Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Back to LA, again
- This topic has 180 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 10 months ago by PA Ram.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 7, 2015 at 11:24 pm #15818ZooeyModerator
Where the hell is MacKeyser?
January 7, 2015 at 11:35 pm #15821InvaderRamModeratori do have to say in the ray rice situation. there was actual physical evidence which could not be ignored and which they did not have any control over. that was the one variable they couldn’t account for. otherwise it remains a secret.
in this instance. they can control the flow of information. the only people who would actually have to be in the know is kroenke, goodell, and some select owners with influence. and no physical evidence to speak of and all just people talking.
i mean the only reason we know kroenke is building a stadium is because he released the information. and all this talk about meetings with the inglewood mayor are just hearsay.
ok. i’m being stupid and suspicious.
January 7, 2015 at 11:53 pm #15822InvaderRamModeratorok. one other thing. does st. louis even want to play with an owner who clearly does not want to stay there?
other owners have threatened to move but always seemed to make an attempt at working out things with the city.
but absolutely nothing from stan. the article below is stuff we’ve already known about. but in other cases where the team ended up staying. were communication lines this broken?
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12133304/city-leaders-say-st-louis-rams-owner-return-our-calls
St. Louis mayor: We’re getting hint
ST. LOUIS — City officials said Wednesday that the owner of the Rams isn’t returning their calls, so they plan to work directly with the NFL on efforts to keep a team — any team — in St. Louis amid speculation the Rams are headed back to Los Angeles.
Rams billionaire owner Stan Kroenke is part of a joint venture that announced plans Monday for an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles suburbs, a move that could soon return the NFL to the nation’s second-largest market and the home of the Rams from 1946 until they moved to St. Louis in 1995. The move would have to wait at least a year; the NFL has said no team moves would be allowed in 2015.
Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon isn’t giving up on the Rams.
“St. Louis is an NFL city,” Nixon said Wednesday. “I don’t think it’s too late to keep the Rams.”
But city leaders are hedging their bets, saying the plan now is to work directly with the NFL, not the Rams. The change in philosophy is due in part to the fact that Kroenke won’t take calls from Mayor Francis Slay or other city leaders, said Maggie Crane, Slay’s spokeswoman.
“He hasn’t responded, he hasn’t called back, he hasn’t done anything,” Crane said of Kroenke.
“After a while, you sort of get the hint,” said Jeff Rainford, the mayor’s chief of staff.
Messages left Wednesday at Kroenke’s office were not returned. A Rams spokesman declined comment.
“The NFL can make money in St. Louis,” Rainford said. “It may end up being the Rams with this owner, the Rams with a different owner, a different team with a different owner.”
Rainford said St. Louis can make a compelling argument to remain an NFL city: It is the nation’s 20th-largest market, with a loyal fan base that sold out every game at the Edward Jones Dome from the team’s arrival until a long run of bad play — the Rams haven’t had a winning record since 2003.
If the Rams leave, it isn’t clear which team St. Louis might pursue.
The Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers also have been reported as teams that could move to Los Angeles.
The Raiders’ lease to play at O.co Coliseum, formerly known as the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum, has expired, and the team is now on a year-to-year agreement. The Chargers can announce their intention to leave San Diego between Feb. 1 and May 1 of each year through 2020 if they pay an early-termination fee tied to the bonds used to expand Qualcomm Stadium in 1997.
St. Louis has been through this before. The Chicago Cardinals moved here in 1960 and stayed until 1987. Unhappy with sharing Busch Stadium with the baseball Cardinals, owner Bill Bidwill moved the team to Arizona.
By the early 1990s, a domed stadium was being built with taxpayer money. St. Louis missed out on an expansion team in 1993 when the league awarded franchises to Jacksonville and Carolina. But in 1995, Rams owner Georgia Frontiere took the Rams back to her hometown. Kroenke bought in as minority owner.
Frontiere died, and in 2010, Kroenke bought the team. Meanwhile, the dome — small and outdated by NFL standards — became a point of contention. Negotiations about improvements have gone nowhere.
With the threat of the Rams’ departure looming, Nixon in November appointed former Anheuser-Busch executive David Peacock and veteran attorney Robert Blitz to spearhead an effort looking at a new stadium. They are expected to deliver a report to Nixon by Friday. One plan would call for a new stadium near the Mississippi River not far from the Gateway Arch.
Paying for it is the next hurdle.
The dome was built 20 years ago with 30-year bonds. The state of Missouri pays $12 million annually toward the debt; the city and St. Louis County pay $6 million each.
There appears to be no appetite for new public funding. Missouri Senate Majority Leader Ron Richard, a Republican, said it was doubtful that lawmakers would approve new spending for a football team when the state has so many other needs.
Nixon and Rainford said no new taxes or fees would be used for the new stadium, but Nixon has hinted that the bonds for the dome could be extended.
Anheuser-Busch is one of the NFL’s largest advertisers, and Peacock worked directly with the league on advertising and marketing while with the brewing giant. He is a member of the Pro Football Hall of Fame advisory board. Blitz was part of the legal team that helped bring the Rams to St. Louis and is legal counsel to the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority.
ESPN.com’s Arash Markazi and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
January 7, 2015 at 11:54 pm #15823InvaderRamModeratori thought this bit was interesting.
“The NFL can make money in St. Louis,” Rainford said. “It may end up being the Rams with this owner, the Rams with a different owner, a different team with a different owner.”
the rams with a different owner? hmmm…
January 8, 2015 at 12:13 am #15826AgamemnonParticipantDid I miss anything?
vinegar chicken – try it sometime. It’s pretty decent, cheap and easy to make. http://www.cookingchanneltv.com/recipes/laura-calder/chicken-in-vinegar.html
Maybe the Rams will move to France? Les Mouflons, no? Crazy shit this moving, not moving – I can relate kind of.
I feel bad for fans that teams come and go but like about everybody don’t want my team to be one of them. I was a Ram fan as a kid in LA, then I moved to SD and so they’ve been close enough for me to drive there in a day – it’s a shitty long drive but I can do it. If they moved to Paris, I’d still root for those froggy fucks.
The chicken sounds good, sdram.
January 8, 2015 at 1:49 am #15837ZooeyModeratorin this instance. they can control the flow of information. the only people who would actually have to be in the know is kroenke, goodell, and some select owners with influence. and no physical evidence to speak of and all just people talking.
i mean the only reason we know kroenke is building a stadium is because he released the information. and all this talk about meetings with the inglewood mayor are just hearsay.
ok. i’m being stupid and suspicious.
First of all, I’m not sure specifically what “in the know” means. If that means “knows that the fix is in for moving,” then that just isn’t true. The NFL has rules for relocation that have been established by the owners. They made those rules so that the interests of the NFL as a whole can be protected, and so that relocation can be fully vetted, and all concerns considered. The proposals are carefully considered by the Finance Committee. They consider the proposal, look deeply at the financing, and look at what it means in terms of competitive balance, potential re-alignment, and, of course, cash flow. In this case, they will do a full analysis of the St. Louis proposal as well. Every single team is a billion dollar corporation with a slew of smart guys in suits who will look very carefully at what a relocation means to THEM, and their bottom line. (And, btw, I agree with something zn said early in the thread; I don’t think a move to LA benefits the league much. Not financially anyway. Mostly it provides a glamour site in a glamour town and a nice place for Super Bowls, but that’s it. It doesn’t increase revenue for the other 31 teams in any significant way).
This isn’t something that can just breezily be passed through without anyone much noticing. Stan needs votes from 24 teams. There’s a VOTE. The owners don’t just wake up in the morning, snap open their papers, and find out that an NFL team has moved. The more I think about, the more amazed I am that I even gave a moment’s consideration to the possibility that “the fix is in.” It can’t be. Stan’s proposal was just released the other day, and we haven’t seen the Peacock proposal. Even if you assume that the NFL people have been kept in the pipeline on developments of each of these proposals, and already have a good idea what they look like, the close examination and hard questions have not been begun – unless you think 32 owners have already studied this, argued about, voted on it, and just decided not to tell anybody publicly because they prefer to play charades to no advantage whatsoever.
Nope. I am starting to think there is no choice but to believe our eyes here. Kroenke really did that. Now, he may have let the other owners know in advance he was going to do that. But that still isn’t a fix even if he did. And maybe he didn’t. Maybe it was a surprise. We don’t know yet.
But I still don’t think this is brash, impulsive behavior. I’m convinced Kroenke is not going Rambo here. He’s going Bobby Fischer. He’s playing chess, imo, even if it looks like wild west cowboy behavior. He released his plan deliberately, and timed it with purpose.
I think he released his plan when he did because now the Peacock proposal will be compared to his proposal. Had Peacock’s proposal come out first, most people would be looking at its virtues. “Nice new stadium, wow, isn’t that pretty? Some commercial development…my, what a concept. Good deal. That could work!”
If Kroenke’s proposal followed that, it would just look like an attempt to One-Up a solid plan. A few more seats, a few more retail spaces, whatever.
Coming out after Kroenke’s proposal, Peacock’s is likely to be examined for its shortcomings in comparison to his. It will be considered a weaker version. Its unveiling is more likely to disappoint. Especially if it involves public money.
That’s my guess.
I’m looking forward to Friday.
January 8, 2015 at 2:06 am #15838MackeyserModeratorYou rang?
Well I typed up a whole long thing, but the site are it because it hates mobile…
Anyway, coupla things…
1) GRITS, lighten up. No one knows what tomorrow holds. The only reason we have venues like this is to be social and have fun. Occasionally we take ourselves seriously with respect to football analysis or even social commentary. But even then… The only guideline we really need be mindful of is speaking WITH fellow posters as opposed to at or to them. This is supposed to be fun, remember?
2) I think Stan Kroenke realized it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission. Once he breaks ground in Inglewood, which he will be able to do because the Forum still functions as a venue and Hollywood Park recently functioned as a sporting venue. All the traffic, environmental, legal… Just need to be updated. As for the ballot, just ask Inglewood residents if they’d like to see their property values spike? Pretty sure this passes with 70% since we’re talking no public monies. So, since he’ll have broken ground where no one else will have been able because they can’t without the commitment of the NFL or a team… It’s either expensive litigation or accept his expensive relocation fee. That doesn’t sound like a hard sell to me.
3) Owner Khan would be great for St. Louis. He is already heavily committed to the area and has no interest in being outside the area. He impressed the NFL so much that he won the Jags with almost no competition. It wouldn’t surprise me if the Rams left and the city of St Louis built a stadium,’that the Jags would move to St Louis. The good news is that they’d be getting the best owner of the bunch. And hey… We always said if St Louis were in the AFC South, they’d be in the playoffs…
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 8, 2015 at 8:30 am #15842wvParticipantI’m confuzed — this article sez the LA Stadium wont be finished until 2018. So does that mean if the rams move, they will
play somewhere else for a coupla years?w
v============================
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nfl/2015/01/06/nfl-st-louis-rams-owner-stan-kroenke-los-angeles-stadium/21367579/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatodaycomsports-topstories
…the Inglewood plan is submitted to voters this year and approved as planned, the new stadium could be ready in 2018. With no taxpayer money in play, Butts said voters will be asked to modify zoning to include a stadium on a related development project that will spread over 298 acres, including the 60 acres owned by The Kroenke Group.“I’ve known Stan for years, and Stan is a measured, deliberate person who makes very good business decisions, often using patience to do so,” Ganis said. “If he says he’s just going to build it himself and take the league on in court, what have you done? You’ve built a stadium, and you possibly lose in court and you’re out a billion and a half dollars? That’s not a rational way to go about it, and Stan is very rational man.”
Still, Ganis doesn’t believe this stadium will be built on spec.“To the extent that anybody has said that, I’ll take the other side to that bet,” Ganis said. “It just doesn’t happen, not when you’re talking about a billion-plus dollars.”
January 8, 2015 at 8:41 am #15843znModeratorI’m confuzed — this article sez the LA Stadium wont be finished until 2018. So does that mean if the rams move, they will
play somewhere else for a coupla years?This is one bloody complex issue.
Remember Kroenke still has to fix the cross-ownership in Denver AND he wants to buy the Broncos and sell the Rams IF he buys the Broncos.
What we have here is a socio-pathic Spock playing 3-dimensional chess while we gaze on confused.
I think one of the conditions of taking the job for Fisher was reassurance they wouldn’t move.
Apparently SK only really hears his inner entrepeneurial longings and everything else is just grist for that mill.
January 8, 2015 at 9:03 am #15844wvParticipantI think one of the conditions of taking the job for Fisher was reassurance they wouldn’t move.
Well I’ve wondered about that. But
I’ve also wondered whether Fisher
was chosen because he has experience
with moves. Maybe he only promised
Fisher he’d move as a last resort
or he’d consult with Fisher about
move issues, etc and so forth.
Who knows.w
vJanuary 8, 2015 at 9:26 am #15846PA RamParticipantI’m confuzed — this article sez the LA Stadium wont be finished until 2018. So does that mean if the rams move, they will
play somewhere else for a coupla years?w
v============================
…the Inglewood plan is submitted to voters this year and approved as planned, the new stadium could be ready in 2018. With no taxpayer money in play, Butts said voters will be asked to modify zoning to include a stadium on a related development project that will spread over 298 acres, including the 60 acres owned by The Kroenke Group.
“I’ve known Stan for years, and Stan is a measured, deliberate person who makes very good business decisions, often using patience to do so,” Ganis said. “If he says he’s just going to build it himself and take the league on in court, what have you done? You’ve built a stadium, and you possibly lose in court and you’re out a billion and a half dollars? That’s not a rational way to go about it, and Stan is very rational man.”
Still, Ganis doesn’t believe this stadium will be built on spec.“To the extent that anybody has said that, I’ll take the other side to that bet,” Ganis said. “It just doesn’t happen, not when you’re talking about a billion-plus dollars.”
Goodell will make them play all road games, except for the three they have to play in England where they will be designated as “home” team.
I can’t decide whether Stan is going rogue or if he’s just playing the game.
If his ultimate goal is to move the team–increase its value–sell to another owner and just rent out the stadium to the Rams/Raiders and collect big bucks forever, he probably doesn’t care what the other owners think. Only Stan knows and he ain’t talkin’. Apparently he’s not even returning calls to the St. Louis mayor.
Billionaires can do that stuff.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
January 8, 2015 at 9:29 am #15847znModeratorWell I’ve wondered about that. But
I’ve also wondered whether Fisher
was chosen because he has experience
with moves. Maybe he only promised
Fisher he’d move as a last resort
or he’d consult with Fisher about
move issues, etc and so forth.
Who knows.w
vWell we don’t have to speculate. We can look at what he said (later). And my point really is that the socio-pathic Kroenke is completely capable of telling Fisher no, we will not move AND hiring him precisely because he’s experienced with moves.
That’s my read on SK anyway. He is that single-minded and just jerks everyone around in relation to his single-mindedness.
And what is he single-minded about? Being in california? No. Maximizing value and winning entrepeneurial contests. It’s nothing more than that.
January 8, 2015 at 9:36 am #15848wvParticipantWell we don’t have to speculate. We can look at what he said (later). And my point really is that the socio-pathic Kroenke is completely capable of telling Fisher no, we will not move AND hiring him precisely because he’s experienced with moves.
That’s my read on SK anyway. He is that single-minded and just jerks everyone around in relation to his single-mindedness.
And what is he single-minded about? Being in california? No. Maximizing value and winning entrepeneurial contests. It’s nothing more than that.
Hey if you dont Like
Billionaire-Sociopaths,
YOU can just start
following North Korean Badminton.Btw, if this LA/StLouis thing takes months
to unfold — this thread is gonna get awfully
Long.w
vJanuary 8, 2015 at 10:36 am #15849znModeratorif this LA/StLouis thing takes months
to unfold — this thread is gonna get awfully
Long.We’ll start a new one every Friday. Always linking the last one.
Howzatt.
January 8, 2015 at 10:47 am #15850MackeyserModeratorThe Rose Bowl is an NFL approved venue. If the Rams moved to LA, they could play in the Rose Bowl for a few years…
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
January 8, 2015 at 11:16 am #15851wvParticipantThe Rose Bowl is an NFL approved venue. If the Rams moved to LA, they could play in the Rose Bowl for a few years…
How long have you been a Ram fan, Mack? I forget.
Do you prefer them in LA or St.Louis?
w
v
January 8, 2015 at 1:16 pm #15859GreatRamNTheSkyParticipantMac
20 years of this baloney of knowing the team was ripped from LA / SoCal / OC and remembering all the stuff that was said then and the last two decades and now being so close to having the team back in LA, gets my juices flowing a little
some times.Grits
January 8, 2015 at 1:33 pm #15863bnwBlockedAnd what is he single-minded about? Being in california? No. Maximizing value and winning entrepeneurial contests. It’s nothing more than that.
Weird. To what end? Of all that he could accomplish he specializes in low hanging fruit?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 8, 2015 at 3:07 pm #15866OahuRamParticipantGrits,
I cannot remember, after Los Angeles was awarded an expansion team in 1997 how did they end up losing it to the now Houston Texans?
January 8, 2015 at 3:08 pm #15867ZooeyModeratorMac
20 years of this baloney of knowing the team was ripped from LA / SoCal / OC and remembering all the stuff that was said then and the last two decades and now being so close to having the team back in LA, gets my juices flowing a little
some times.Grits
That’s understandable. It’s totally true.
But let’s remember that none of the posters here are to blame for any of that.
January 8, 2015 at 3:10 pm #15868ZooeyModeratorGrits,
I cannot remember, after Los Angeles was awarded an expansion team in 1997 how did they end up losing it to the now Houston Texans?
There was no stadium deal possible.
And LA wasn’t awarded an expansion team precisely because there was no stadium, iirc.
January 8, 2015 at 3:20 pm #15869OahuRamParticipant1999
On March 16, 1999, the NFL owners, by a 29–2 vote, approved a resolution to award Los Angeles the expansion 32nd franchise. However, the award was contingent on the city’s putting together an acceptable ownership team and stadium deal by September 15; if the parties could not reach an agreement or be close to doing so, the committee would then turn its recommendation to Houston.Yes, you are right about the trouble getting the stadium done. I just wonder if St. Louis would be in the situation it is now if LA had gotten that expansion team instead of Houston. I dunno.
- This reply was modified 9 years, 10 months ago by OahuRam.
January 8, 2015 at 3:26 pm #15871znModeratorSoon in the interests of ordinary smart board management I will start a new LA thread (unless someone else does it first) and link this one in it.
In other words, we’re moving the thread.
With or without league approval.
January 8, 2015 at 3:47 pm #15874bnwBlockedI just wonder if St. Louis would be in the situation it is now if LA had gotten that expansion team instead of Houston. I dunno.
At 89% attendance after 10 years of lousy product, no. But with LA hanging out there amongst three teams, unfortunately yes.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 8, 2015 at 3:51 pm #15875bnwBlockedWhy the NFL in LA is a losing proposition.
LA is the best possible leverage for all owners.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
January 8, 2015 at 4:10 pm #15877GreatRamNTheSkyParticipantThe day of leverage or using LA as leverage has come to an end. The league knows this and so does Kroenke.
As for Dean Spanos, he hasn’t a leg to stand on in his contention about the 30 percent of his business that comes from LA.
The Chargers survived just fine from 1961 through 1994 with two teams in LA. In other words, Dean is full of crap and his 30 percent does not serve the league as well as having the Rams back in LA will.Grits
January 8, 2015 at 5:38 pm #15884AgamemnonParticipantstltoday.com
Should Chargers be next in line in LA?
4 hours ago • By Jim ThomasAccording to some league sources, the NFL would rather have a “California solution” to the Los Angeles situation rather than having the Rams move to the nation’s second-largest market.
Namely, either the San Diego Chargers or Oakland Raiders. And the sentiment there seems to lean towards San Diego, which has unsuccessfully tried to get a new stadium built for years.
In an interview earlier this week with the Post-Dispatch, longtime Raiders executive Amy Trask pointed out how having the Chargers in Los Angeles would make the most sense.
“The Chargers in particular having been working for a decade and a half — almost 15 years,” Trask said. “I think the Chargers have been at it longer than any other team in terms of trying to develop a successful (stadium) alternative in the San Diego market.”
Trask, who was with the Raiders for nearly three decades before resigning in 2013, adds: “If you look at this from a league perspective, it really does in many regards make the most sense — certainly a tremendous amount of sense — to relocate the Chargers rather than another team.”
She cites the New England Patriots as a prime example of a team with a truly regional scope.
“They’re not the ‘Boston’ Patriots. They’re the ‘New England’ Patriots,” Trask said. “And that team, rather than being identified with one municipality — Boston — identifies with the whole region.”
San Diego could fill that role in southern California by relocating north to the Los Angeles area.
“San Diego’s about 100 miles from where I’m sitting right now,” said Trask, who lives in Los Angeles. “Southern California is a big, big area. The Chargers could move someplace within that region that would give all their fans in San Diego easy access. And give those in the Los Angeles market easy access.
“And I’m not suggesting the Chargers would have to move right smack in the middle of downtown (L.A.), but they could pick a location within the region in which they could serve all of southern California very easily.”
Given Los Angeles’ rather lukewarm history of support for pro football, Trask also feels it makes more sense to relocate just one team into the market rather than two.
“Particularly at the outset,” said Trask, who now works for the CBS Sports Network, appearing on “That Other Pregame Show” and “Can We Talk?”
“Why not let one team come, sink its roots into the ground, really capture the market, and then make a determination down the road if you believe the market will handle a second team well.
“Why do both at the same time? I think that’s a dicey proposition.”
Trask never thought the Los Angeles market would go 20 seasons, soon to be 21, without an NFL team.
“If you had told me back in 1995 when Georgia Frontiere moved the Rams to St. Louis and Al Davis moved the Raiders to Oakland that we would be having this conversation 20 years later discussing the empty Los Angeles market, I would’ve looked at you like you were nutty,” she said.
For years the top-ranking Raiders executive behind only late owner Al Davis, Trask has sensed in the past year or so that a return of the NFL to L.A. was gaining momentum. And not just because the Rams, Raiders and Chargers can now get out of their stadium leases in their current market.
“That’s part of it,” she said. “I think also a lot of challenges that the league had been facing have been surmounted.”
Among them, the new collective bargaining agreement as well as a new long-term television contract.
“It simply strikes me that the time is really ripe for focus on this market,” she said.
She suggests that having a state of the art stadium in Los Angeles would be a true test of market support.
“The one thing to remember in that regard is Los Angeles has never had a magnificent stadium,” Trask said. “Look, at the time the Coliseum was built, which was right about the time the Roman Coliseum was built — and I jest — it was a beautiful facility.
“But in terms of a modern day, state of the art, all the bells and whistles facility, Los Angeles doesn’t have a football stadium like that. So I think before the market support for the team can be judged, one has to know that there’s going to be that kind of stadium available.”
Stan Kroenke’s proposed Inglewood stadium could provide that venue. Trask believes Inglewood is a good site, but says there are two or three other sites in the area that also would work.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/article_49137ae3-24ce-58cb-bca2-defc3d4032a9.html#.VK7NYg-NMJA.twitterJanuary 8, 2015 at 5:47 pm #15886InvaderRamModerator<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>InvaderRam wrote:</div>
in this instance. they can control the flow of information. the only people who would actually have to be in the know is kroenke, goodell, and some select owners with influence. and no physical evidence to speak of and all just people talking.i mean the only reason we know kroenke is building a stadium is because he released the information. and all this talk about meetings with the inglewood mayor are just hearsay.
ok. i’m being stupid and suspicious.
First of all, I’m not sure specifically what “in the know” means. If that means “knows that the fix is in for moving,” then that just isn’t true. The NFL has rules for relocation that have been established by the owners. They made those rules so that the interests of the NFL as a whole can be protected, and so that relocation can be fully vetted, and all concerns considered. The proposals are carefully considered by the Finance Committee. They consider the proposal, look deeply at the financing, and look at what it means in terms of competitive balance, potential re-alignment, and, of course, cash flow. In this case, they will do a full analysis of the St. Louis proposal as well. Every single team is a billion dollar corporation with a slew of smart guys in suits who will look very carefully at what a relocation means to THEM, and their bottom line. (And, btw, I agree with something zn said early in the thread; I don’t think a move to LA benefits the league much. Not financially anyway. Mostly it provides a glamour site in a glamour town and a nice place for Super Bowls, but that’s it. It doesn’t increase revenue for the other 31 teams in any significant way).
This isn’t something that can just breezily be passed through without anyone much noticing. Stan needs votes from 24 teams. There’s a VOTE. The owners don’t just wake up in the morning, snap open their papers, and find out that an NFL team has moved. The more I think about, the more amazed I am that I even gave a moment’s consideration to the possibility that “the fix is in.” It can’t be. Stan’s proposal was just released the other day, and we haven’t seen the Peacock proposal. Even if you assume that the NFL people have been kept in the pipeline on developments of each of these proposals, and already have a good idea what they look like, the close examination and hard questions have not been begun – unless you think 32 owners have already studied this, argued about, voted on it, and just decided not to tell anybody publicly because they prefer to play charades to no advantage whatsoever.
Nope. I am starting to think there is no choice but to believe our eyes here. Kroenke really did that. Now, he may have let the other owners know in advance he was going to do that. But that still isn’t a fix even if he did. And maybe he didn’t. Maybe it was a surprise. We don’t know yet.
But I still don’t think this is brash, impulsive behavior. I’m convinced Kroenke is not going Rambo here. He’s going Bobby Fischer. He’s playing chess, imo, even if it looks like wild west cowboy behavior. He released his plan deliberately, and timed it with purpose.
I think he released his plan when he did because now the Peacock proposal will be compared to his proposal. Had Peacock’s proposal come out first, most people would be looking at its virtues. “Nice new stadium, wow, isn’t that pretty? Some commercial development…my, what a concept. Good deal. That could work!”
If Kroenke’s proposal followed that, it would just look like an attempt to One-Up a solid plan. A few more seats, a few more retail spaces, whatever.
Coming out after Kroenke’s proposal, Peacock’s is likely to be examined for its shortcomings in comparison to his. It will be considered a weaker version. Its unveiling is more likely to disappoint. Especially if it involves public money.
That’s my guess.
I’m looking forward to Friday.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>InvaderRam wrote:</div>
in this instance. they can control the flow of information. the only people who would actually have to be in the know is kroenke, goodell, and some select owners with influence. and no physical evidence to speak of and all just people talking.i mean the only reason we know kroenke is building a stadium is because he released the information. and all this talk about meetings with the inglewood mayor are just hearsay.
ok. i’m being stupid and suspicious.
First of all, I’m not sure specifically what “in the know” means. If that means “knows that the fix is in for moving,” then that just isn’t true. The NFL has rules for relocation that have been established by the owners. They made those rules so that the interests of the NFL as a whole can be protected, and so that relocation can be fully vetted, and all concerns considered. The proposals are carefully considered by the Finance Committee. They consider the proposal, look deeply at the financing, and look at what it means in terms of competitive balance, potential re-alignment, and, of course, cash flow. In this case, they will do a full analysis of the St. Louis proposal as well. Every single team is a billion dollar corporation with a slew of smart guys in suits who will look very carefully at what a relocation means to THEM, and their bottom line. (And, btw, I agree with something zn said early in the thread; I don’t think a move to LA benefits the league much. Not financially anyway. Mostly it provides a glamour site in a glamour town and a nice place for Super Bowls, but that’s it. It doesn’t increase revenue for the other 31 teams in any significant way).
This isn’t something that can just breezily be passed through without anyone much noticing. Stan needs votes from 24 teams. There’s a VOTE. The owners don’t just wake up in the morning, snap open their papers, and find out that an NFL team has moved. The more I think about, the more amazed I am that I even gave a moment’s consideration to the possibility that “the fix is in.” It can’t be. Stan’s proposal was just released the other day, and we haven’t seen the Peacock proposal. Even if you assume that the NFL people have been kept in the pipeline on developments of each of these proposals, and already have a good idea what they look like, the close examination and hard questions have not been begun – unless you think 32 owners have already studied this, argued about, voted on it, and just decided not to tell anybody publicly because they prefer to play charades to no advantage whatsoever.
Nope. I am starting to think there is no choice but to believe our eyes here. Kroenke really did that. Now, he may have let the other owners know in advance he was going to do that. But that still isn’t a fix even if he did. And maybe he didn’t. Maybe it was a surprise. We don’t know yet.
But I still don’t think this is brash, impulsive behavior. I’m convinced Kroenke is not going Rambo here. He’s going Bobby Fischer. He’s playing chess, imo, even if it looks like wild west cowboy behavior. He released his plan deliberately, and timed it with purpose.
I think he released his plan when he did because now the Peacock proposal will be compared to his proposal. Had Peacock’s proposal come out first, most people would be looking at its virtues. “Nice new stadium, wow, isn’t that pretty? Some commercial development…my, what a concept. Good deal. That could work!”
If Kroenke’s proposal followed that, it would just look like an attempt to One-Up a solid plan. A few more seats, a few more retail spaces, whatever.
Coming out after Kroenke’s proposal, Peacock’s is likely to be examined for its shortcomings in comparison to his. It will be considered a weaker version. Its unveiling is more likely to disappoint. Especially if it involves public money.
That’s my guess.
I’m looking forward to Friday.
i think you make a lot of sense. i’m just being stupid really. but yeah. what you say makes a lot of sense.
January 8, 2015 at 8:14 pm #1589621DogParticipantThe day of leverage or using LA as leverage has come to an end. The league knows this and so does Kroenke.
As for Dean Spanos, he hasn’t a leg to stand on in his contention about the 30 percent of his business that comes from LA.
The Chargers survived just fine from 1961 through 1994 with two teams in LA. In other words, Dean is full of crap and his 30 percent does not serve the league as well as having the Rams back in LA will.Grits
His 30 percent figure certainly doesn’t come from LA.
It might come from southern Orange County and even then that 30 percent figure might be padded a little.
January 9, 2015 at 3:22 am #15917MackeyserModeratorOkay… the San Diego thing is about the only thing that really gets me going.
It’s bullshit. I mean really, REALLY bullshit. Anyone who’s ever LIVED in SoCal knows almost NO ONE will regularly drive down to San Diego from LA. Moreover, the LA Metroplex extends as far north as Ventura County. That’s a FIVE HOUR drive to San Diego…without traffic.
Now, imagine some corporate type from Pacific Palisades buys a corporate box for the Los Angeles Chargers of Anaheim… This drive is just disgusting. It’s all on the Fuck-You-Five…er…Four-Oh-Five Freeway which Heaven forbid one drop of rain falls or someone gets a flat or there’s one fender bender… it turns a 3 hour drive into… who knows? 4 hours? 5? You can’t tell. And I know if you google map it, it says 50 minutes (I call BS)…and you can take the 10 to the 5 (not if you want to see the game) or maybe the 105 (used to be good, but it’s pretty jammed), but on the weekends, the freeways are just a damned MESS. Any other Angelenos can surely validate this. Pacific Palisades to Anaheim is at the very least a 2 hour drive from door to door unless you get REALLY lucky. We used to have passes to Disney and from Disney to our house in Culver City 30 minutes from Pacific Palisades… it would take us over an hour to get home and that would be after 1am when there was very little traffic and we’d be just breezing. So an ideal 2 hours sounds about right based on my actual driving knowledge. Throw in LA traffic? yeah… it’s extra hours. Easy peasy.
The money enclaves in SoCal are just too spread out. Malibu may be 30 minutes from Pacific Palisades… on a good day…, but if it rains (not a problem lately, but can’t be a drought forever)… I went to school in the Santa Monica/Malibu school district. Kids who lived in Malibu would STAY with friends in Santa Monica rather than try to get home because the commute could take HOURS. This is for a drive that at 2am on a Tuesday would take… maybe 20 minutes. All because the entire access is governed by a sometimes 4 lane, later 2 lane highway that if a rockslide comes… you have to drive 45 miles around into the very heart of valley traffic on the 101 freeway…another of the busiest freeways in the country…
So, the very notion that Angelenos from Ventura, San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, the West Side all the way to Downtown… are going to drive to Anaheim or farther south (because any farther north and you lose the San Diego market and any farther south and you haven’t gone north enough) is just fucknuts crazy. It’s belligerently stupid.
The Rams tried that in Anaheim and it FAILED MISERABLY. Even when the Rams were winning, NO ONE wanted to drive to fucking Anaheim. It’s a shit drive. Why can’t the NFL assholes get that. You do it to go to Disneyland because you’re going to be there all day. You don’t do it for a football game unless you’re going to do the full on tailgate and MOST Angelenos did NOT. And in the new digs, because it’s CA, parking will be at a premium, so most folks won’t want to pay to tailgate. Most situations will require off-site with shuttle parking, anyway. It’s the only way the locals will approve the traffic plans.
Sorry, but when I read stuff about how the Chargers are the best fit… it’s just cringeworthy. I was born and raised in LA and I never met ONE Charger fan until I got older and that was only because the Chargers used to be in LA before they moved to SD.
The Spanos’ have issues in San Diego for a HOST of reasons.
The Rams aren’t in Los Angeles for a HOST of reasons including Gene Autry who owned the Angels and Anaheim Stadium squeezing the Rams BADLY at the Big A (the Rams were the only team in the league who rented a stadium who were not allowed to keep the parking receipts from game day, for example)
I have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen. I really don’t.
But the one thing that makes no sense at all… is the Chargers moving to LA. San Diego is an NFL town. They support the Chargers WELL. They just don’t want to pay for a stadium which I think NFL Owners should pay for themselves. As apparently do San Diego voters. Overwhelmingly. They want the Chargers.. to stay and pay for a stadium. The Spanos family wants what so many other teams got… publicly funded stadiums in sweetheart deals. Not sure how the Levi Stadium deal happened, but it won’t happen in LA or SD. No way, no how…
Anwyay, sorry about the rant. Just frosts my cookies when folks bring up San Diego.
it’s like when National Reporters talk about the Rams and say things we know to be totally wrong and only shows their ignorance.
Sports is the crucible of human virtue. The distillate remains are human vice.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.