RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Will the NFL block Kroenke from moving the Rams to LA? ESPN’s John Clayton tells The Fast Lane.
Listen to the Rams to LA Story
Listen to the Rams to LA Story
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
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
St. Louis stadium plan likely requires public approval
AP
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...lan-likely-requires-public-approval/21766877/
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A proposed open-air football stadium that backers hope will persuade St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke to keep the team from returning to Los Angeles will likely require voter approval of its public financing component.
A St. Louis municipal ordinance and a St. Louis County charter amendment each prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars on pro sports stadiums without the consent of voters, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (bit.ly/1DGeOt3 ) reported.
A two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon last week unveiled details of a 64,000-seat stadium along the Mississippi River downtown that would cost as much as $985 million. Up to $350 million could come from extending bond debt used to pay off the Edward Jones Dome, the Rams' current home.
Additional details about the financing plan have not yet been released. And while both former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and current Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz emphasized that the plan would not involve new taxes, it does depend on the infusion of an additional $12 million from the state, $6 million from the city and $6 million from the county each year, the same amount now provided from bond payments set to expire in 2021.
"It's going to be tough to argue that a vote is not required," said Peter Salsich Jr., a retired St. Louis University law professor.
Peacock and Blitz said last week that they didn't know whether a public vote would be required to dedicate the payments of the old loan to the new one.
Their plan calls for as much as $250 million from Kroenke, $200 million in National Football League loans to the team, $55 million in state support and tax credits and $130 million in the sale of personal seat licenses, which allow fans to buy season tickets.
Kroenke has not publicly commented on the proposal, and city officials said last week that the billionaire developer wouldn't return their calls, so they plan to work directly with the NFL on efforts to either keep the Rams or lure another team to St. Louis.
Kroenke is part of a joint venture that has announced plans for an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles suburbs, a move that could soon return the NFL to the nation's second-largest market and the home of the Rams from 1946 until they moved to St. Louis in 1995. The move would have to wait at least a year; the NFL has said no team moves would be allowed in 2015.
The St. Louis ordinance on local stadium spending was approved in 2002 with 55 percent of the vote. St. Louis County voters endorsed a similar measure two years later by a far more decisive margin.
AP
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...lan-likely-requires-public-approval/21766877/
ST. LOUIS (AP) — A proposed open-air football stadium that backers hope will persuade St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke to keep the team from returning to Los Angeles will likely require voter approval of its public financing component.
A St. Louis municipal ordinance and a St. Louis County charter amendment each prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars on pro sports stadiums without the consent of voters, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch (bit.ly/1DGeOt3 ) reported.
A two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon last week unveiled details of a 64,000-seat stadium along the Mississippi River downtown that would cost as much as $985 million. Up to $350 million could come from extending bond debt used to pay off the Edward Jones Dome, the Rams' current home.
Additional details about the financing plan have not yet been released. And while both former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and current Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz emphasized that the plan would not involve new taxes, it does depend on the infusion of an additional $12 million from the state, $6 million from the city and $6 million from the county each year, the same amount now provided from bond payments set to expire in 2021.
"It's going to be tough to argue that a vote is not required," said Peter Salsich Jr., a retired St. Louis University law professor.
Peacock and Blitz said last week that they didn't know whether a public vote would be required to dedicate the payments of the old loan to the new one.
Their plan calls for as much as $250 million from Kroenke, $200 million in National Football League loans to the team, $55 million in state support and tax credits and $130 million in the sale of personal seat licenses, which allow fans to buy season tickets.
Kroenke has not publicly commented on the proposal, and city officials said last week that the billionaire developer wouldn't return their calls, so they plan to work directly with the NFL on efforts to either keep the Rams or lure another team to St. Louis.
Kroenke is part of a joint venture that has announced plans for an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles suburbs, a move that could soon return the NFL to the nation's second-largest market and the home of the Rams from 1946 until they moved to St. Louis in 1995. The move would have to wait at least a year; the NFL has said no team moves would be allowed in 2015.
The St. Louis ordinance on local stadium spending was approved in 2002 with 55 percent of the vote. St. Louis County voters endorsed a similar measure two years later by a far more decisive margin.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
L.A. stadium project moving forward with consultant
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...eles-stadium-stan-kroenke-inglewood/21777435/
St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke still has many hurdles to scale before his new stadium proposal in Los Angeles ever breaks ground – if it ever does.
But so far the project has been serious enough to hire a consultant to advise on issues related to the proposed stadium's height and regulations with the Federal Aviation Administration, the project's developer confirmed to USA TODAY Sports.
The project would require review by the FAA because of its proposed location about three miles from the Los Angeles International Airport and its expected height of about 175 feet. The consultant is Aviation Systems, Inc., according to Chris Meany of Hollywood Park Land Co., the project's developer.
"It's definitely an indication of seriousness," said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant who helped the Rams and Oakland Raiders leave Los Angeles in 1995. "But they have a long way to go before they're ready to get started."
While such a move is considered standard procedure for a project of this size and location, other factors make this no ordinary development. That's because the proposal is backed by an NFL owner in a different state using land that he owns in Inglewood, Calif.
Many have questioned the project ever since it was announced last week, especially after Meany said they were going to build the stadium "on spec" without a commitment to play there from an NFL team such as Kroenke's Rams. NFL owners and sports business experts doubted they'd take such a risk.
A few days after the announcement, officials in St. Louis also announced plans to build a new riverfront stadium for the Rams there – a project of around $900 million that could include around $400 million in public funds.
That increased speculation that Kroenke's proposed stadium in Inglewood was merely a leverage play to force St. Louis officials to give him a better stadium deal in his current city.
On the other hand, if Inglewood really is intended as a leverage play, Kroenke's group is disguising it well with the help of paid experts.
The FAA said it has received no proposal on the stadium yet, though it's early in the process. The stadium would be built on proposed development spread over 298 acres, including 60 owned by The Kroenke Group. The project, called "The City of Champions Revitalization Project," also would include vast retail, residential and office space and would not involve public funding for construction, the developers said.
"The City of Champions Revitalization Project is a major planned development and we have mobilized an extensive team of technical experts to assist us," Meany said in a statement.
Meany declined further comment, and the consultant didn't return a message seeking comment.
The Hollywood Park Land Co. (HPLC) is a joint venture between The Kroenke Group and Stockbridge Capital Group, which purchased the original 238-acre Hollywood Park site in 2005. The Kroenke Group purchased the adjacent 60-acre parcel in 2013. The developers said they hope to have zoning for the project approved by Inglewood voters this year, leading to a completed stadium in 2018.
Los Angeles has not had an NFL team since the Rams and Raiders left in 1995. Since then, the L.A. market often has been used been for leverage by NFL owners seeking to improve the stadium situations in their current cities. Two other stadium plans in Los Angeles County also have been proposed, though neither involves the company and land of an NFL owner.
Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...eles-stadium-stan-kroenke-inglewood/21777435/
St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke still has many hurdles to scale before his new stadium proposal in Los Angeles ever breaks ground – if it ever does.
But so far the project has been serious enough to hire a consultant to advise on issues related to the proposed stadium's height and regulations with the Federal Aviation Administration, the project's developer confirmed to USA TODAY Sports.
The project would require review by the FAA because of its proposed location about three miles from the Los Angeles International Airport and its expected height of about 175 feet. The consultant is Aviation Systems, Inc., according to Chris Meany of Hollywood Park Land Co., the project's developer.
"It's definitely an indication of seriousness," said Marc Ganis, a sports consultant who helped the Rams and Oakland Raiders leave Los Angeles in 1995. "But they have a long way to go before they're ready to get started."
While such a move is considered standard procedure for a project of this size and location, other factors make this no ordinary development. That's because the proposal is backed by an NFL owner in a different state using land that he owns in Inglewood, Calif.
Many have questioned the project ever since it was announced last week, especially after Meany said they were going to build the stadium "on spec" without a commitment to play there from an NFL team such as Kroenke's Rams. NFL owners and sports business experts doubted they'd take such a risk.
A few days after the announcement, officials in St. Louis also announced plans to build a new riverfront stadium for the Rams there – a project of around $900 million that could include around $400 million in public funds.
That increased speculation that Kroenke's proposed stadium in Inglewood was merely a leverage play to force St. Louis officials to give him a better stadium deal in his current city.
On the other hand, if Inglewood really is intended as a leverage play, Kroenke's group is disguising it well with the help of paid experts.
The FAA said it has received no proposal on the stadium yet, though it's early in the process. The stadium would be built on proposed development spread over 298 acres, including 60 owned by The Kroenke Group. The project, called "The City of Champions Revitalization Project," also would include vast retail, residential and office space and would not involve public funding for construction, the developers said.
"The City of Champions Revitalization Project is a major planned development and we have mobilized an extensive team of technical experts to assist us," Meany said in a statement.
Meany declined further comment, and the consultant didn't return a message seeking comment.
The Hollywood Park Land Co. (HPLC) is a joint venture between The Kroenke Group and Stockbridge Capital Group, which purchased the original 238-acre Hollywood Park site in 2005. The Kroenke Group purchased the adjacent 60-acre parcel in 2013. The developers said they hope to have zoning for the project approved by Inglewood voters this year, leading to a completed stadium in 2018.
Los Angeles has not had an NFL team since the Rams and Raiders left in 1995. Since then, the L.A. market often has been used been for leverage by NFL owners seeking to improve the stadium situations in their current cities. Two other stadium plans in Los Angeles County also have been proposed, though neither involves the company and land of an NFL owner.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Bernie: 'Too little, too late' argument is bogus
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_07b205e5-34cd-5d54-997b-991dce328e84.html
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a man of immense wealth and a surplus of opinions, set off another round of sirens to alarm tormented Rams fans.
In an interview with the New York Times, Jones green-lighted a Rams move to Los Angeles.
I’m loosely paraphrasing here, but essentially Jones believes Stan Kroenke can do as he pleases and the NFL can’t prevent him from moving. Jones obviously believes the NFL rules on franchise relocations are worthless.
That’s Jerry being Jerry. He speaks for himself and not his fellow owners or the executives at NFL headquarters.
That said, Jones could be on to something here.
There’s no telling what Kroenke will try to do.
I’ve been wrong in reading him. Evidently I was a fool to buy Kroenke’s sincerity during our interview in 2010.
Kroenke agreed to talk as he prepared to assume majority ownership of the Rams.
In case you forgot, this is what Kroenke told me:
“I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves.”
And … “There’s a track record. I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I’m stepping up one more time.”
Finally, the kicker … “I’m born and raised in Missouri. I’ve been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy.”
Yeah, well.
I suppose people can change.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Kroenke pulled a Bob Irsay and loaded up the moving vans for a sneak-attack move in the middle of the night.
It may come down to the NFL’s resolve to enforce its bylaws.
We’ve covered this ground before, but Kroenke isn’t close to satisfying the NFL rules on relocation. And that’s especially true now that Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz have officially launched their plans for a new stadium here.
Kroenke tried to diminish the impact of the Peacock-Blitz announcement by having details of his plan to build a new LA Stadium reported by the Los Angeles Times. (I wonder: Who was the weasel who gave Kroenke the heads-up on the STL announcement?) The big LA stadium story ran Jan. 5, four days before the rollout of the St. Louis stadium proposal.
By jumping first, Kroenke clearly tried to reinforce the “St. Louis is doing too little, too late” narrative that’s making the rounds.
Peacock and Blitz can’t trust Kroenke.
The more relevant question: Can they trust the NFL?
Or will the NFL bend or ignore the rules (again) for Kroenke, who already is in violation of the league bylaws that prohibit cross ownership?
I want to believe that the NFL will do the right thing and put its muscle behind the relocation rules. But I just don’t know.
NFL and team sources familiar with the Kroenke/Rams strategy have provided details on how Kroenke plans to make his case to the NFL.
Kroenke’s plan of attack will be centered on two points:
1. St. Louis had plenty of time to get something done before now, and it’s too late.
2. St. Louis is lacking in corporate support and fan support.
Both accusations are nonsense. The Rams received abundant support here — in all phases — after making the move. They hopped into the league’s new stadium, one funded by taxpayers, and enjoyed years of sellouts and blissful financial prosperity.
The Rams’ soaring profits in their new home drew envy from other NFL owners, and that set off a sweeping wave of new-stadium construction throughout the league.
Only one thing really changed: Rams ownership ran this franchise aground.
The Rams have had 11 consecutive non-winning seasons (record: 57-118-1). They haven’t made the playoffs since 2004. Included in that dreadful stretch was a 15-65 skid that represented the worst five-year record by a franchise in NFL history.
Kroenke’s record as the majority owner is 29-50-1, which ranks 27th among the 32 teams since 2010.
Question for the NFL: At what point should an NFL owner be held accountable for an erosion of ticket sales?
Years of chronic ineptitude and losing will naturally lead to a dip in attendance. But even then, the Rams filled 88 percent of their seats in 2014 and had their largest home attendance since 2008. Given the Rams’ horrendous 11-year slide, how does that register as a lack of support?
The bogus charge of “too little, too late” is preposterous.
In 2012 the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission voted to enter arbitration with the Rams in a dispute over the Edward Jones Dome’s status as a “top tier” NFL venue. In early 2013, a panel of arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams, a decision that triggered Kroenke’s stadium-lease escape clause.
St. Louis needed time to regroup, but it didn’t take long. In 2013 — soon after the arbitration ruling — Peacock quietly went to work behind the scenes to formulate a new-stadium strategy.
This was a difficult assignment, made more challenging by the Rams’ continued losing and Kroenke’s steady alienation of his fan base. But that plan was revealed Friday.
Peacock’s initiative took less than two full years. That hardly fits the “too little, too late” bunk. It isn’t easy to get new stadiums off the ground.
Let’s review:
• Los Angeles lost two NFL teams in 1995 and is still trying to come up with a suitable stadium solution. Kroenke may have that, but his plan must clear some hurdles. It isn’t a sure thing.
• The Arizona Cardinals played in a sun-baked college football stadium from 1988 through 2005. Numerous attempts to get a new stadium were rejected until a deal was struck in 2003. The Cardinals moved into their new home (University of Phoenix Stadium) in 2006.
• Three different owners tried to get a new stadium for the Vikings in Minnesota. The first serious proposal, in 2007, was shot down. After several more years of haggling, a successful plan came together in 2012, and the Vikings’ new stadium is scheduled to open in July.
• A proposal for a new Atlanta football stadium was first pitched in 2010, but the Falcons couldn’t cut a deal with the city of Atlanta until 2013. The venue is scheduled to open in 2018.
• The San Francisco 49ers moved into a new stadium in Santa Clara this season, and it was a long time coming. Negotiations to build a new stadium on the site of Candlestick Park collapsed in 2006, and the 49ers didn’t reach an agreement with Santa Clara until 2010.
• A proposal to construct a new stadium for the Chicago Bears first surfaced in 1989, only to be rejected by the Illinois legislature. Another plan was spurned in 1998. The solution — to renovate Soldier Field — emerged in 2001, and the Bears set up there in 2003.
• The San Diego Chargers play in Qualcomm Stadium, which opened in 1967. The Spanos family, which owns the Chargers, has been trying (in vain) for at least 12 years to get a new stadium built in San Diego. And nothing has happened.
Why is it “too little, too late” in St. Louis? This flies against the stadium timelines we’ve seen in multiple NFL markets.
If the Peacock-Blitz plan gets shredded — meaning no new stadium — then the critics will have a basis for their theories.
St. Louis deserves a chance to build a new stadium. And if that stadium plan is a non-starter, then so be it. No more NFL for St. Louis.
Until that determination is made, I just hope the NFL gives this town a fair shake. I want to trust the league. Then again, I believed Stan Kroenke in 2010.
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_07b205e5-34cd-5d54-997b-991dce328e84.html
Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a man of immense wealth and a surplus of opinions, set off another round of sirens to alarm tormented Rams fans.
In an interview with the New York Times, Jones green-lighted a Rams move to Los Angeles.
I’m loosely paraphrasing here, but essentially Jones believes Stan Kroenke can do as he pleases and the NFL can’t prevent him from moving. Jones obviously believes the NFL rules on franchise relocations are worthless.
That’s Jerry being Jerry. He speaks for himself and not his fellow owners or the executives at NFL headquarters.
That said, Jones could be on to something here.
There’s no telling what Kroenke will try to do.
I’ve been wrong in reading him. Evidently I was a fool to buy Kroenke’s sincerity during our interview in 2010.
Kroenke agreed to talk as he prepared to assume majority ownership of the Rams.
In case you forgot, this is what Kroenke told me:
“I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves.”
And … “There’s a track record. I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I’m stepping up one more time.”
Finally, the kicker … “I’m born and raised in Missouri. I’ve been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy.”
Yeah, well.
I suppose people can change.
I wouldn’t be surprised if Kroenke pulled a Bob Irsay and loaded up the moving vans for a sneak-attack move in the middle of the night.
It may come down to the NFL’s resolve to enforce its bylaws.
We’ve covered this ground before, but Kroenke isn’t close to satisfying the NFL rules on relocation. And that’s especially true now that Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz have officially launched their plans for a new stadium here.
Kroenke tried to diminish the impact of the Peacock-Blitz announcement by having details of his plan to build a new LA Stadium reported by the Los Angeles Times. (I wonder: Who was the weasel who gave Kroenke the heads-up on the STL announcement?) The big LA stadium story ran Jan. 5, four days before the rollout of the St. Louis stadium proposal.
By jumping first, Kroenke clearly tried to reinforce the “St. Louis is doing too little, too late” narrative that’s making the rounds.
Peacock and Blitz can’t trust Kroenke.
The more relevant question: Can they trust the NFL?
Or will the NFL bend or ignore the rules (again) for Kroenke, who already is in violation of the league bylaws that prohibit cross ownership?
I want to believe that the NFL will do the right thing and put its muscle behind the relocation rules. But I just don’t know.
NFL and team sources familiar with the Kroenke/Rams strategy have provided details on how Kroenke plans to make his case to the NFL.
Kroenke’s plan of attack will be centered on two points:
1. St. Louis had plenty of time to get something done before now, and it’s too late.
2. St. Louis is lacking in corporate support and fan support.
Both accusations are nonsense. The Rams received abundant support here — in all phases — after making the move. They hopped into the league’s new stadium, one funded by taxpayers, and enjoyed years of sellouts and blissful financial prosperity.
The Rams’ soaring profits in their new home drew envy from other NFL owners, and that set off a sweeping wave of new-stadium construction throughout the league.
Only one thing really changed: Rams ownership ran this franchise aground.
The Rams have had 11 consecutive non-winning seasons (record: 57-118-1). They haven’t made the playoffs since 2004. Included in that dreadful stretch was a 15-65 skid that represented the worst five-year record by a franchise in NFL history.
Kroenke’s record as the majority owner is 29-50-1, which ranks 27th among the 32 teams since 2010.
Question for the NFL: At what point should an NFL owner be held accountable for an erosion of ticket sales?
Years of chronic ineptitude and losing will naturally lead to a dip in attendance. But even then, the Rams filled 88 percent of their seats in 2014 and had their largest home attendance since 2008. Given the Rams’ horrendous 11-year slide, how does that register as a lack of support?
The bogus charge of “too little, too late” is preposterous.
In 2012 the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission voted to enter arbitration with the Rams in a dispute over the Edward Jones Dome’s status as a “top tier” NFL venue. In early 2013, a panel of arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams, a decision that triggered Kroenke’s stadium-lease escape clause.
St. Louis needed time to regroup, but it didn’t take long. In 2013 — soon after the arbitration ruling — Peacock quietly went to work behind the scenes to formulate a new-stadium strategy.
This was a difficult assignment, made more challenging by the Rams’ continued losing and Kroenke’s steady alienation of his fan base. But that plan was revealed Friday.
Peacock’s initiative took less than two full years. That hardly fits the “too little, too late” bunk. It isn’t easy to get new stadiums off the ground.
Let’s review:
• Los Angeles lost two NFL teams in 1995 and is still trying to come up with a suitable stadium solution. Kroenke may have that, but his plan must clear some hurdles. It isn’t a sure thing.
• The Arizona Cardinals played in a sun-baked college football stadium from 1988 through 2005. Numerous attempts to get a new stadium were rejected until a deal was struck in 2003. The Cardinals moved into their new home (University of Phoenix Stadium) in 2006.
• Three different owners tried to get a new stadium for the Vikings in Minnesota. The first serious proposal, in 2007, was shot down. After several more years of haggling, a successful plan came together in 2012, and the Vikings’ new stadium is scheduled to open in July.
• A proposal for a new Atlanta football stadium was first pitched in 2010, but the Falcons couldn’t cut a deal with the city of Atlanta until 2013. The venue is scheduled to open in 2018.
• The San Francisco 49ers moved into a new stadium in Santa Clara this season, and it was a long time coming. Negotiations to build a new stadium on the site of Candlestick Park collapsed in 2006, and the 49ers didn’t reach an agreement with Santa Clara until 2010.
• A proposal to construct a new stadium for the Chicago Bears first surfaced in 1989, only to be rejected by the Illinois legislature. Another plan was spurned in 1998. The solution — to renovate Soldier Field — emerged in 2001, and the Bears set up there in 2003.
• The San Diego Chargers play in Qualcomm Stadium, which opened in 1967. The Spanos family, which owns the Chargers, has been trying (in vain) for at least 12 years to get a new stadium built in San Diego. And nothing has happened.
Why is it “too little, too late” in St. Louis? This flies against the stadium timelines we’ve seen in multiple NFL markets.
If the Peacock-Blitz plan gets shredded — meaning no new stadium — then the critics will have a basis for their theories.
St. Louis deserves a chance to build a new stadium. And if that stadium plan is a non-starter, then so be it. No more NFL for St. Louis.
Until that determination is made, I just hope the NFL gives this town a fair shake. I want to trust the league. Then again, I believed Stan Kroenke in 2010.
TSFH Fan
Epic Music Guy
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,347
Not trying to inflame, just trying to inform:
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1252959&page=179
Scroll down that thread for Revitalization Project renderings.
http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1252959&page=179
Scroll down that thread for Revitalization Project renderings.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
If it did come down to an Irsay-esque midnight move, the NFL's ability to enforce anything will be pretty suspect. Once the team is clear of any obligations to the Edward Jones dome, they would literally have no place to play in St. Louis, so the team couldn't be forced back. And any punishment beyond a token fine (especially if we're talking poison pill type measures like not scheduling the Rams for any games, or the ridiculous notion that Kroenke would be forced by the NFL to sell) would likely result in a protracted legal battle that the NFL would likely lose and perhaps wouldn't even want to get into.Bernie said:
Remember, the NFL has a commissioner that has shown over and over again that he cares more about perceived integrity of the League than actual integrity. A protracted legal battle for a cause that really isn't of great benefit to the League does not protect the perceived integrity.
But the new stadium ISN'T off the ground, Bernie. It's just announced. Two years to do that IS pretty slow. The Rams aren't going to have much trouble arguing that there really wasn't a sense of urgency once the independent arbitrator ruled in favor of the Rams' plan to bring the EJD into compliance and the CVC rejected it.Boinie said:
Smartest thing you've ever said, Bernie.Some Lunkhead said:
Wait. There was stuff after that? Oh well, I'm sure it wasn't important.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
I don't think there's rules against it, but its probably because its not something any owner would want. Especially if you're looking at this situation. Why would stan spend close to a billion dollars on a stadium, plus spend another half a billion on another stadium, and not get anywhere near the return he would get by having his franchise net worth grow significantly? Building the stadium for someone else makes very little sense financially.
Probably no rules because nobody would want to.
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
Dislike of Bernie aside, I don't see how someone could look at the Rams, compare their situation to those of other teams, and conclude with a sense of fairness that Stan has no choice but to move.
TSFH Fan
Epic Music Guy
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,347
Inglewood PR Machine activated (http://championsinitiative.com/):
"The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative, which would include a sports and entertainment district featuring a world-class stadium and performance venue, will create thousands of new jobs and tens of millions in additional revenues to the city each year."
TMZ (!?) Joins In
http://www.tmz.com/2015/01/08/city-of-inglewood-nfl-team-could-ram-housing-prices-through-the-roof/
"Residents in Inglewood, CA are prepping for a REAL ESTATE BOOM if the owner of the L.A. Rams gets approval to build a new 80,000 seat stadium"
"The City of Champions Revitalization Initiative, which would include a sports and entertainment district featuring a world-class stadium and performance venue, will create thousands of new jobs and tens of millions in additional revenues to the city each year."
TMZ (!?) Joins In
http://www.tmz.com/2015/01/08/city-of-inglewood-nfl-team-could-ram-housing-prices-through-the-roof/
"Residents in Inglewood, CA are prepping for a REAL ESTATE BOOM if the owner of the L.A. Rams gets approval to build a new 80,000 seat stadium"
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/15/san-diego-mayor-promises-stadium-plan-this-fall/
San Diego Mayor promises stadium plan this fall
Posted by Josh Alper on January 15, 2015
Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s move to build a stadium in Los Angeles reverberated well beyond St. Louis.
It hit San Diego as well, where the Chargers look to Los Angeles as both a source of fans and a potential home while they try to sort out a stadium of their own. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer is feeling the pressure to get a stadium deal that will take a move to Los Angeles off the table. On Wednesday, he said he would “fight to keep” the Chargers in town and put together a task force of civic leaders to come up with a stadium plan by the fall.
“They will explore all possibilities to finance this project with my clear direction that it must present a good and fair deal for San Diego’s taxpayers,” Faulconer said, via ESPN.com. “I will not accept or support anything less.”
There are two sites in mind for a new stadium, the current site and one near the city’s baseball stadium and a proposed convention center. The Chargers are thought to prefer the second option, but were unimpressed by Faulconer’s comments.
“After 13 — now going on 14 — years of work by the Chargers, the speech contained no specifics, and so there is nothing for us to comment on,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said.
Any deal would need to be voted on by the public and the use of public money needs to be approved by a two-thirds majority, something that would seem to make a new stadium less than certain even if the task force can put together the concrete plan that the Chargers would like to see.
San Diego Mayor promises stadium plan this fall
Posted by Josh Alper on January 15, 2015
Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s move to build a stadium in Los Angeles reverberated well beyond St. Louis.
It hit San Diego as well, where the Chargers look to Los Angeles as both a source of fans and a potential home while they try to sort out a stadium of their own. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer is feeling the pressure to get a stadium deal that will take a move to Los Angeles off the table. On Wednesday, he said he would “fight to keep” the Chargers in town and put together a task force of civic leaders to come up with a stadium plan by the fall.
“They will explore all possibilities to finance this project with my clear direction that it must present a good and fair deal for San Diego’s taxpayers,” Faulconer said, via ESPN.com. “I will not accept or support anything less.”
There are two sites in mind for a new stadium, the current site and one near the city’s baseball stadium and a proposed convention center. The Chargers are thought to prefer the second option, but were unimpressed by Faulconer’s comments.
“After 13 — now going on 14 — years of work by the Chargers, the speech contained no specifics, and so there is nothing for us to comment on,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said.
Any deal would need to be voted on by the public and the use of public money needs to be approved by a two-thirds majority, something that would seem to make a new stadium less than certain even if the task force can put together the concrete plan that the Chargers would like to see.
rhinobean
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,152
- Name
- Bob
Anyone read/heard that the Rams were going to file for relocation and were told that they couldn't this year? Seems like a possibility given the statement by the league office! It would be a shame if they can't build that stadium in STL as they really need to clean up that area of the riverfront and it seems like the best way to do so!
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
If you're referring to the thread that was on Ramstalk this morning, I think it was started because of this line from Jim Thomas' article.
"Before that announcement, the Rams were prepared to do so. But team officials also told the Post-Dispatch that the Rams would not file without a go-ahead from the league."
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_03b191af-dd5b-5169-987a-3448aafcc963.html
But there's also this line too:
"Rams sources have told the Post-Dispatch on more than one occasion this month that Kroenke will not go rogue — he would not move the franchise to Los Angeles without league approval."
So it seems that's why Peacock and co. have directed their efforts to the league office. They're going to lean directly on the by-laws in spite of Kroenke.
beej
Rookie
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 464
If this was all a leverage plot, it is ONE HECK of a leverage plot. I personally have a hard time believing it is. But Kroenke has a way out of it, if it was. Apparently the FAA might not grant approval of the stadium proposal because of it's proximity to the runway. I don't know much about that, if there's any element of truth to that or not. But I guess in theory Kroenke could say, "Sorry, LA, the FAA wouldn't let me build it. I gotta stay in STL."
I think money pretty much conquers all in terms of the NFL relocation vote. but I'm not sure that money would clear the FAA worries.
what do you LA guys know about that issue?
I think money pretty much conquers all in terms of the NFL relocation vote. but I'm not sure that money would clear the FAA worries.
what do you LA guys know about that issue?
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
I hope this starts to resolve soon. I've just been looking at the threads over the last couple days and my heart's not in it. The uncertainty and all I guess. I can't even work up the gumption to ridicule read option QBs when their names surface as possible Rams QBs, and that's my favorite thing.
beej
Rookie
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2014
- Messages
- 464
I hear ya. When I think about all the bad football we've sat through whether I was at the game or at home. Spending money to watch them play when you know damn good and well they are about to get their asses handed to them. And now that it's all about to come together...to have them move away...leaves me with a wide range of emotions that are either pathetic or worthy of getting me arrested. I know that I could still be a fan if they move away, but I'm not doing it. I'm just not.
rhinobean
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2013
- Messages
- 2,152
- Name
- Bob
Yep! That's where I saw it! Wonder who's chain is being yanked on this whole deal? I know that Inglewood wouldn't allow a Walmart so they went a different direction in order to use the land and if they don't get approval for the stadium, they can build the rest.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
I grant you that it'd be difficult to make a case that the Rams have absolutely no choice not to move... but it would be equally difficult to make a case that ANY team that has moved had no choice but to do so.
As a sidenote, I would also expect the Rams to bring up that St. Louis also failed to honor the top tier clause in 2005 and the team could have moved then, but chose to waive the requirement then.
Goodell made that announcement a while back. It was then amended to say that it wasn't a directive from his office, but that the Rams, Raiders and Chargers all agreed not to move.
But while I am starting to think a 2015 move is unlikely, it wouldn't be the first time the current Rams administration said one thing then did another, and if their heart is set on a move (which has been reported to be the case by quite a few sources), it's hard to think what the benefit of a lame duck 2015 campaign in St. Louis would be to anyone.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
Truthfully, I don't think the Rams move while the STL deal is on the table. It's got some major hurdles to overcome, but if it makes it through the financing ordeal, then the Rams are staying. There's just no precedence of a team moving while a deal is on the table. Also, has a super bowl winner ever relocated? Can't think of one of the top of my head (but that's grasping at straws
).
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
I wouldn't count the St. Louis plan as officially on the table until the financing is worked out. From what I've heard, it would have be voted on and there's significant disagreement in St. Louis with using any public money on the new stadium.Truthfully, I don't think the Rams move while the STL deal is on the table. It's got some major hurdles to overcome, but if it makes it through the financing ordeal, then the Rams are staying. There's just no precedence of a team moving while a deal is on the table. Also, has a super bowl winner ever relocated? Can't think of one of the top of my head (but that's grasping at straws
Plus, I think Kroenke is going to balk and balk hard at the idea of the Rams having to pay part of the costs.
- Status