101, 1/26 … Albert Breer on re-location (re-location thread)

NFL
Find this article at:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return
Rams owner’s stadium plan pushes NFL closer to L.A. return

By Albert Breer
NFL Media reporter
Published: Jan. 26, 2015 at 04:00 p.m. Updated: Jan. 27, 2015 at 09:23 a.m.

After two decades away, the NFL is closer than it has ever been to returning to Los Angeles.

And after so many false starts since the Raiders and Rams bolted at the end of the 1994 season, one league source said, “We’re beginning to see the goal line.”

The early January announcement that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is planning an extravagant Inglewood stadium sent shockwaves through NFL circles, but — according to those with direct knowledge of the proceedings — was met with quiet applause at the league office, which has been waiting for a powerful plan like this one to get behind. And despite St. Louis and Missouri officials responding quickly with their own stadium vision, the momentum here has very clearly shifted west.

The bottom line is, this L.A. proposal is not like its predecessors. It’s the first led by a team owner, blowing up the league’s long-held belief that juggling the task of running a team with managing such a project in the nation’s second biggest city would be too big a burden. It’s on the largest plot of land of any of the proposed L.A. sites. It’s in a more desirable end of the region. It’s to be privately funded by a man who can afford it.

It’s not done, of course. But the idea that the Rams could be playing at the Rose Bowl, L.A. Coliseum or Dodger Stadium in 2016 and 2017 and in Kroenke’s new Southern California football palace in 2018 is not at all far-fetched. In fact, it’s trending toward becoming a likelihood.

“It’s a bold move by Stan,” said one source who has worked with the league on Los Angeles. “Whether it results in a stadium at the site billed by the parties, whether it’s the Rams going in, or a different team, or two teams, that much we don’t know.”

There is more certainty here than meets the eye, though.

According to two involved sources, the Rams presented the project to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell before the December owners meetings in Dallas. As it worked out, that was as Goodell and the league were getting the new personal conduct policy ready for voting. And the plan had always been for the commissioner to turn more attention to L.A. once the policy was done. Suffice it to say, Kroenke gave him plenty to chew on.

Two big steps are expected this week. The Rams will provide notice to St. Louis that they’re going year-to-year on their lease before Wednesday’s deadline to do so. And they’ll likely turn in to the city of Inglewood the 8,500 signatures necessary to set up a public vote, which will most likely take place in the spring, to re-zone the land where the stadium will be built. According to a source, the team already has the signatures in hand. UPDATE: The team informed the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission on Monday about its decision to change the lease to year-to-year. Also on Monday, per a source, 20,000-plus signatures were delivered to Inglewood in support of bringing the matter to a vote.

The 60-acre plot Kroenke bought in January 2014 is approved for a stadium, but the adjacent 238-acre area owned by the Stockbridge Capital Group isn’t. Once all 298 acres are zoned properly, shovels can break ground.

And therein lies the other difference in Inglewood: the size of the area where the stadium would go up. By comparison, the NFL’s largest physical structure, Cowboys Stadium, sits on a plot of just 73 acres.

NFL officials deferred comment on the recent developments to the Rams, who declined to discuss their plans. But no matter how you chop all this up and put it together, St. Louis is on the clock. A St. Louis stadium task force presented its plan to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon earlier this month. It included the dream of an open-air, 64,000-seat stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River that could also potentially be home to a Major League Soccer franchise.

Two things need to happen for that stadium — which, on paper, isn’t as modern as projects in Minneapolis or Atlanta, though that could certainly change — to go forward, and neither step will be simple. First, the land needs to be acquired. Second, financing needs to be secured, with the expectation being that it’ll be a 40-60 public-private split. It’s unclear at this point if it’ll take a vote to get there.

How that plays out will determine whether or not the club meets the league’s relocation guidelines, which call for a team to demonstrate that the existing market has failed. If the financing includes an eventual public contribution, that will make it tougher for the Rams to qualify for relocation, but if the St. Louis plan does not end up including much public money, that could grease the skids for a move. In any case, the Rams have been less successful than the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders when it comes to demonstrating that their market has failed.

But all of that might not matter. Remember, the league has a huge interest in making Los Angeles work, one way or another, and this project seems to meet the right-team, right-owner, right-stadium threshold.

The way it’s been laid out to the clubs, the league wants the L.A. stadium to be an iconic venue that’s a sports and entertainment destination. This vast property would satisfy that, with a number of projects expected to pop up on the periphery within the grounds around the team’s home, creating a West Coast headquarters of sorts for the league.

Kroenke is also amenable to the idea of having a second team as part of the project, according to a source, which would help the NFL make the most of the effort.

At the very least, Kroenke’s bombshell accelerated the L.A. timeline and put pressure on a number of entities with an interest in the market — on the cities of Los Angeles (proper) and Carson to push their projects forward, on the cities of Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis to ramp up efforts to keep their own teams, and on the Raiders and Chargers to figure out their futures. The movement on the St. Louis stadium effort is proof positive of that.

The NFL does still have some control here. Three-quarters of the owners must vote to approve the move, as is required in the bylaws for relocation, and some league waivers and funding likely would be needed to make the project right. Also, Kroenke still hasn’t satisfied the league’s cross-ownership rules by divesting himself of the NBA’s Denver Nuggets and NHL’s Colorado Avalanche, something he has until the end of the calendar year to do.

But what’s really important here is much simpler than that: The powers that be on Park Avenue have been waiting a long time for the right roadmap to get back to L.A.

It seems like Kroenke gave it to them.

And if they see it like that, it’s unlikely anything will stand in the way.

Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

Zooey wrote:

NFL
Find this article at:

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000463601/article/rams-owners-stadium-plan-pushes-nfl-closer-to-la-return

Rams owner’s stadium plan pushes NFL closer to L.A. return

By Albert Breer
NFL Media reporter
Published: Jan. 26, 2015 at 04:00 p.m. Updated: Jan. 27, 2015 at 09:23 a.m.

After two decades away, the NFL is closer than it has ever been to returning to Los Angeles.

And after so many false starts since the Raiders and Rams bolted at the end of the 1994 season, one league source said, “We’re beginning to see the goal line.”

The early January announcement that Rams owner Stan Kroenke is planning an extravagant Inglewood stadium sent shockwaves through NFL circles, but — according to those with direct knowledge of the proceedings — was met with quiet applause at the league office, which has been waiting for a powerful plan like this one to get behind. And despite St. Louis and Missouri officials responding quickly with their own stadium vision, the momentum here has very clearly shifted west.

The bottom line is, this L.A. proposal is not like its predecessors. It’s the first led by a team owner, blowing up the league’s long-held belief that juggling the task of running a team with managing such a project in the nation’s second biggest city would be too big a burden. It’s on the largest plot of land of any of the proposed L.A. sites. It’s in a more desirable end of the region. It’s to be privately funded by a man who can afford it.

It’s not done, of course. But the idea that the Rams could be playing at the Rose Bowl, L.A. Coliseum or Dodger Stadium in 2016 and 2017 and in Kroenke’s new Southern California football palace in 2018 is not at all far-fetched. In fact, it’s trending toward becoming a likelihood.

“It’s a bold move by Stan,” said one source who has worked with the league on Los Angeles. “Whether it results in a stadium at the site billed by the parties, whether it’s the Rams going in, or a different team, or two teams, that much we don’t know.”

There is more certainty here than meets the eye, though.

According to two involved sources, the Rams presented the project to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell before the December owners meetings in Dallas. As it worked out, that was as Goodell and the league were getting the new personal conduct policy ready for voting. And the plan had always been for the commissioner to turn more attention to L.A. once the policy was done. Suffice it to say, Kroenke gave him plenty to chew on.

Two big steps are expected this week. The Rams will provide notice to St. Louis that they’re going year-to-year on their lease before Wednesday’s deadline to do so. And they’ll likely turn in to the city of Inglewood the 8,500 signatures necessary to set up a public vote, which will most likely take place in the spring, to re-zone the land where the stadium will be built. According to a source, the team already has the signatures in hand. UPDATE: The team informed the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission on Monday about its decision to change the lease to year-to-year. Also on Monday, per a source, 20,000-plus signatures were delivered to Inglewood in support of bringing the matter to a vote.

The 60-acre plot Kroenke bought in January 2014 is approved for a stadium, but the adjacent 238-acre area owned by the Stockbridge Capital Group isn’t. Once all 298 acres are zoned properly, shovels can break ground.

And therein lies the other difference in Inglewood: the size of the area where the stadium would go up. By comparison, the NFL’s largest physical structure, Cowboys Stadium, sits on a plot of just 73 acres.

NFL officials deferred comment on the recent developments to the Rams, who declined to discuss their plans. But no matter how you chop all this up and put it together, St. Louis is on the clock. A St. Louis stadium task force presented its plan to Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon earlier this month. It included the dream of an open-air, 64,000-seat stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River that could also potentially be home to a Major League Soccer franchise.

Two things need to happen for that stadium — which, on paper, isn’t as modern as projects in Minneapolis or Atlanta, though that could certainly change — to go forward, and neither step will be simple. First, the land needs to be acquired. Second, financing needs to be secured, with the expectation being that it’ll be a 40-60 public-private split. It’s unclear at this point if it’ll take a vote to get there.

How that plays out will determine whether or not the club meets the league’s relocation guidelines, which call for a team to demonstrate that the existing market has failed. If the financing includes an eventual public contribution, that will make it tougher for the Rams to qualify for relocation, but if the St. Louis plan does not end up including much public money, that could grease the skids for a move. In any case, the Rams have been less successful than the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders when it comes to demonstrating that their market has failed.

But all of that might not matter. Remember, the league has a huge interest in making Los Angeles work, one way or another, and this project seems to meet the right-team, right-owner, right-stadium threshold.

The way it’s been laid out to the clubs, the league wants the L.A. stadium to be an iconic venue that’s a sports and entertainment destination. This vast property would satisfy that, with a number of projects expected to pop up on the periphery within the grounds around the team’s home, creating a West Coast headquarters of sorts for the league.

Kroenke is also amenable to the idea of having a second team as part of the project, according to a source, which would help the NFL make the most of the effort.

At the very least, Kroenke’s bombshell accelerated the L.A. timeline and put pressure on a number of entities with an interest in the market — on the cities of Los Angeles (proper) and Carson to push their projects forward, on the cities of Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis to ramp up efforts to keep their own teams, and on the Raiders and Chargers to figure out their futures. The movement on the St. Louis stadium effort is proof positive of that.

The NFL does still have some control here. Three-quarters of the owners must vote to approve the move, as is required in the bylaws for relocation, and some league waivers and funding likely would be needed to make the project right. Also, Kroenke still hasn’t satisfied the league’s cross-ownership rules by divesting himself of the NBA’s Denver Nuggets and NHL’s Colorado Avalanche, something he has until the end of the calendar year to do.

But what’s really important here is much simpler than that: The powers that be on Park Avenue have been waiting a long time for the right roadmap to get back to L.A.

It seems like Kroenke gave it to them.

And if they see it like that, it’s unlikely anything will stand in the way.

Follow Albert Breer on Twitter @AlbertBreer.

What do you think of THAT Format Hell, zn?

Go ahead. Delete it. See if I care.

edit

Wow. Looks like an expensive framing job.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 11 months ago by Zooey.

zn wrote:

Just to be utterly clear. You’re playing around, right? You don’t really have an issue with the format thing? (If you do, it’s fine…speak up!)

Don’t care. Quoting it was merely a convention on my part to state that it was someone else’s property. The link and byline do that, and it’s easier to read. I get it. I’ve always quoted articles, but it’s unnecessary.

3. Peacock isn’t giving up. Hardly. He’s more driven than ever to make the stadium a reality. No matter how many times his efforts are undermined, Peacock will continue to make his case directly to the NFL, and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull the Rams out of St. Louis — if in fact the NFL wants to do that.

The best thing Peacock can do is keep working hard on the stadium project and make it as difficult as possible for the NFL to pull out of this market — if in fact the NFL is inclined to do so.

Fine. I just figure he’s looking beyond the Rams.

If StL plays things right, they’ll likely have a different team in a few years. That has to be the hope.

it’s weird. the nfl definitely doesn’t want to give the impression that they want teams to start moving around, but they want a team in los angeles and kroenke’s plan is probably the best they’ll get in a long while. and at the same time it almost corrects a previous “wrong” in that the league never wanted the rams to move in the first place.

i think somehow. this move gets pushed through. they’ll find a way to make it happen.

Rams to city: We’ll stay for another year …

Rams management sent a letter to regional officials Monday afternoon.

The letter said the team was converting its 30-year lease to an “annual tenancy,” effective April 1 and, “in the absence of intervening events,” extending through March 31, 2016.

The notice, which has long been expected, does two things:
•It allows owner Stan Kroenke to pull the team out of St. Louis as soon as 2016, because the Rams lease will now expire at the end of every season. The original lease was to expire in 2025.
•It also legally binds the Rams to play at the Edward Jones Dome next fall — a point on which many here were uncertain.

By the way, I don’t like this at all. The lame duck year is nasty for all concerned. It hurts the fans in both cities: StL has to endure a really lousy year and the LA fans have to wait one more year. And the players have to play in a dead stadium.

I guess this is the way they had to play it … in their eyes. But fans and team deserve better.

also. breer also talks about how hard it is to establish a team in los angeles. to develop loyalty among the fan base.

the rams have history there. i think it’ll be easier than most teams to relocate to los angeles. the only exception being the raiders.

Well, the news in the Breer story is that there are NFL people applauding the Kroenke plan, insinuating that the move to L.A. from STL has support from important people with pull. Then, Breer says the Rams will do 2 things — tell STL they’re going year-to-year on the lease and presenting signatures to put a rezoning issue on the ballot for the L.A. area stadium. And, that happens right on queue.

Let’s just say all signs point to the Rams moving. And, no signs point to them staying here.

Zooey wrote:

Well, the news in the Breer story is that there are NFL people applauding the Kroenke plan, insinuating that the move to L.A. from STL has support from important people with pull. Then, Breer says the Rams will do 2 things — tell STL they’re going year-to-year on the lease and presenting signatures to put a rezoning issue on the ballot for the L.A. area stadium. And, that happens right on queue.

Let’s just say all signs point to the Rams moving. And, no signs point to them staying here.

We knew the Rams were going year-to-year, and we knew they were going to go for re-zoning. That’s a given. Even if the Rams are completely bluffing, they would do that.

You’re right, though. The closest thing to anybody applying the brakes is Spanos, and I don’t think that’s enough without something from the NFL offices. And while they are going through the process, there is certainly nothing like a warning, or strong language of any kind suggesting there could be any contention behind the closed doors.

But if I’m St. Louis…my biggest concern is the fact that the Peacock deal is based on property that they do not own. Even if it is smooth sailing to acquire all the land rights, they are way behind. The shovels can hit the dirt in Los Angeles before St. Louis even has the property squared away, and if a shovel hits the ground, it is completely over.

We did know about the lease thing and the rezoning thing, but they took place at the exact time the author said it would, which just adds authenticity to the report.

The property in question in St. Louis is pretty crappy, so I think the sellers will be willing to listen. But, it’s true that STL is way behind, and why wouldn’t they be? SK was busy putting together property in LA, not in STL. He could have done it here, if that’s what he wanted.

Have to hand it to SK. He sure played the situation as best he could. He’s a double-crosser, because all along he had his minions saying that the Rams were committed to STL, when in fact he was looking to the West Coast all along.

zn wrote:

>Zooey wrote:

60 degrees here, and it hasn’t rained in 2015.

So, we’re comparing a relatively challenging blizzard to drought.

Interestingly, when I lived in California, I missed winter.

This next pic is real btw. My oldest daughter took it today (Tuesday rather) from her apt. window:

The drought is actually going to be a big deal this summer. We’ve gone a few years with subnormal snow. The bottom picture is a more accurate level of where we are right about now because we had some rain in November and December (I drove past the lake a month ago, and it’s more like the last picture). But we is in for some trouble in Cali.