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
In the Carmen Policy interview I posted above, they are offering the NFL 8 acres rent free to do with what they want.
But you just said there would always be a split?
NY and Levi are privately funded.
What you're saying in this post is right: It will vary from situation to situation. There won't always be a public/private split. Like in L.A., it will be 100% private...
uh yeah it does go away, the purpose of the clause was to make the lease year to year if it wasn't satisfied. It no longer has any baring on anything.
I need you guys to tone down the rhetoric toward other members. I get the reason and all but my trigger finger is getting awfully itchy.
The Ripper
Starter
Year to year only benefits the CVC and the real benefit was for the right to relocate at the end of any year.
OK... so we're really slicing and dicing words now.
What I said was:
"Seems there would always be a split."
So, I think you agree with me... each is different.
L.A. will be 100% private but that doesn't mean the others will... and it doesn't mean the NFL will look at L.A. any more favorably.
In fact, if it's true that L.A. simply makes Kroenke more money, that flies in the face of the by-laws (an owner cannot up and move simply because it makes him more money... the NFL values the communities each team is already in).
So, yeah, private... public... kinda doesn't matter when it comes to whether the Rams move or stay.
Agree. And so are the financing proposals. One person can say that $350 million is public money in SD and another say it is $500 million and both could be correct. Same with St Louis. So much depends on how they regard the different monies and revenue streams. As I said before, even Santa Clara and NY are not as privately funded as some want to insist.
Exactly the only reason the Rams have to move to LA is to make more money, whereas the Chargers and Raider reason is that they have outdated and deteriorating stadiums, the only way they will get new stadiums is to build one together and that is their reason for wanting to move.
The Ripper
Starter
They don't have to spend money to upgrade the facility and if the team can't relocate then they have all the negotiating power.
The Ripper
Starter
There also near the bottom in revenues that's the main reason they're looking at LA.
Assuming the new stadium is considered top tier, you would no doubt be correct.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. They're offering land, Kroenke will have space for that as well (documented a long time ago) with the buildings already there. So Policy is trying to even up with Kroenke. They won't have the buildings, but it'll be rent free. Kroenke will have the buildings but they will likely have some rent involved.
ramfaninsd
UDFA
ramfaninsd
UDFA
and they are proposals, neither of which have been countered by the owners of either team
Jim Thomas: Inglewood, Carson Race to LA ‘Up in the Air’
St. Louis Rams beat writer Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Tuesday to talk some topics surrounding the NFL owners meetings in Chicago and what it could mean for the future of football in St. Louis.
Listen to JT Talk LA Situation
St. Louis Rams beat writer Jim Thomas of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Tuesday to talk some topics surrounding the NFL owners meetings in Chicago and what it could mean for the future of football in St. Louis.
Listen to JT Talk LA Situation
8 acres of the 157 they paid $1 for and then transferred to a holding company so they wouldn't be liable for any contamination problems? Sounds great...
- Status