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
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
Come on Boffo. Every statement the league has made has spoken of the bylaws. They've said that he has to take it to a vote of the owners before he can move.
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
It'll go to a vote, that's not the issues, the issues would be more about if the NFL determines the bylaws were met or not. Since they're all subjective, they can just go "Yeah, he met the bylaws" and vote yes, even though from the outside perspective people may not agree. Most likely if there's a move St Louis fans wont agree that the bylaws were met in terms of exhausting all options, etc, but as long as the owners say so it doesn't matter.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
So you're just referencing the "negotiating in good faith" part?
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
That or exhausting all options, etc. Ultimately it's up to the owners to determine if Stan did enough to move, so while the bylaws may say that he can't move without X, Y, Z, if the owners all decide he's good to go, then he's good to go. There wont be much anyone can do, it's not about meeting the bylaws, it's about doing a better job to sway the rest of owners than Stan does.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
That's true. Some of these owners are loyal to their host cities though. I can see many more no votes coming in if we make the playoffs in 2015. It'd be hard to rip a playoff team away from a city.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
They can SAY anything they want now. I think the article I posted earlier made a very good point in that Kroenke's already in violation of the bylaws (specifically cross-ownership) and it's resulting in nothing happening.
If the NFL tried to block the move, Stan would sue and going by past precedent most likely win. I don't see the NFL even trying. St. Louis' better bet IMO is to try to entice Stan into staying. and I think that's going to take more than a stadium that he has to put hundreds of millions into.
Last edited:
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/st...-plans-along-could-determine-rams-fate-020215
How fast St. Louis can move new stadium plans along could determine Rams' fate
Luke Thompson
FOX Sports Midwest
FEB 02, 2015 7:18p ET
ST. LOUIS -- It's still far too early to tell where the Rams will play in 2016, but lately more and more signs are pointing to Los Angeles.
St. Louis made a strong play earlier this month when a group headed by Dave Peacock and Robert Blitz announced plans for a 64,000-seat riverfront stadium at a cost of nearly $1 billion. NFL officials appear to be interested in the idea and Peacock insisted the necessary funds and land could be acquired.
But since then, some guarded comments from league officials have indicated they're not quite convinced the ambitious proposal will work to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Meanwhile, momentum continues to grow for Rams owner Stan Kroenke's plans for a stadium in Los Angeles on land his ownership group purchased in Hollywood Park.
Much of the recent news wasn't surprising and merely confirmed what was already suspected or known, such as NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman's assertions that St. Louis must get a new stadium and Kroenke is indeed looking elsewhere. The Los Angeles Times also reported the new stadium project easily got enough signatures to be put to a vote as early as this summer, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted the Rams officially converted to a year-to-year lease with the Edward Jones Dome.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the situation in his annual state of the league address, claiming he wants every team to stay in its current city. But that reassurance came with some critical qualifications, and he singled out St. Louis as a city with which the league wants to work while noting Kroenke has been making efforts for quite some time.
That could mean he's close to ready to give the Rams' reclusive owner credit for following league rules and exhausting all possible alternatives before applying for relocation. It's impossible to know exactly what Kroenke is thinking, although a recent Los Angeles Times article cites many of his friends in claiming the decisions to buy land and develop a new stadium proposal in the city are not a bluff to gain leverage with St. Louis.
Add it all up, and focus must be turned back to Peacock's riverfront stadium, which he said could be ready for football by the 2020 season. Moving the project along at a remarkable speed has always been part of the plan, and it may be the only way St. Louis can persuade the Rams to stay.
But many valid questions are already being asked about the funding, and few clear answers have been provided. Peacock's plan calls for around half the costs to be covered by Kroenke and the NFL, through its G4 program, but even that can hardly be considered a certainty.
The rest would come from a mix of private and public financing, most notably an extension of the existing Edward Jones Dome bonds. The state currently pays $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep, but some Missouri legislators have voiced concerns about continued spending.
House Speaker John Diehl questioned Gov. Jay Nixon's ability to make such a decision without consent from the General Assembly, and other Republicans even went so far as to threaten litigation. Public support seems far from guaranteed, meaning the faster St. Louis can see a more specific plan, the better.
Even removing old businesses from the blighted area designated for the stadium doesn't appear to be a slam dunk, although Peacock deserves the benefit of the doubt when he insists it can be done. The hiring of consultants to take a closer look at stadium development certainly reflects progress, and it should help uncover some more of the twists and turns that await.
Fans shouldn't give up hope or believe in idle speculation that Kroenke has already made up his mind, especially since Goodell and others have repeated the need for 24 of 32 votes to approve any relocation. Despite all of its uncertainties and flaws, St. Louis does still have a much more solid plan than Oakland or San Diego, two other candidates for LA with serious stadium issues of their own.
Much more will be revealed in the coming months, and if St. Louis wants to keep the Rams, it must proceed with speed and caution.
How fast St. Louis can move new stadium plans along could determine Rams' fate
Luke Thompson
FOX Sports Midwest
FEB 02, 2015 7:18p ET
ST. LOUIS -- It's still far too early to tell where the Rams will play in 2016, but lately more and more signs are pointing to Los Angeles.
St. Louis made a strong play earlier this month when a group headed by Dave Peacock and Robert Blitz announced plans for a 64,000-seat riverfront stadium at a cost of nearly $1 billion. NFL officials appear to be interested in the idea and Peacock insisted the necessary funds and land could be acquired.
But since then, some guarded comments from league officials have indicated they're not quite convinced the ambitious proposal will work to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Meanwhile, momentum continues to grow for Rams owner Stan Kroenke's plans for a stadium in Los Angeles on land his ownership group purchased in Hollywood Park.
Much of the recent news wasn't surprising and merely confirmed what was already suspected or known, such as NFL executive vice president Eric Grubman's assertions that St. Louis must get a new stadium and Kroenke is indeed looking elsewhere. The Los Angeles Times also reported the new stadium project easily got enough signatures to be put to a vote as early as this summer, and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch noted the Rams officially converted to a year-to-year lease with the Edward Jones Dome.
NFL commissioner Roger Goodell addressed the situation in his annual state of the league address, claiming he wants every team to stay in its current city. But that reassurance came with some critical qualifications, and he singled out St. Louis as a city with which the league wants to work while noting Kroenke has been making efforts for quite some time.
That could mean he's close to ready to give the Rams' reclusive owner credit for following league rules and exhausting all possible alternatives before applying for relocation. It's impossible to know exactly what Kroenke is thinking, although a recent Los Angeles Times article cites many of his friends in claiming the decisions to buy land and develop a new stadium proposal in the city are not a bluff to gain leverage with St. Louis.
Add it all up, and focus must be turned back to Peacock's riverfront stadium, which he said could be ready for football by the 2020 season. Moving the project along at a remarkable speed has always been part of the plan, and it may be the only way St. Louis can persuade the Rams to stay.
But many valid questions are already being asked about the funding, and few clear answers have been provided. Peacock's plan calls for around half the costs to be covered by Kroenke and the NFL, through its G4 program, but even that can hardly be considered a certainty.
The rest would come from a mix of private and public financing, most notably an extension of the existing Edward Jones Dome bonds. The state currently pays $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep, but some Missouri legislators have voiced concerns about continued spending.
House Speaker John Diehl questioned Gov. Jay Nixon's ability to make such a decision without consent from the General Assembly, and other Republicans even went so far as to threaten litigation. Public support seems far from guaranteed, meaning the faster St. Louis can see a more specific plan, the better.
Even removing old businesses from the blighted area designated for the stadium doesn't appear to be a slam dunk, although Peacock deserves the benefit of the doubt when he insists it can be done. The hiring of consultants to take a closer look at stadium development certainly reflects progress, and it should help uncover some more of the twists and turns that await.
Fans shouldn't give up hope or believe in idle speculation that Kroenke has already made up his mind, especially since Goodell and others have repeated the need for 24 of 32 votes to approve any relocation. Despite all of its uncertainties and flaws, St. Louis does still have a much more solid plan than Oakland or San Diego, two other candidates for LA with serious stadium issues of their own.
Much more will be revealed in the coming months, and if St. Louis wants to keep the Rams, it must proceed with speed and caution.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
What do Rams do for the state? Missouri House committee will analyze that
• By Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_1e3b34fa-4c22-5577-97c3-252cc4933ff7.html
JEFFERSON CITY • As the St. Louis Rams discussion rages on, a Missouri House committee soon will begin analyzing the benefit of having an NFL team in the city.
House Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, announced Wednesday that the Government Oversight and Accountability Committee, headed by Rep. Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, would look at the current stadium's monetary impact on the state.
The ongoing debate over public aid for a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis was punctuated last week by a statement from the Nixon administration that a law passed more than 20 years ago allows them to issue bonds for a new stadium without approval by the Legislature. The law states that Missouri or any agency or department of the state can enter into a contract, agreement or lease to finance or develop a convention or sports facility.
A task force appointed by Nixon recently unveiled a proposal for a 64,000-seat stadium on the Mississippi River. The stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.
To cover much of that cost, the task force — Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock — suggested “extending” payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. Of that, the state pays about $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep.
But Diehl calls all these statements "hypothetical." Before any of those scenarios can be discussed, he said a cost-benefit analysis needs to be conducted to determine if having the Rams in St. Louis is even a good thing for the state.
"How can we say we should or shouldn't until we know what the numbers are?" Diehl said Tuesday.
Barnes' committee will address the following questions:
--How has the existing stadium has directly impacted state revenues on a year-to-year basis?
--What are the state’s existing financial obligations in relation to the current Edward Jones Dome?
--Has the current stadium been a net gain or loss to the state during its nearly 20 years in existence?
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
Not to be a downer or anything, but I really think we should be marketing ourselves to any of the 31 teams. If Stan is allowed to move in 2016 then that means that the bylaws are crap. And if they're crap for Stan, that sets a precedent. I'd really be curious as to how many teams are within 5-10 years of needing a stadium.
Not curious enough to spend the evening looking it up though.
Not curious enough to spend the evening looking it up though.
RamBill
Legend
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2010
- Messages
- 8,874
Is Stan Kroenke being too abrupt with his plans to move the Rams to Los Angeles? ESPN’s Adam Caplan cautions against not considering St. Louis’ stadium plan.
Listen to Caplan Talk Kroenke-LA
Listen to Caplan Talk Kroenke-LA
NateTheRam
Rookie
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Nathan
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
So, Doctor Drew and a bio on what Kroenke owns?
Side note: What's up Ann Walton. You ever dabble in the cougar life?
NateTheRam
Rookie
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2014
- Messages
- 252
- Name
- Nathan
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_76?Page=0
Rams chat with Jim Thomas
2/3/15
Jim--Goodell's comments seemed foreboding. Are you aware of any effort to form a political operation to lobby officials and state lawmakers in favor of the stadium proposal, or to launch a public campaign if it has to come to a vote?
Well, his comments about Stan Kroenke's involvement in trying to solve the stadium situation certainly were. I don't know how you can even intimate _ which Goodell did _ that Kroenke has been engaged in the stadium project here at all. In no way do I think Kroenke currently meets the relocation guidelines. Goodell's comments certainly show there is some wiggle room there as far as he's concerned which to me is disturbing.
----------
Jim given the cost of the Inglewood stadium (Stan's portion at least $750M-1B?), the relocation fee ($1 Billion), and costs to build a new practice facility ($?), isn't the move going to almost a wash. The increase in team value is only theoretical if Kroenke sells the team. He could stay here for the bargain basement price of 250M. And, if he commits and does a little PR, he could be a beloved owner.
Yeah, I can't see how the numbers work. (I'm not saying the relocation fee will be $1 billion. That figure is still kind of murky. But I think it's a fair guess to think it will be at least $500,000 million.) To me all the costs you mention would negate the fact that your franchise in LA would be valued at say $3 billion.
But I think this is as much a prestige thing for Stan as a money maker. I think he'd like the idea of walking into the room at league meetings as an owner of a team in the nation's second-biggest market. I think he likes seeing and being seen with celebrities, and there are certainly more of them in LA than StL. He has a place in Malibu.
--------
can you please the next time you have an opportunity to interview nfl management such as goodell or grubman ask them who owns the rams right now and what are the percentages owned by members of that ownership structure?
if kroenke has or has not completed his purchase from georgia's kids and/or has sold a portion of the team to another investor or other investors, that will give important additional information about his intentions, since he won't talk. st louis fans and st louis voters deserve this important information.
He owns, I believe, at least a 70 percent share of the team. That's controlling interest. And that's all that matters.
--------
from what all the information we have so far what is your prediction of rams moving
I'm still at 45-55.
---------
The news out of San Diego seems worse than the news out of St. Louis. The Chargers don't seem to be holding words back when they describe their distaste for the government there and their lack of faith in the stadium effort. How much do you think the situation there will factor into the Rams leaving or staying? Is it possible NFL owners will be faced with a choice of which franchise to send to LA in 2016?
I think that's certainly a possibility _ that the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams will all want to move there in 2016. That's why Kroenke has moved so aggressively in setting up the Inglewood stadium plan. He wanted to get at the front of the line. But if the Rams moved to LA, the problems in San Diego and Oakland would still be there.
That's why some in the know have said that a least some in the league ideally would like a "California solution" to LA _ which to me would indicate a preference to have either San Diego or Oakland there. San Diego could be a regional team there, similar to the Patriots in New England. And if Oakland relocates, there's still a team in the Bay Area (49es) so the market isn't abandoned.
--------
Jim, isn't the St. Louis stadium contingent on Stan contributing $250 million? I don't see that happening. Without Stan's support I don't see how this can get very far.
That's how every other owner has gotten a new stadium in the NFL, or in some cases they've invested more. Why should Stan be any different. He's gonna have to spend a lot more than that for a new stadium in LA.. So he would be under a lot of pressure from the league, I'd think, to chip in.
---------
If the Rams win the Super Bowl next year (Stranger things have happened), does this help/hurt the odds of them remaining in STL?
Well it might help getting the funding approved.
--------
Things seem to be progressing on the stadium plan. Instead of giving us odds on whether or not the Rams stay, how about your odds of the stadium actually being built?
That's a tough one. It all depends on the financing. So I'm going to stay with 45-55.
--------
Hi Jim
How can Goodell honestly say that Kroenke has been working with St. Louis on the stadium issue?
Every year since he took full ownership he’s done something to alienate the local fan base and let it be known his
Intentions on moving:
1. Stan’s comments that he was committed to keep his teams in Denver, but said nothing about a Rams commitment when he became sole owner.
2. Moving the marquee game of the season (New England) over to London.
3. The 2 billion dollar bid for the Dodgers.
4. After seeing the CVC would spend 100 million dollars for Dome upgrades, he unveils a plan with no dollar amount, tells the CVC to figure it out, then goes to arbitration. Knowing full well that the CVC would reject it based on being 8 times their figure and requiring demolishing the Dome when it is booked years in advance.
5. Buying the property in Inglewood.
6. Releasing 1 image of the Inglewood plan that he says he “WILL” build days before Peacock’s stadium plan is announced.
Has Goodell been informed of these actions over the past 5 years and how can the NFL overlook it and keep any integrity?
My question to you Jim is; what makes you think we still have a 45% chance of keeping the St. Louis Rams?
Yeah, he's not exactly been an ambassador of goodwill as far as St. Louis is concerned. Here's a few comments on some of the points you've made. 1.) He did say prior to being approved as controlling owner that he was a Missouri man and will do everything in his power to keep the Rams here (I'm paraphrasing here.) 2.) Not only New England, remember the original deal was to play a game in London for three consecutive years.
6.) Yeah the pre-emptive strike on the Inglewood plan was a ploy to reinforce the "too little, too late" narrative. And make it look like the St. Louis news was somehow a reaction. . . .Why I put the odds at 45-55 is because I don't think Kroenke has the votes right now; and I don't think Peacock & Blitz are giving up any time soon. They are very determined to see this through. And lastly, Kroenke hasn't come anywhere close to meeting relocation guidelines, IMO.
----------
Stan was in PX for Super Bowl. What are the chances he met up with Peacock? Maybe chat about politics? The weather?
I know Peacock attended the commissioner's party Friday. Don't know if Stan was there. But if he was. . . . ?
--------
Jim, sounds like Randy K and Bernie both have made statements recently to the effect that the STL stadium effort is "further along" than previously thought. Care to elaborate if you know anything?
Well as I reported last night, John Loyd was hired as stadium consultant to oversee design, construction, and cost control. This is a big hire. He has extensive experience w/work in St. Louis (Busch Stadium), Cleveland, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Pittsburgh on his resume. More consultants will be added in the weeks to come. There is work ongoing in terms of the site itself, as well.
---------
Can someone explain to me why the NFL would prefer a relocation fee ($250MM - $1B) over an expansion fee ($2B) in LA? Let alone two expansion fees for two expansion teams?
For one, who says the expansion fee would be $2 billion? Could be less. Significantly less. And for another, the league isn't showing any interest in expansion at this time. Myself personally, I'd like to see a 2-team expansion. One to LA and one to London. Maybe not right away but certainly in the next few years.
--------
What do you make of an old guard owner like Rooney giving comments that seem to be in favor of St. Louis? In my mind this is going to come to a vote, but I am curious how some smaller market owners or core (see: older) owners may not be in favor of this money grab because of the impact it could have in the future and on the image.
Yeah, I think it's the old guard, which is kind of dwindling in numbers these days, that would be against a move. And that's one of the reasons why I don't think Kroenke has the votes at this point.
---------
Heard an interesting perspective that Peacock and Lloyd are likely getting assurances from the NFL to get this built and St. Louis will end up with a team, even if it isn't the Rams. Otherwise they wouldn't risk their time and energy on what appears from the outside like a wasted effort if SK wants to move. Do you share this view?
Don't know about all that. But they have been getting nothing but encouragement from the league, and some advice on how to go about things.
---------
the fact that he owns 70 percent is not all that matters. suppose he's sold 30 percent to rex sinquefield. or andy taylor. or august busch iv. or someone else. interviewing that person would provide important information about the rams future direction.
suppose that the sale was made with the understanding that that person will eventually be majority owner and keep the team here. that matters, too. that gives important information about who is likely to be the face of any public vote or public campaign for or against public funding. the current ownership structure is one of the most important questions remaining unanswered in this discussion. rams fans and voters deserve to know.
I don't think anything like you're suggesting has happened.
----------
Do you know if there's any type of marketing/media apparatus being used by the Peacock group or the CVC to "sell" the St. Louis story to the national media? Getting the word out about an unengaged owner and a fan base that has stayed committed, might play well to the uninformed national media and put some heat on the league and force (from a PR standpoint) Kronke to engage in St. Louis.
The Rams have hired some PR help, but I don't think their ploy is to go "negative" on Stan.
----------
How do you think JJ would react if Stan decided he was moving to Ft. Worth next year? I have a feeling he may have a different stance on owners being free to move wherever they want. Have to believe some owners wonder what kind of slope this could be heading down.
That's a very good point, and the league feels the same way. That's why they want Stan Kroenke to follow league guidelines and not go rogue.
---------
Was wondering about this thought tossed out. What if Kroenke sells the Rams to a group committed in STL and buys the Raiders (since they really need a stadium badly and cash flow that Kroenke has). Considering Davis needs to sell the team eventually, the NFL gets a team in LA; new stadium in STL, everybody wins. (Except Oakland.)
A little far-fetched but still interesting
----------
I don't think the Rams move, but I'll report, I passed Hollywood Park the other day, they're digging in Inglewood....
So I've heard. But that could be for other aspects of the project.
---------
I see the oakland thing as more of a problem with the NFL that STL. The raiders still share a stadium with the a's. Dont think the raiders want share a stadium with the niners and vise-versa. Would think the city would prefer a team that plays 81 times a year to just 8. So any info on whats going on in oakland with the raiders? Thanks
There's no doubt the situation is more dire in Oakland.
-----------
So if the Rams move then the Jacksonville Jaguars move to St. Louis Right??
Once again, I tell you, Jax to St. Louis in the near future isn't happening. Shad Khan committed to try and make it work in Jacksonville.
----------
Do you believe the NFL truly wants two teams in L.A?
I think ideally, that would be the plan. But as former longtime Raiders exec Amy Trask has pointed out, maybe the league should make sure that one team is supported in that market before they go to two squads.
----------
I watched a pregame piece on SB security and they had a 12 hour no fly zone over the stadium, so do you think they'll shut down LAX for 12 hours to have the SB at StanWorld?
A very interesting question. Which is why Kroenke reportedly has hired an aviation consultant to look into that.
---------
Do you think there is behind the scenes negotiations going on to have an NFL team here when the rams leave. Oakland, San Diego, Expansion team
Don't think it's gotten that far at this point.
----------
If Stan is forced to stay in St. Louis, and the new building is built, do u think he will sell the team. Can't imagine he will ever be well liked here after everything he put the city through and Stan strikes me as someone who won't put up with that sort of shot to his hubris.
Well, Stan isn't here that much anyway. So I don't think it really matters if he's well-liked or not. When does he run into fans, or talk to the media here for that matter.
----------
How do you see the Kroenke/Peacock chess game playing out in 2015? Do you think that we will have a clearer picture about the future of the franchise by the time training camp opens?
Somewhat. But it could take longer.
---------
Will Peacock & Company address the public on updates regarding the stadium?
They've been pretty transparent so far. We're only 2 1/2 weeks removed from the original announcement of the StL stadium plan so I'd think we'd here something from them at some point. They did send out a press release today on the hiring of stadium consultant John Loyd to oversee the St. Louis project.
---------
I think you or someone on the sports staff there a t the PD could do a great service to us PSL and club seat holders who have stayed with the Rams from the start by researching and writing an article on what responsibility if any the Rams have to pay the PSL holders if they leave St Louis. What do you think?
There will be something on that in the future, exactly when I can't tell you.
---------
The rams made a counter proposal to updating the dome which included a retractable roof. Wouldn't it of been more attractable to Rams if a retractable roof was part of the new stadium's plan?
The counter-proposal was way short (laughably short) dollar-wise of what would have been considered a serious offer. A retractable roof would have added even more dollars..
---------
Further to my over-complicating point, how will Kroenke satisfy cross-ownership short of selling either the Rams or the Denver franchises?
You're right on this. Unless the league bends the rules once again on cross-ownership.
---------
i was reading Bernies article about Faulk comments about the team and owner. I laugh at Bernies little rant against faulk.... st louis signed the contract to the dome and have known about the contract and did nothing till the last minute only after the ruling came out that st louis was in the wrong... dang... what a surprise they have to honor there part of the deal...
Ive been a ram fan for 45 years and haven't missed a game on tv since 1997. Hate to see them move but business is business and st louis did business poorly.... thanks for the chats and keeping us up on things.. we all appreciate it
One, you have to go through the arbitration process. Two, Peacock has been working on this behind the scenes for well over a year. Three, LA has done next to nothing for 20 years to get a stadium. Four, San Diego has been at it for 15 years. I could go on. So you're telling me St. Louis gets a year, a year and a half to meet Stan Kroenke's schedule? Not the league's schedule. But Stan Kroenke's? Sorry. No sale. Obviously, Faulk's entitled to his opinion, but he should stick to his area of expertise: the game of football.
----------
It would seem to me if the NFL took exception to SK moving the Rams, that the language coming out of the NFL Office would be a lot stronger. More like they're resigned to the fact it's a done deal than anything.
Well, they have said a lot of stuff about the importance of keeping teams in their home market and the importance of following the relocation guidelines. I also think Goodell wasn't going to call out an owner (Kroenke) in that kind of setting.
Rams chat with Jim Thomas
2/3/15
Jim--Goodell's comments seemed foreboding. Are you aware of any effort to form a political operation to lobby officials and state lawmakers in favor of the stadium proposal, or to launch a public campaign if it has to come to a vote?
Well, his comments about Stan Kroenke's involvement in trying to solve the stadium situation certainly were. I don't know how you can even intimate _ which Goodell did _ that Kroenke has been engaged in the stadium project here at all. In no way do I think Kroenke currently meets the relocation guidelines. Goodell's comments certainly show there is some wiggle room there as far as he's concerned which to me is disturbing.
----------
Jim given the cost of the Inglewood stadium (Stan's portion at least $750M-1B?), the relocation fee ($1 Billion), and costs to build a new practice facility ($?), isn't the move going to almost a wash. The increase in team value is only theoretical if Kroenke sells the team. He could stay here for the bargain basement price of 250M. And, if he commits and does a little PR, he could be a beloved owner.
Yeah, I can't see how the numbers work. (I'm not saying the relocation fee will be $1 billion. That figure is still kind of murky. But I think it's a fair guess to think it will be at least $500,000 million.) To me all the costs you mention would negate the fact that your franchise in LA would be valued at say $3 billion.
But I think this is as much a prestige thing for Stan as a money maker. I think he'd like the idea of walking into the room at league meetings as an owner of a team in the nation's second-biggest market. I think he likes seeing and being seen with celebrities, and there are certainly more of them in LA than StL. He has a place in Malibu.
--------
can you please the next time you have an opportunity to interview nfl management such as goodell or grubman ask them who owns the rams right now and what are the percentages owned by members of that ownership structure?
if kroenke has or has not completed his purchase from georgia's kids and/or has sold a portion of the team to another investor or other investors, that will give important additional information about his intentions, since he won't talk. st louis fans and st louis voters deserve this important information.
He owns, I believe, at least a 70 percent share of the team. That's controlling interest. And that's all that matters.
--------
from what all the information we have so far what is your prediction of rams moving
I'm still at 45-55.
---------
The news out of San Diego seems worse than the news out of St. Louis. The Chargers don't seem to be holding words back when they describe their distaste for the government there and their lack of faith in the stadium effort. How much do you think the situation there will factor into the Rams leaving or staying? Is it possible NFL owners will be faced with a choice of which franchise to send to LA in 2016?
I think that's certainly a possibility _ that the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams will all want to move there in 2016. That's why Kroenke has moved so aggressively in setting up the Inglewood stadium plan. He wanted to get at the front of the line. But if the Rams moved to LA, the problems in San Diego and Oakland would still be there.
That's why some in the know have said that a least some in the league ideally would like a "California solution" to LA _ which to me would indicate a preference to have either San Diego or Oakland there. San Diego could be a regional team there, similar to the Patriots in New England. And if Oakland relocates, there's still a team in the Bay Area (49es) so the market isn't abandoned.
--------
Jim, isn't the St. Louis stadium contingent on Stan contributing $250 million? I don't see that happening. Without Stan's support I don't see how this can get very far.
That's how every other owner has gotten a new stadium in the NFL, or in some cases they've invested more. Why should Stan be any different. He's gonna have to spend a lot more than that for a new stadium in LA.. So he would be under a lot of pressure from the league, I'd think, to chip in.
---------
If the Rams win the Super Bowl next year (Stranger things have happened), does this help/hurt the odds of them remaining in STL?
Well it might help getting the funding approved.
--------
Things seem to be progressing on the stadium plan. Instead of giving us odds on whether or not the Rams stay, how about your odds of the stadium actually being built?
That's a tough one. It all depends on the financing. So I'm going to stay with 45-55.
--------
Hi Jim
How can Goodell honestly say that Kroenke has been working with St. Louis on the stadium issue?
Every year since he took full ownership he’s done something to alienate the local fan base and let it be known his
Intentions on moving:
1. Stan’s comments that he was committed to keep his teams in Denver, but said nothing about a Rams commitment when he became sole owner.
2. Moving the marquee game of the season (New England) over to London.
3. The 2 billion dollar bid for the Dodgers.
4. After seeing the CVC would spend 100 million dollars for Dome upgrades, he unveils a plan with no dollar amount, tells the CVC to figure it out, then goes to arbitration. Knowing full well that the CVC would reject it based on being 8 times their figure and requiring demolishing the Dome when it is booked years in advance.
5. Buying the property in Inglewood.
6. Releasing 1 image of the Inglewood plan that he says he “WILL” build days before Peacock’s stadium plan is announced.
Has Goodell been informed of these actions over the past 5 years and how can the NFL overlook it and keep any integrity?
My question to you Jim is; what makes you think we still have a 45% chance of keeping the St. Louis Rams?
Yeah, he's not exactly been an ambassador of goodwill as far as St. Louis is concerned. Here's a few comments on some of the points you've made. 1.) He did say prior to being approved as controlling owner that he was a Missouri man and will do everything in his power to keep the Rams here (I'm paraphrasing here.) 2.) Not only New England, remember the original deal was to play a game in London for three consecutive years.
6.) Yeah the pre-emptive strike on the Inglewood plan was a ploy to reinforce the "too little, too late" narrative. And make it look like the St. Louis news was somehow a reaction. . . .Why I put the odds at 45-55 is because I don't think Kroenke has the votes right now; and I don't think Peacock & Blitz are giving up any time soon. They are very determined to see this through. And lastly, Kroenke hasn't come anywhere close to meeting relocation guidelines, IMO.
----------
Stan was in PX for Super Bowl. What are the chances he met up with Peacock? Maybe chat about politics? The weather?
I know Peacock attended the commissioner's party Friday. Don't know if Stan was there. But if he was. . . . ?
--------
Jim, sounds like Randy K and Bernie both have made statements recently to the effect that the STL stadium effort is "further along" than previously thought. Care to elaborate if you know anything?
Well as I reported last night, John Loyd was hired as stadium consultant to oversee design, construction, and cost control. This is a big hire. He has extensive experience w/work in St. Louis (Busch Stadium), Cleveland, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Pittsburgh on his resume. More consultants will be added in the weeks to come. There is work ongoing in terms of the site itself, as well.
---------
Can someone explain to me why the NFL would prefer a relocation fee ($250MM - $1B) over an expansion fee ($2B) in LA? Let alone two expansion fees for two expansion teams?
For one, who says the expansion fee would be $2 billion? Could be less. Significantly less. And for another, the league isn't showing any interest in expansion at this time. Myself personally, I'd like to see a 2-team expansion. One to LA and one to London. Maybe not right away but certainly in the next few years.
--------
What do you make of an old guard owner like Rooney giving comments that seem to be in favor of St. Louis? In my mind this is going to come to a vote, but I am curious how some smaller market owners or core (see: older) owners may not be in favor of this money grab because of the impact it could have in the future and on the image.
Yeah, I think it's the old guard, which is kind of dwindling in numbers these days, that would be against a move. And that's one of the reasons why I don't think Kroenke has the votes at this point.
---------
Heard an interesting perspective that Peacock and Lloyd are likely getting assurances from the NFL to get this built and St. Louis will end up with a team, even if it isn't the Rams. Otherwise they wouldn't risk their time and energy on what appears from the outside like a wasted effort if SK wants to move. Do you share this view?
Don't know about all that. But they have been getting nothing but encouragement from the league, and some advice on how to go about things.
---------
the fact that he owns 70 percent is not all that matters. suppose he's sold 30 percent to rex sinquefield. or andy taylor. or august busch iv. or someone else. interviewing that person would provide important information about the rams future direction.
suppose that the sale was made with the understanding that that person will eventually be majority owner and keep the team here. that matters, too. that gives important information about who is likely to be the face of any public vote or public campaign for or against public funding. the current ownership structure is one of the most important questions remaining unanswered in this discussion. rams fans and voters deserve to know.
I don't think anything like you're suggesting has happened.
----------
Do you know if there's any type of marketing/media apparatus being used by the Peacock group or the CVC to "sell" the St. Louis story to the national media? Getting the word out about an unengaged owner and a fan base that has stayed committed, might play well to the uninformed national media and put some heat on the league and force (from a PR standpoint) Kronke to engage in St. Louis.
The Rams have hired some PR help, but I don't think their ploy is to go "negative" on Stan.
----------
How do you think JJ would react if Stan decided he was moving to Ft. Worth next year? I have a feeling he may have a different stance on owners being free to move wherever they want. Have to believe some owners wonder what kind of slope this could be heading down.
That's a very good point, and the league feels the same way. That's why they want Stan Kroenke to follow league guidelines and not go rogue.
---------
Was wondering about this thought tossed out. What if Kroenke sells the Rams to a group committed in STL and buys the Raiders (since they really need a stadium badly and cash flow that Kroenke has). Considering Davis needs to sell the team eventually, the NFL gets a team in LA; new stadium in STL, everybody wins. (Except Oakland.)
A little far-fetched but still interesting
----------
I don't think the Rams move, but I'll report, I passed Hollywood Park the other day, they're digging in Inglewood....
So I've heard. But that could be for other aspects of the project.
---------
I see the oakland thing as more of a problem with the NFL that STL. The raiders still share a stadium with the a's. Dont think the raiders want share a stadium with the niners and vise-versa. Would think the city would prefer a team that plays 81 times a year to just 8. So any info on whats going on in oakland with the raiders? Thanks
There's no doubt the situation is more dire in Oakland.
-----------
So if the Rams move then the Jacksonville Jaguars move to St. Louis Right??
Once again, I tell you, Jax to St. Louis in the near future isn't happening. Shad Khan committed to try and make it work in Jacksonville.
----------
Do you believe the NFL truly wants two teams in L.A?
I think ideally, that would be the plan. But as former longtime Raiders exec Amy Trask has pointed out, maybe the league should make sure that one team is supported in that market before they go to two squads.
----------
I watched a pregame piece on SB security and they had a 12 hour no fly zone over the stadium, so do you think they'll shut down LAX for 12 hours to have the SB at StanWorld?
A very interesting question. Which is why Kroenke reportedly has hired an aviation consultant to look into that.
---------
Do you think there is behind the scenes negotiations going on to have an NFL team here when the rams leave. Oakland, San Diego, Expansion team
Don't think it's gotten that far at this point.
----------
If Stan is forced to stay in St. Louis, and the new building is built, do u think he will sell the team. Can't imagine he will ever be well liked here after everything he put the city through and Stan strikes me as someone who won't put up with that sort of shot to his hubris.
Well, Stan isn't here that much anyway. So I don't think it really matters if he's well-liked or not. When does he run into fans, or talk to the media here for that matter.
----------
How do you see the Kroenke/Peacock chess game playing out in 2015? Do you think that we will have a clearer picture about the future of the franchise by the time training camp opens?
Somewhat. But it could take longer.
---------
Will Peacock & Company address the public on updates regarding the stadium?
They've been pretty transparent so far. We're only 2 1/2 weeks removed from the original announcement of the StL stadium plan so I'd think we'd here something from them at some point. They did send out a press release today on the hiring of stadium consultant John Loyd to oversee the St. Louis project.
---------
I think you or someone on the sports staff there a t the PD could do a great service to us PSL and club seat holders who have stayed with the Rams from the start by researching and writing an article on what responsibility if any the Rams have to pay the PSL holders if they leave St Louis. What do you think?
There will be something on that in the future, exactly when I can't tell you.
---------
The rams made a counter proposal to updating the dome which included a retractable roof. Wouldn't it of been more attractable to Rams if a retractable roof was part of the new stadium's plan?
The counter-proposal was way short (laughably short) dollar-wise of what would have been considered a serious offer. A retractable roof would have added even more dollars..
---------
Further to my over-complicating point, how will Kroenke satisfy cross-ownership short of selling either the Rams or the Denver franchises?
You're right on this. Unless the league bends the rules once again on cross-ownership.
---------
i was reading Bernies article about Faulk comments about the team and owner. I laugh at Bernies little rant against faulk.... st louis signed the contract to the dome and have known about the contract and did nothing till the last minute only after the ruling came out that st louis was in the wrong... dang... what a surprise they have to honor there part of the deal...
Ive been a ram fan for 45 years and haven't missed a game on tv since 1997. Hate to see them move but business is business and st louis did business poorly.... thanks for the chats and keeping us up on things.. we all appreciate it
One, you have to go through the arbitration process. Two, Peacock has been working on this behind the scenes for well over a year. Three, LA has done next to nothing for 20 years to get a stadium. Four, San Diego has been at it for 15 years. I could go on. So you're telling me St. Louis gets a year, a year and a half to meet Stan Kroenke's schedule? Not the league's schedule. But Stan Kroenke's? Sorry. No sale. Obviously, Faulk's entitled to his opinion, but he should stick to his area of expertise: the game of football.
----------
It would seem to me if the NFL took exception to SK moving the Rams, that the language coming out of the NFL Office would be a lot stronger. More like they're resigned to the fact it's a done deal than anything.
Well, they have said a lot of stuff about the importance of keeping teams in their home market and the importance of following the relocation guidelines. I also think Goodell wasn't going to call out an owner (Kroenke) in that kind of setting.
LesBaker
Mr. Savant
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2012
- Messages
- 17,460
- Name
- Les
Thanks for the explanation. I don't multi-task or multi-anything well, but then I'm sure you've figured that out by now.
In other words you're useless in a menage a trios as I have always suspected.
Boffo97
Still legal in 17 states!
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2014
- Messages
- 5,278
- Name
- Dave
Weirdest wrinkle to this whole story yet!
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/02/obama-budget-would-limit-public-financing-for.html
Obama budget would limit public financing for stadiums
Brian Feldt
Reporter- St. Louis Business Journal
President Barack Obama's fiscal 2016 budget, which he introduced Monday, includes language that would eliminate tax-exempt governmental bond financing of sports facilities for professional teams.
The move would raise $542 million through 2025, the Obama administration said, and would be effective for bonds issued after 2015. It's not clear if that would apply to bond extensions, a main source of public financing St. Louis officials are hoping to use to pay for a new $900 million NFL stadium along the north Mississippi River in an effort to keep the St. Louis Rams from moving to Los Angeles.
Public financing would pay for half of the proposed stadium costs, according to a plan unveiled last month by a task force assembled by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.
That money would could come from extending the current bonds on the Edward Jones Dome, which would provide between $300 million and $350 million; Brownfield tax credits of between $25 million and $30 million; Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits of between $15 million and $20 million; and private seat license proceeds, which could account for up to $130 million.
Obama's proposal would kill language in the law that lets governments use proceeds from tax-exempt bonds for private activities if less than 10 percent of the debt service comes from a private business. Instead, governments would only be able to use proceeds from those bonds if more than 10 percent of the use of the facility is attributed to a private interest.
More on the proposal to eliminate tax benefits that make it easier for cities to raise money for new sports facilities can be found on Politico. As the website notes, Obama's proposal is not likely to become law, but could fuel discussion on whether stadiums should be funded by taxpayers.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/02/obama-budget-would-limit-public-financing-for.html
Obama budget would limit public financing for stadiums
Brian Feldt
Reporter- St. Louis Business Journal
President Barack Obama's fiscal 2016 budget, which he introduced Monday, includes language that would eliminate tax-exempt governmental bond financing of sports facilities for professional teams.
The move would raise $542 million through 2025, the Obama administration said, and would be effective for bonds issued after 2015. It's not clear if that would apply to bond extensions, a main source of public financing St. Louis officials are hoping to use to pay for a new $900 million NFL stadium along the north Mississippi River in an effort to keep the St. Louis Rams from moving to Los Angeles.
Public financing would pay for half of the proposed stadium costs, according to a plan unveiled last month by a task force assembled by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon.
That money would could come from extending the current bonds on the Edward Jones Dome, which would provide between $300 million and $350 million; Brownfield tax credits of between $25 million and $30 million; Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits of between $15 million and $20 million; and private seat license proceeds, which could account for up to $130 million.
Obama's proposal would kill language in the law that lets governments use proceeds from tax-exempt bonds for private activities if less than 10 percent of the debt service comes from a private business. Instead, governments would only be able to use proceeds from those bonds if more than 10 percent of the use of the facility is attributed to a private interest.
More on the proposal to eliminate tax benefits that make it easier for cities to raise money for new sports facilities can be found on Politico. As the website notes, Obama's proposal is not likely to become law, but could fuel discussion on whether stadiums should be funded by taxpayers.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33,934
- Name
- Stu
Interesting that you have thought about how useful Prime would be in a ménage trois. Where is this stadium thread going anyway?In other words you're useless in a menage a trios as I have always suspected.
And yes Les - I'm stalking you.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2014
- Messages
- 20,922
- Name
- Peter
In other words you're useless in a menage a trios as I have always suspected.
That's what they said. :shades:
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33,934
- Name
- Stu
Wonder how they would come up with this figure.
- Status