New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dieterbrock]

They should have started the moment the Rams won the arbitration on the Dome upgrades. Which was 2 or 3 years ago now?

Also the Rams are one of a few unique teams that has a divided core fan base. With fan bases in both St Louis and Southern California no matter what happens one group will be left in the cold and unsatisfied. If it's the So Cal group it would be a second time for them that the Rams did that to them. No matter what happens this is an unfortunate situation that won't make everybody happy.

I think So Cal fans would be disappointed but would still be fans, on the other hand I imagine there would be a larger fan exodus from St Lou based if they were to go to LA

And for fans like me, with no geographical alligience, we get an awesome new stadium either way

 

[ChrisW]

I think So Cal fans would be disappointed but would still be fans, on the other hand I imagine there would be a larger fan exodus from St Lou based if they were to go to LA

And for fans like me, with no geographical alligience, we get an awesome new stadium either way

I kind of hope that if the NFL snubs St. Louis after having this proposal on the table, that the city builds a brand spanking new MLS stadium on the site and tells the NFL to F off. Become a soccer dynasty with the fastest growing league in sports.

 

[Moostache]

L.A. Super Bowl for 2021 could just as easily be in the Rose Bowl...the venue has hosted I think 5 previous Super Bowls and World Cup Finals and the annual Rose Bowl itself, and College title games...the reason the Rose Bowl (which was NEVER the home stadium of an LA team in the past yet STILL hosted the Super Bowl on numerous occasions) was removed from the Super Bowl "rotation" of New Orleans, Los Angeles and Miami was initially because the league rules say a team must play in the stadium's home MARKET...not the venue itself!

The idea that a 2021 Super Bowl in LA could ONLY happen in Inglewood is nothing more than pro-LA / pro-Inglewood spin. It COULD happen, sure...but its NOT the ONLY way a Super Bowl in LA happens for 2021.

 

[Moostache]

They should have started the moment the Rams won the arbitration on the Dome upgrades. Which was 2 or 3 years ago now?

Also the Rams are one of a few unique teams that has a divided core fan base. With fan bases in both St Louis and Southern California no matter what happens one group will be left in the cold and unsatisfied. If it's the So Cal group it would be a second time for them that the Rams did that to them. No matter what happens this is an unfortunate situation that won't make everybody happy.

On February 1, 2013, the arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams' $700 million proposal to tear down half the Dome and replace it as the only way to bring the Dome up to first tier status. That was just over 2 years ago. The current task force announced their plans this February, about 2 years after the decision, but clearly they had begun work on it months earlier. That means the task force got started in earnest within 12-18 months of the arbitration decision...hardly foot dragging by NFL precedent.

Are you really making the case that St. Louis should had been faster to respond than San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Atlanta and Oakland and San Diego? Because if THAT is the basis for deciding whether a market is pro-active enough St. Louis wins that argument in a landslide. No one else, EVER, has responded faster (or in a newer facility) than St. Louis and its not even close. Go look up how long those other markets hemmed and hawed with the teams....SF, Minn? At least 15 years... SD? 15+ years and counting... Oak? They were promised a new stadium 20 years ago and are now being slapped around like Little Orphan Annie... Pity the poor Rams having to wait a whopping 12-18 months, and in a structurally sound, 20-year old venue at that!

This idea, patently false and maliciously rolled around, that St. Louis was in any way shape or form "slow" to respond is ludicrous and does not hold water.

 

[Goose]

Chargers-Raiders stadium co-op leads NFL's LA return, but Rams may fight
May 21, 2015 10:07 am ET
Jason LaCanfora

The joint stadium project between the Chargers and Raiders in Carson, Calif., continues to gain momentum and there was strong positive buzz about their plan coming out owners meeting in San Francisco this week, according to several high-ranking ownership sources. Meanwhile, concerns linger as to whether Rams owner Stan Kroenke can force his way out of St. Louis without a protracted fight.

Chargers owner Dean Spanos, among the league's more respected owners, has exhibited great patience in navigating his franchise through an uncertain stadium situation in San Diego and continued to earn kudos from other ownership groups at the meeting. The NFL intent to be in Los Angeles by 2016 cannot be understated and several sources maintained they would have to consider the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson as the early favorite.

There is a certain political element to this process, in securing necessary votes for franchise relocation -- in this case a dual relocation -- and Spanos has moved expertly, sources said. And Raiders owners Mark Davis is a highly-motivated wingman willing to let Spanos take the lead when required. The Raiders are mostly willing to do what the league wants, and go along for the ride to Southern California and plentiful revenue streams that come from a new facility. The willingness to collaborate with the Chargers, their longtime rivals, speaks to the potential potency of this project and it continues to curry favor with other important owners at a critical.

Meanwhile, Kroenke has shown willingness to go rogue and faces more of an uphill climb with his Inglewood project, at least in lining up support from owners on the powerful stadium and finance committees, sources said. With his full-speed-ahead approach regarding LA, he's seen as more of an outsider than Spanos and has rubbed the league office the wrong way. So all things being equal, people very close to some of the NFL's most respected ownership groups believe the Carson project has the best chance of winning this race.

That's not to say Kroenke will go easily, and this scenario could be a precursor to an ugly legal fight. The NFL could well deem St. Louis has a formidable ongoing stadium project and the Chargers and Raiders are in greater need of a new immediate home. But with Kroenke procuring the land and a finance deal on his own, and his St. Louis lease up again at the end of the season, he just might -- ironically -- take a page from Al Davis' book and go to court to fight for his right to party every Sunday in Los Angeles rather than stay in St. Louis, where he clearly has no plans of staying.

Don't discount for an instant Kroenke's desire to get to California, but he's failed to curry favor the same way others have and the NFL will flex its muscles to maintain control of the process. Telling any uber-successful magnate what he can or can't do with his business and land is always a good way to prompt a significant response, and that's just what we might get in this case.

As for the Chargers and Raiders, if they merely stay in course, things could be lining up their way. It's clear the municipalities around Carson are on board. Certainly a hurdle or two could come their way -- AEG will try to obfuscate the process, I'm sure -- and there could be environmental issues down the road (there often are, especially in California) but this thing is coming to a head by the winter and the support behind this project is strengthening at the league's highest reaches.

Could well be the Chargers and Raiders both move in 2016. It would take two game-day facilities to do so -- sources at The Rose Bowl have continued to tell me they cannot support two teams at the same time -- and it could be both teams would use their current training facilities for practices for the first season in LA. Some in the know have speculated the Chargers, in exchange for getting the keys to LA, end up moving to the NFC, with perhaps the Cardinals going to the AFC West, which would maintain the Raiders' rivalries with the Chiefs and Broncos, for as much as that is worth.

Bottom line is if it gets to that stage, the issue of realignment would be no hindrance. There are plenty of parties more than motivated to shuffle around their current division to complete this complicated deal, and the right people continue to have a positive enough view of the Carson solution to make me believe that's likely where this thing is headed, barring unforeseen roadblocks forming. And all that could well lead to a lot of very rich lawyers getting even richer should Kroenke take the nuclear route to getting what he wants.

New PAT fallout: The early sense I'm getting is the change in PAT rules will not greatly shift the way coaches approach the extra point. Kickers are still ridiculous accurate these days from the 33- to 35-yard range and coaches go by the book for the most part.

It may take more drastic moves -- like narrowing the uprights -- to truly alter coaching philosophy. I will be interested to see if some aggressive coaches like Chip Kelly end up pushing for two-point conversions early and often, forcing opponents to open up and do the same through the course of a game.

Overall, however, the state of kicking is better than ever and moving the line of scrimmage to the 15 might not have much drastic impact to how the game is played.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...fast-tracks-nfls-la-return-but-rams-may-fight

 

[The Ripper]

This idea, patently false and maliciously rolled around, that St. Louis was in any way shape or form "slow" to respond is ludicrous and does not hold water.

It does when the CVC knew in 2007 that the Rams wouldn't waive the requirement again or the fact that the Rams gave the CVC two extra years for the 2005 first tier review.

 

[blue4]

They should have started the moment the Rams won the arbitration on the Dome upgrades. Which was 2 or 3 years ago now?

Also the Rams are one of a few unique teams that has a divided core fan base.

So, without any requests for a new stadium from Stan, or any dialog whatsoever the good citizens of St Louis should have built a new stadium without being told? The absolute minute arbitration ended? What city has done that again? You have to at least ask first, don't you?

The fan base may be divided but they're located here and I very much doubt that there are more CURRENT Rams fans in LA than in the whole bi-state area that makes up the St Louis/East Missouri /Southern Illinois market. That's not meant confrontational LA against St Louis statement. It's to once again dispute the notion that this is in any way to do with the fans in LA. It's about the 2nd market, not Rams fans. The fact that the Rams were from LA is a coincidence for what Stan is looking to gain.

 

[Moostache]

I kind of hope that if the NFL snubs St. Louis after having this proposal on the table, that the city builds a brand spanking new MLS stadium on the site and tells the NFL to F off. Become a soccer dynasty with the fastest growing league in sports.

This is a good point...20-25 years from now, the growth rate for the MLS and NFL may just cross paths.

Steroids. Human Growth Hormone. Cheating. Cover-ups. Domestic abusers. Drug addicts. Concussions. CTE suicides.
It's not hard to make a case that the NFL might just be at its highest point ever and inevitably due for a fall.

In 1915, baseball was unquestionably the biggest sport in America.
By 1960 - in some ways in response to the 1958 NFL Championship game and the buzz around professional football, that was no longer the case, which is why the MLB expansion era began and grew the league from 16 to 30 teams, which did not help the game's primacy...though it DID expand viewership and ad money.

By 1970, the NFL explosion had not stalled or slowed at all, the Super Bowl era was underway and it's never been the same for baseball since - at least in terms of being the unquestioned #1 sport in America.

Soccer in America is starting to grow faster. Professional soccer is likewise growing. Youth participation is way higher in soccer than in football.
Its not crazy to think that 20-25 years from now, the Rams could be the second most valued ticket in the St. Louis riverfront stadium.

 

[Moostache]

It does when the CVC knew in 2007 that the Rams wouldn't waive the requirement again or the fact that the Rams gave the CVC two extra years for the 2005 first tier review.

No offense, but you are stretching your own credibility to a thread with statements like that.
You REALLY think that is a plausible argument? That the clock on St. Louis should have started in 2005?

No.
Just no.

The team and the CVC were involved in a process that was governed by the lease. They still are. The Rams elected to convert the lease to a year-to-year starting...oh, yeah, THIS YEAR!!!
That means even before the team plays ONE game under a modified lease, St. Louis has a proposal in the works and one that has been deemed "viable" by the league.

Try again please...

 

[OldSchool]

On February 1, 2013, the arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams' $700 million proposal to tear down half the Dome and replace it as the only way to bring the Dome up to first tier status. That was just over 2 years ago. The current task force announced their plans this February, about 2 years after the decision, but clearly they had begun work on it months earlier. That means the task force got started in earnest within 12-18 months of the arbitration decision...hardly foot dragging by NFL precedent.

Are you really making the case that St. Louis should had been faster to respond than San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Atlanta and Oakland and San Diego? Because if THAT is the basis for deciding whether a market is pro-active enough St. Louis wins that argument in a landslide. No one else, EVER, has responded faster (or in a newer facility) than St. Louis and its not even close. Go look up how long those other markets hemmed and hawed with the teams....SF, Minn? At least 15 years... SD? 15+ years and counting... Oak? They were promised a new stadium 20 years ago and are now being slapped around like Little Orphan Annie... Pity the poor Rams having to wait a whopping 12-18 months, and in a structurally sound, 20-year old venue at that!

This idea, patently false and maliciously rolled around, that St. Louis was in any way shape or form "slow" to respond is ludicrous and does not hold water.

I'm pretty certain I wasn't attacking anybody with my comment. NFL precedent and stadium issues in other cities are irrelevant. No other team is owned by a man who became a billionaire owning and developing land. No other team has an owner with the means and the knowledge in how to build his own stadium. Each NFL city has to work with their teams owners and they're all very different.

I've said it before I don't give a rats backside which city they play in because it won't be the one I live in. I do think that no matter where they play if Kroenke is the Rams owner he will also own the stadium that they play in. That's his MO, own the team, the stadium they play in and the land around it to maximize his profits. If he is blocked from Inglewood look for him to build his own stadium to his desired specs and own the land around it. I would be very shocked if he is renting the Rams next stadium.

 

[ChrisW]

It does when the CVC knew in 2007 that the Rams wouldn't waive the requirement again or the fact that the Rams gave the CVC two extra years for the 2005 first tier review.

You can call St. Louis slow to the table all you want. But, the fact is they are already ahead of San Diego and Oakland when both of those markets have had multiple year leads on St. Louis to get a deal done.

Also, who's to say that the city of St. Louis could have negotiated on a new stadium while the lease on the current building was in effect. I'm not sure, but negotiating for a brand new facility would seem to hinder the negotiations in the current venue.

 

[beej]

It does when the CVC knew in 2007 that the Rams wouldn't waive the requirement again or the fact that the Rams gave the CVC two extra years for the 2005 first tier review.

I realize that you just joined the forum on april 25th. Welcome! but everything that you just wrote has been hashed over and over again it always ends in, "well we'll just agree to disagree."

but just to summarize:
you'll say STL should have done more
a STLer will say we JUST built a stadium 12 years earlier
you'll say we should have planned ahead and never made the top25% clause
a STLer will say that was what they had to do
and eventually it will get brought up that there was a recession in 2008 and a new stadium for the cardinals in 2006, and we were still paying off the debt for the EJD.

I'm not trying to be mean or a jerk or anything, but you might want to start at the beginning and read through.

 

[OldSchool]

So, without any requests for a new stadium from Stan, or any dialog whatsoever the good citizens of St Louis should have built a new stadium without being told? The absolute minute arbitration ended? What city has done that again? You have to at least ask first, don't you?

No what I'm saying is the dialogue should have started then and there from BOTH sides on how to proceed. They had just had a court ruling to effectively break the lease with the EJD, it's clear Stan wasn't going to be happy continuing to play there. Both sides should have right then recognized that the Rams future in St Louis wouldn't include the dome and proceeded. Both sides went about business as usual and now we're stuck with this debate. Can you honestly tell me if these sides had discussions starting two years ago that if these two sides had started off talking two years ago this current uncertainty would be happening?

 

[blue4]

I'm pretty certain I wasn't attacking anybody with my comment. NFL precedent and stadium issues in other cities are irrelevant. No other team is owned by a man who became a billionaire owning and developing land. No other team has an owner with the means and the knowledge in how to build his own stadium. Each NFL city has to work with their teams owners and they're all very different.

I've said it before I don't give a rats backside which city they play in because it won't be the one I live in. I do think that no matter where they play if Kroenke is the Rams owner he will also own the stadium that they play in. That's his MO, own the team, the stadium they play in and the land around it to maximize his profits. If he is blocked from Inglewood look for him to build his own stadium to his desired specs and own the land around it. I would be very shocked if he is renting the Rams next stadium.

I would think, based on absolutely nothing but my own impressions of course, that if Kroenke is denied LA in an upset that he would sell the Rams before building in St Louis. He's not a Rams owner because he was a Rams fan. He's an owner because he saw two separate occurrences to make money off of them. The first relocation and the second. IMO

 

[OldSchool]

I would think, based on absolutely nothing but my own impressions of course, that if Kroenke is denied LA in an upset that he would sell the Rams before building in St Louis. He's not a Rams owner because he was a Rams fan. He's an owner because he saw two separate occurrences to make money off of them. The first relocation and the second. IMO

You can make that assumption but I would bet he builds a stadium first. It makes them much more valuable to sell if a new stadium comes with it, wherever that stadium is.

 

[blue4]

No what I'm saying is the dialogue should have started then and there from BOTH sides on how to proceed. They had just had a court ruling to effectively break the lease with the EJD, it's clear Stan wasn't going to be happy continuing to play there. Both sides should have right then recognized that the Rams future in St Louis wouldn't include the dome and proceeded. Both sides went about business as usual and now we're stuck with this debate. Can you honestly tell me if these sides had discussions starting two years ago that if these two sides had started off talking two years ago this current uncertainty would be happening?

Absolutely. But you said both. Why should the city be held accountable and Stan not?

Of course, if you believe as I do that Stan intended from the purchase of the rest of the team to relocate than it explains why he never bothered to even ask about a new stadium.

 

[ChrisW]

Chargers-Raiders stadium co-op leads NFL's LA return, but Rams may fight
May 21, 2015 10:07 am ET
Jason LaCanfora

The joint stadium project between the Chargers and Raiders in Carson, Calif., continues to gain momentum and there was strong positive buzz about their plan coming out owners meeting in San Francisco this week, according to several high-ranking ownership sources. Meanwhile, concerns linger as to whether Rams owner Stan Kroenke can force his way out of St. Louis without a protracted fight.

Chargers owner Dean Spanos, among the league's more respected owners, has exhibited great patience in navigating his franchise through an uncertain stadium situation in San Diego and continued to earn kudos from other ownership groups at the meeting. The NFL intent to be in Los Angeles by 2016 cannot be understated and several sources maintained they would have to consider the Chargers/Raiders project in Carson as the early favorite.

There is a certain political element to this process, in securing necessary votes for franchise relocation -- in this case a dual relocation -- and Spanos has moved expertly, sources said. And Raiders owners Mark Davis is a highly-motivated wingman willing to let Spanos take the lead when required. The Raiders are mostly willing to do what the league wants, and go along for the ride to Southern California and plentiful revenue streams that come from a new facility. The willingness to collaborate with the Chargers, their longtime rivals, speaks to the potential potency of this project and it continues to curry favor with other important owners at a critical.

Meanwhile, Kroenke has shown willingness to go rogue and faces more of an uphill climb with his Inglewood project, at least in lining up support from owners on the powerful stadium and finance committees, sources said. With his full-speed-ahead approach regarding LA, he's seen as more of an outsider than Spanos and has rubbed the league office the wrong way. So all things being equal, people very close to some of the NFL's most respected ownership groups believe the Carson project has the best chance of winning this race.

That's not to say Kroenke will go easily, and this scenario could be a precursor to an ugly legal fight. The NFL could well deem St. Louis has a formidable ongoing stadium project and the Chargers and Raiders are in greater need of a new immediate home. But with Kroenke procuring the land and a finance deal on his own, and his St. Louis lease up again at the end of the season, he just might -- ironically -- take a page from Al Davis' book and go to court to fight for his right to party every Sunday in Los Angeles rather than stay in St. Louis, where he clearly has no plans of staying.

Don't discount for an instant Kroenke's desire to get to California, but he's failed to curry favor the same way others have and the NFL will flex its muscles to maintain control of the process. Telling any uber-successful magnate what he can or can't do with his business and land is always a good way to prompt a significant response, and that's just what we might get in this case.

As for the Chargers and Raiders, if they merely stay in course, things could be lining up their way. It's clear the municipalities around Carson are on board. Certainly a hurdle or two could come their way -- AEG will try to obfuscate the process, I'm sure -- and there could be environmental issues down the road (there often are, especially in California) but this thing is coming to a head by the winter and the support behind this project is strengthening at the league's highest reaches.

Could well be the Chargers and Raiders both move in 2016. It would take two game-day facilities to do so -- sources at The Rose Bowl have continued to tell me they cannot support two teams at the same time -- and it could be both teams would use their current training facilities for practices for the first season in LA. Some in the know have speculated the Chargers, in exchange for getting the keys to LA, end up moving to the NFC, with perhaps the Cardinals going to the AFC West, which would maintain the Raiders' rivalries with the Chiefs and Broncos, for as much as that is worth.

Bottom line is if it gets to that stage, the issue of realignment would be no hindrance. There are plenty of parties more than motivated to shuffle around their current division to complete this complicated deal, and the right people continue to have a positive enough view of the Carson solution to make me believe that's likely where this thing is headed, barring unforeseen roadblocks forming. And all that could well lead to a lot of very rich lawyers getting even richer should Kroenke take the nuclear route to getting what he wants.

New PAT fallout: The early sense I'm getting is the change in PAT rules will not greatly shift the way coaches approach the extra point. Kickers are still ridiculous accurate these days from the 33- to 35-yard range and coaches go by the book for the most part.

It may take more drastic moves -- like narrowing the uprights -- to truly alter coaching philosophy. I will be interested to see if some aggressive coaches like Chip Kelly end up pushing for two-point conversions early and often, forcing opponents to open up and do the same through the course of a game.

Overall, however, the state of kicking is better than ever and moving the line of scrimmage to the 15 might not have much drastic impact to how the game is played.

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...fast-tracks-nfls-la-return-but-rams-may-fight

So which is it Mr. Canfora. Not too long ago he said "I can't see a scenario where the Rams stay in St. Louis". Either he has no idea....or he learned some new info at the owners meeting. Since it's Canfora, I'm going to go with him just covering both sides.

 

[blue4]

You can make that assumption but I would bet he builds a stadium first. It makes them much more valuable to sell if a new stadium comes with it, wherever that stadium is.

That is something that we will probably never know until it happens.

 

[blue4]

On February 1, 2013, the arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams' $700 million proposal to tear down half the Dome and replace it as the only way to bring the Dome up to first tier status. That was just over 2 years ago. The current task force announced their plans this February, about 2 years after the decision, but clearly they had begun work on it months earlier. That means the task force got started in earnest within 12-18 months of the arbitration decision...hardly foot dragging by NFL precedent.

Are you really making the case that St. Louis should had been faster to respond than San Francisco, Minneapolis/St. Paul, Atlanta and Oakland and San Diego? Because if THAT is the basis for deciding whether a market is pro-active enough St. Louis wins that argument in a landslide. No one else, EVER, has responded faster (or in a newer facility) than St. Louis and its not even close. Go look up how long those other markets hemmed and hawed with the teams....SF, Minn? At least 15 years... SD? 15+ years and counting... Oak? They were promised a new stadium 20 years ago and are now being slapped around like Little Orphan Annie... Pity the poor Rams having to wait a whopping 12-18 months, and in a structurally sound, 20-year old venue at that!

This idea, patently false and maliciously rolled around, that St. Louis was in any way shape or form "slow" to respond is ludicrous and does not hold water.

I would like this post more than once, but I can't.

 

[Goose]

So which is it Mr. Canfora. Not too long ago he said "I can't see a scenario where the Rams stay in St. Louis". Either he has no idea....or he learned some new info at the owners meeting. Since it's Canfora, I'm going to go with him just covering both sides.

Yeah I am not putting to much stock in the report but it just shows you how much information/misinformation is out there. Not to long ago he was positive the Rams were gone. Now not so much.