going to build a stadium but split the price, and we don’t have a stadium offer back home like you do, and do you really want to gamble that the league will approve your plan over ours?

That’s not the worst thing for California taxpayers, frankly, since it means the three owners are so busy trying to outmaneuver each other that they can’t spend as much time and energy trying to exact tribute from local governments. (Chargers and Raiders execs claim that the Carson stadium wouldn’t require any public funds, but we’ve heard that before.) Though the prospect of Spanos and Davis using this as leverage in San Diego and Oakland could be bad news for taxpayers there, of course.

We may know slightly more once the two teams and their Carson development partners hold a press conference this afternoon. (Friday afternoon, the traditional time for dumping news that you don’t want fact-checked too thoroughly: Add that to your conspiracy bucket.) In the meantime, just enjoy the fact that one side of the stadium would apparently look like a giant, translucent, luxury-box-filled shuttlecraft:

Ah, vaportecture, where would we be without you?

 

[den-the-coach]

If I see one more stadium drawing I'm going to die!

 

[TSFH Fan]

Eww the inside looks like the 49er stadium.

All the red clad fans . . . .

 

[den-the-coach]

All the red clad fans . . . .

Like they're in Hell!

 

[12intheBox]

Like they're in Hell!

Well ... It is LA .... *(ducking)

 

[dbrooks25]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/20/goodell-needs-to-prevent-chaos-in-l-a/

Goodell needs to prevent chaos in L.A.
Posted by Mike Florio on February 20, 2015

Twenty years ago, Roger Goodell played a key role in resolving the Cleveland conundrum that arose when Browns owner Art Modell decided to move the team to Baltimore. In the end, Modell left the name and the records behind, Cleveland was guaranteed an expansion franchise in 1999, and the future Commissioner scored plenty of points on Park Avenue for working it all out.

Today, Goodell ultimately presides over a far more complicated situation in L.A., a market that became vacant the same year Modell decided to leave Ohio. For most of two decades, the place that the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season had provided the league with leverage in stadium negotiations, helping multiple teams get new buildings funded in part by taxpayer money with L.A. serving as the “or else.” In recent months, L.A. has become a necessity for teams that had hit a brick wall in this new era of public reluctance to subsidize ballparks for billionaires.

And so with the Rams intent on relocating to Inglewood, the Chargers and Raiders have thrown a joint hat into the ring with the concept of sharing a stadium in Carson. The mere fact that a pair of AFC West rivals would agree to an Oscar-and-Felix-style cohabitation shows just how desperate the situation has become. In the Bay Area, the Raiders had no interest in sharing space with a team they play once every four years. In Carson, two of the annual 16 regular-season games played there would pit the tenants against each other.

In their joint statement announcing plans to explore a stadium together in Carson, the Raiders and Chargers made clear their desire to respect the NFL’s relocation procedures. Rams owner Stan Kroenke has yet to make any such commitment. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. As the Raiders proved more than 30 years ago, the antitrust laws prevent the NFL from telling any of its owners where to do business.

Which sets the stage for chaos. If the NFL approves the Raiders-Chargers stadium venture, the Rams can still move to Inglewood. Alternatively, the Rams can relocate before the Raiders and Chargers secure permission from the league to leave their current homes.

The situation cries out for a negotiated solution, with Goodell intervening, getting the three owners together, and clunking heads together if necessary to work something out. And with all owners convening in Phoenix next month for the annual league meetings, that’s the perfect place to do it.

Ultimately, look for two teams to move to L.A. and one to go elsewhere, with perhaps St. Louis and San Antonio vying for the odd man out. Our best guess for now (and it’s truly just a guess) would be the Rams and Chargers sharing a stadium in L.A. (probably Inglewood) and the Raiders relocating to St. Louis or San Antonio.

Of course, it’s still theoretically possible that the Raiders will realize they should just move in with the 49ers. If the Raiders are willing to climb into the sack with their rivals from San Diego, sharing space with San Francisco shouldn’t be a problem. But that would introduce a fourth franchise into the negotiations, and the 49ers still may not want the Raiders in their stadium.

However it works out, the L.A. situation has gone from 20 years of simmer to full boil. It’s now up to a Commissioner who in many respects remains under siege to find a way to keep it from blowing up.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...s-share-stadium-one-would-likely-move-to-nfc/

If Chargers and Raiders share stadium, one would likely move to NFC
Posted by Mike Florio on February 20, 2015

In the wake of the shocking announcement from the Raiders and Chargers that the teams currently are pursuing a joint stadium plan in Carson, California, some additional information is trickling out.

Per the same league source who told PFT in October that the NFL intends to return to L.A. within 12-24 months, a shared stadium by the Chargers and Raiders means that one of the teams likely would move to the NFC.

The current thinking is that the Raiders would be the most likely of the two to leave for the NFC West. The question then becomes which of the NFC West teams would move to the AFC West.

The Seahawks belonged to the AFC West from 1977 through 2001, but the early rumor/expectation is that the Rams or Cardinals would change conferences, with the Seahawks and 49ers staying put.

Of course, this all hinges on the Chargers-Raiders alliance securing the ability to move to Carson over the Rams, who apparently want to move to Inglewood.

I see Florio is spitballing and grasping at straws. There is no way San Antonio will get a team over St. Louis as long as St. Louis has a stadium plan in place. Dude is trying like hell to hold onto the Rams to LA thing. To me he's looking at all scenarios BUT the Rams actually staying their asses in St. Louis.

 

[den-the-coach]

Well ... It is LA .... *(ducking)

 

[Goose]

Bernie: Kroenke double-teamed in LA

By Bernie Miklasz

Greetings from Jupiter, Fla., where the Cardinals' pitchers are throwing, the sun is shining, and I'm inside the media work room at Roger Dean Stadium, taking some time to process the stunning news from Southern California ...

The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders are partnering to build a privately financed stadium in Carson, a suburb located 13 miles south of Los Angeles.

I'll have more on this in Saturday's Post-Dispatch, but here are my initial, quick-hit thoughts:

• The Chargers and Raiders aren't willing to concede the LA territory without a fight. This has always been a race between three teams, with the Rams, Chargers and Raiders jockeying for position. Rams owner Stan Kroenke made the first move by announcing his intention to build an 80,000-seat stadium on the old Hollywood Park grounds in Inglewood. And all of the momentum seemed to be in Kroenke's favor. Kroenke and his partners left little to chance, going as far as to throw more than $100,000 in "contributions" at Inglewood politicians to curry favor and expedite the process.

But rather than sit back and watch Kroenke roll in the tanks, pull the Rams out of the Midwest, invade SoCal and and take control of a lucrative market, the California-based Chargers and Raiders have mounted a defense of their home-state territory. They countered with a bold plan to go in together, hoping to put a double-team block on Kroenke with the stadium in Carson.


It was easy to underestimate Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis; all they did was complain about their undesirable stadium situations without taking action. Well, instead of whining and begging, Spanos and Davis are trying to make their power move. Let's see what Kroenke has planned for a response. If nothing else, Spanos and Davis have made it abundantly clear that the plan to stand their ground and fight Kroenke. This isn't to say that Kroenke will lose. But now he'll have to go to battle instead of taking an easy victory stroll into Inglewood.

• For obvious reasons, this potentially is a positive development for St. Louis. If the Chargers and Raiders pull this off, then the NFL would have a two-team setup in Los Angeles. And the league could solve the longstanding LA problem with a California solution. Instead of opening the LA territory to a man (Kroenke) who played a major role in the abandonment of Southern California by helping Georgia Frontiere cash in with the Rams in St. Louis, the NFL has an opportunity to take care of two California franchises that are stuck with the two worst stadium situations in the NFL. As one NFL executive told me several months ago: the league prefers that the California problem to be solved in California ... and not by stripping a franchise from another region. Well, here's the league's chance to do just that.

• You can't rule anything out when it comes to NFL greed, because there are no limits to it. But it's hard to imagine the NFL signing off on having three teams in Los Angeles. That would make no sense. None. So Kroenke could get squeezed out by the Raider-Charger alliance. Three teams, two spots. Who loses? Unless San Diego and Oakland suddenly come up with public dollars to fund new stadiums -- and what are the odds of that? -- how could the NFL turn its back on the one market, St. Louis, that's trying in earnest to build a new stadium to keep the Rams?

• Understand that right now the Edward Jones Dome is in better shape than the venues that house the Raiders and the Chargers. And St. Louis is trying to do even better, with a new stadium. If the NFL rolls over for Kroenke, and chooses Inglewood over Carson, the league will not only abandon a STL market that's trying to build a second new stadium in 25 years. ... but the NFL would also fumble away a chance to get the Raiders and Chargers settled into a new stadium after years and years of waiting and hoping (in vain) for a resolution in their markets. You're going to let Kroenke walk away from a new stadium in St. Louis and keep Spanos and Davis locked into old, inadequate stadiums that should have been replaced many years ago? That's insane.

• That said, we should also take some time to wave the caution flag. As always, there's the possibility or more twists and turns. Several reasons: (1) the Carson plan could fall through, which would only open an easier path for Kroenke; (2) against the odds, San Diego and/or Oakland could come up with the funding for the stadiums that would stop the teams from moving; (3) Kroenke's wanton lust for Los Angeles is so extreme that the latest development could cause the man to go maniac-level rogue by attempting to whisk the Rams to LA as soon as possible in an attempt to blow up the Carson strategy.

• And then there's always the chance of other variables kicking in ... like Kroenke trying to buy the Raiders -- or trying to pick off the Raiders or the Chargers to become his partner in the Inglewood deal. This is madness, and anything is possible. Or the league brokering a deal with Kroenke and either the Raiders and Chargers for an outcome that would put Kroenke in LA and another team in St. Louis. And I'll say it again: keep an eye on Kroenke and Denver. This is all madness. Anything is possible.

• Would the NFL try to stop Kroenke? Well, that's been the big, big, question all along. No one knows if the league really has the spine to take on Kroenke. And no one knows if Kroenke really wants to take on the league in a long court battle my moving the Rams without formal approval. Kroenke technically shouldn't be allowed to own the Rams because he's in violation of the NFL rules prohibiting cross ownership. I suppose it's possible for the league to roll over for Kroenke again, but I'd like to believe that the NFL has some guts.

• The NFL is now faced with a situation where fans in three markets -- St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego -- view their teams as lame ducks that are poised to cut and run and the end of the 2015 season. And the league now has an absurd level of Los Angeles congestion, with three teams and at least four stadium plans competing for territorial advantage. Come on, commissioner Roger Goodell. You're paid $35 million annually by the owners to run the league. Take charge of this mess and do something about it.

• Meanwhile, back in St. Louis ... stadium task-force leaders David Peacock and Bob Blitz and Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon continue to grind away, moving the ball, picking up first downs, making progress and earning credibility at the NFL headquarters. That's all they can do right now: maximize the city's chances of staying in the NFL, one way or another.

Thanks for reading ...

— Bernie

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_2d8c287c-e385-5a39-b944-26c116ea31de.html

 

[thirteen28]

It just makes sense. Oakland is a problem city; San Diego - because of it's proximity to LA - is a problem city; St. Louis is not - even though it's had a terrible product for the past dozen years. Move either the Chargers or Raiders to the NFC West, and suddenly the old LA/SF rivalry is renewed; move St. Louis to the AFC West, and they're playing home and home against the KC Chiefs.

That last paragraph contains a number of excellent points. Letting Oakland and San Diego move to the LA market solves not one, but two stadium problems. And a third one, St. Louis, has a solution in the works, which the other two do not.

Furthermore, having a cross-state rivalry between St. Louis and Kansas City would be great for the fans and the NFL alike, two meetings per year for these teams, one in each city. That's a boon for the NFL, and fans in Missouri, and probably helps both teams financially. And with one of the LA teams also in the NFC west, the Rams fans in LA who lost out on getting their team back could at least see the Rams in action one game per year. Meanwhile, as you noted, putting one of the LA teams in the NFC West rekindles the LA-SF rivalry. While Rams fans would miss the rivalries with SF and SEA, the StL-KC rivalry would go a long way in making up for that, and makes much more sense geographically.

I think Chargers and Raiders in LA with Rams staying in a new stadium in StL solves more problems for the league than the Rams to LA with the stadium situations unresolved in San Diego and Oakland.

I also think Stan has lost a little leverage, and should consider hedging his LA bet by starting to negotiate with StL sooner rather than later.

 

[Dodgersrf]

My 2 cents on Chargers / Raiders to LA.

As a so cal fan, I really like it. This is the best proposal for all sides.

Stay with me here....

No way 2 teams in the same division share a stadium. The home team advantage is lost.

Easily solved.
The Raiders and Chickens swap divisions.
Chickens Back to the AFC west.
Raiders to the NFC west.

Now we have a situation where every city still gets an opportunity to see their team every year.

1) Rams stay in STL
2) Rams play at least 1 away game with the Raiders in LA. Also a possible road game in LA with the Chargers. (Rare occasion, but will happen)
3) The LA Raiders fans get their team
4) The Oakland Raiders now play an away game every year in SF. Oakland Raiders fans can see their team.
5) Chargers fans have a 100 mile or less drive to their new stadium. Not a big deal for so cal commuters.

This isn't going to excite everyone, but every fan in every city, still has an opportunity on a yearly basis to see their team play.

New divisions.
NFC West
STL Rams
LA Raiders
SF whiners
AZ Cardinals

AFC West
LA Chargers
Seattle Seahawks
Denver Broncos
KC Chiefs

I like this.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think Chargers and Raiders in LA with Rams staying in a new stadium in StL solves more problems for the league than the Rams to LA with the stadium situations unresolved in San Diego and Oakland.

Honestly, I'd say they both solve the same issues, it just depends on the route they want to take. If Kroenke moves the Rams and the Chargers or Raiders move to be a second team there (more likely Chargers) then two cities are solved, and the Raiders can take the St Louis offer. This of course requires 3 teams moving instead of two, which is a downside. The St Louis offer is right around what the Raiders can afford though.

If the Raiders and Chargers move, again two teams get their stadium issues solved, and the odd team out, the Rams, also have the St Louis offer. This only has two teams moving, which is is plus, but now Kroenke is potentially left in a market that won't ever trust him again, that he doesn't want to be in (assuming he wants to leave), plus they have to do the realignment.

Either way, all three teams can have their issues fixed with either scenario playing out. One scenario likely has one owner pissed off, another nukes a fanbase (Chargers), both have pluses and minuses to them. I think the article saying the commissioner needing to sit down and get a deal between the three owners is correct in that they need to figure it out first, see who is willing to do what.

The other (far less plausible) theory would be that Kroenke moves, and then helps one of the other owners out with building a new stadium in their market, but that would mean that Stan really just wants to be in LA that badly, I don't think he goes that far though.

The Carson project seems to have potential financing issues, so I don't think Kroenke starts to worry yet, but if he's serious he probably looks to ramp things up a bit, it's quite a bit more complicated now.

 

[drasconis]

It came across as a bit gloaty to me. Perhaps that was not your intention.

I've argued what I think would happen, not what I wanted to happen. Personally this move by Spanos makes absolutely no sense to me, but that's his business. He's guaranteed to play second fiddle to the Raiders in LA, he's already pissing off a lot of his fan base just by teaming up with their most hated rivals, it doesn't make much sense. If he was afraid of losing fans before by the Rams going there, he's really going to lose them now, Raiders will control the market more, and he'll lose a chunk of San Diego with the move.

From the Raiders standpoint its an awesome deal though, assuming of course they can both pay for it. Being a co-owner of the building instead of a Tennant (like with Kroenke) is better, plus they'll take most of the market vs the Chargers.

I think it is a great move by Spanos:
1. once one team changes conferences that "rivalry" goes away (considering how bad the Raiders have been are they really rivals right now?)
2.The LA market will ultimately belong to the better team - LA like all cities will prefer the winner...he is paired against the raiders...who do you think will have the better record the next 10-15 years? (the last 10yrs Raiders have 0 playoff appearances and best record was 8-8; Chargers 5 playoff seasons, best record was 14 wins)
3. It is clear that SD will not build a stadium for him, or even help to any extent - it is either jump to LA or may be last team left and come to STL.
4. Teaming with the raiders gives him a voting block, you have to assume both have other owners they are close with, his move probably much more likely to pass than stans
5. He has been spending the last few years "claiming" this market...not garunteed but may help with relocation fees and transplanting fan base

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think it is a great move by Spanos:

I'll just quote this part and go down the list.

1. Possibly, but right now both fan bases are very unhappy. It would be like the Eagles sharing with the Cowboys, or the Rams sharing with the 49er, or Packers and Bears. Over time this may go away, but I doubt it. Even Jets and Giants fans don't like it, and they haven't had a rivalry like this one.

2. Not really true, Clippers still play second fiddle to the Lakers, despite the Lakers sucking.

3. It seems that neither side have really done anything much, the Chargers have evidently never made a real proposal, just asked them to pay for most of a new stadium.

4. Depending on who sides with who.

5. Rams and Raiders would have just as much, if not more, of a "claim" over the market, they probably have more fans honestly.


I just don't think its a great move on his part, but he may know something we don't.

 

[Goose]

Marty Caswell ‏@MartyCaswell
Video- Bleacher Report's @JasonPhilCole on relocation fee & why Chargers & Raiders will be in Los Angeles in 2016 http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/extwidget/openGraph/wid/1_g6cvj7qb…