Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Facts related to NFL relocations (and a prediction)
- This topic has 17 replies, 7 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
InvaderRam.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 26, 2015 at 4:13 pm #19119
TackleDummyParticipantFacts related to NFL relocation
1. Stan Kroenke has announced plans to build an 80,000 seat stadium in Inglewood, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles. The stadium would be located in property now controlled by Kroenke and would be a part of the development of the property. The property development would go on with or without the stadium. The City Council of Inglewood has approved of the plan. Actual construction of the stadium could begin in December, 2015. It is expected that the stadium could be shared by two NFL teams. Financing is assured.
2. St Louis has proposed a 65,000 seat stadium on the Mississippi River waterfront near the current stadium. It would be part of a revitalization of that area. An agreement has been made with the trade unions that would speed up the project as well as create more jobs. About $40M would be saved by eliminating overtime. The Rams could begin playing in the new stadium in 2019. About 40% of the financing would be by public bonds. These would need to be approved by the Missouri legislature or governor. Once the bonds are approved the financing is assured.
3. The NFL Chargers and Raiders have made a joint proposal for an 80,000 seat stadium in Carson, CA, a suburb of Los Angeles. Few details of the stadium have been released. Both teams have indicated a desire to work out a stadium plan in their current locations. However that seems to most observers to be unlikely. There have been no details on the financing but that would seem to be no problem. More on that latter. A ballot initiative to approve the plan is complete. It will be either be put to a public vote or approved by the Carson City Council. This should be completed by June.
4. The NFL bylaws say that if an existing NFL city provides proper stadiums then its team cannot be moved. This would mean that if St. Louis can build the proposed new stadium that the Rams will be staying in St. Louis. That is, unless the NFL violates its own bylaws.
5. The NFL bylaws say that it requires at least 24 of the NFL teams to approve the relocation of an NFL team. NFL teams have moved without the approval of the NFL. But those rules have been strengthened since the Rams and Raiders left Los Angeles to make it harder for an owner to move without approval.
6. It is the NFL’s stated policy to, whenever possible, to keep NFL teams in their current locations.
7. It is also the NFL’s stated policy to have a team or teams in Los Angeles without the NFL expanding.
8. For reference, it has also been stated by the NFL that it would like to have a team in London in the future.
Financing of the Chargers/Raiders stadium in Carson
An NFL official has indicated that the support for this stadium from the NFL would be double the support if there was only one team involved. With that in mind, the $1.7B could be financed in the following way:
1. $400M loan from the NFL. The normal support from the NFL for a single team would be $200M.
2. $500M from the Chargers and Raiders. Normally it would be expected that each team would contribute $250M.
3. $260M to $400M from PSL sales. The Rams are expecting $130M from PSLs to finance their new stadium. Each team for this project should get at least that much, likely more.That totals $1.16B to $1.3B of the total needed. That would leave $400M to $540M left to finance from private sources (banks, etc). That should not be too hard to do in Los Angeles.
I am making a few assumptions in making my predictions. These assumptions are likely but not 100% assured.
Assumption 1: St Louis will be able to build its new proposed stadium. The finances have not been finalized but I think it is highly unlikely for this to become a problem.
Assumption 2: The Chargers and Raiders will be able to build their new stadium. I really don’t see any major stumbling blocks standing in their way.
Assumption 3: The NFL will keep to their bylaws. This would mean, in particular, that if the St. Louis commits to building a new stadium the Rams will stay in St. Louis.
Assumption 4: Stan Kroenke will not go rogue and try to move the Rams outside of the NFL rules. There is no indication in Kroenke’s past that he would do this.
Assumption 5: Neither San Diego nor Oakland will come up with a viable plan for a new stadium by the end of 2015. They have gone for years without doing so. Don’t see it happening now.Predictions as to the final outcome for the Rams, Chargers and Raiders
1. The Rams will stay in St. Louis. They will continue to play in the Dome through the 2018 season then move into the new open air stadium in 2019.
2. The Raiders will play in Oakland this year (2015) then move to Los Angeles in 2016. They will play in a temporary location until the new Carson stadium is complete. Probably in 2018 or 2019.
3. The Chargers will play in Qualcomm Stadium in 2015. They will agree to play in the Carson stadium by the end of this calendar year. They could play in a temporary Los Angeles location starting in 2016. However, they might also continue to play in Qualcomm stadium until the Carson stadium is complete. Qualcomm stadium and the new Carson stadium are only about 2 hours by car apart. That would seem to be viable.
4. Since the Raiders and Chargers currently play in the same division, one of them will move to the NFC. The Fox network and CBS will each want a piece of the Los Angeles pie and, after all, it is TV that pays the NFL bill. I do not have a real feel as to which one will move, but I am leaning towards Oakland moving into the NFL West. That would give them a natural rivalry with the 49ers and have them playing in the Bay area once a year.
5. The Rams will move to the AFC West to replace Oakland. It is more likely the Rams than any other NFC West team since they are involved with this relocation issue. I know this will displease many of the pre-St Louis Rams fans but in St Louis I think the fans would find a division containing Kansas City, Denver, and the LA Chargers would be as enjoyable as the current one with Arizona, Seattle and San Fran.
Of all alternatives, this outcome would be the best for the NFL. It solves the Los Angeles with an all-California solution. That is something that the NFL seems to prefer. It also keeps an NFL presence in St. Louis which is regarded as a good football city.
This outcome would also help preserve the Chargers’ fan base since the new stadium is only about a two hour drive from their old one. And 25% of their fan base is already in the LA area.
Even the Raiders have some positive things coming from this. They already have a fan base in the LA area and they would be going back to the Bay once a year.
This outcome would be best for St. Louis. Better than having to start rooting for a new team and of course better than not having a team at all.And even Kroenke comes out well with this plan. He still can develop his Inglewood property without the stadium. He has a brand new stadium with more than double the luxury suites in St. Louis. And he comes out like a hero with the NFL owners. Not bad.
The March 22-25th Annual Owners Meeting
The owners will, of course, be discussing the relocation issues as a part of this meeting. While I would not expect any formal actions to come out of this meeting there will be some indications that come out of the meeting both by formal statements and by “leaks” as to what the thoughts of the owners are. We may get a little clairity of what is really going on. So far, except for some stadium announcements, about all we are getting are speculations by media types who have no real knowledge of what will happen and, even worse, fans who are grasping at any straw they can get to support their cause.
February 26, 2015 at 5:00 pm #19130
bnwBlockedAbsolutely no, do not move the Rams from the NFC West! All the NFL owners have heard me and will comply with my command.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
February 26, 2015 at 6:00 pm #19138
wvParticipantWell, fwiw, i tend to agree
with all that.Its all speculation, but if i
had to predict the future,
that’s the most likely
scenario, imho.I would not kick and scream about
the division change. Wouldn’t
like it, but its not that
big a deal — not like
changing the helmets er somethin.Now, what would i LIKE to see?
I’ve thought about this, and
i would prefer, the Rams move
to LA, and go back to blue and white Uniforms.I’d like Oakland to stay in Oakland
SD to stay in SD,
and two new expansion teams
created — one in St.Louis,
and one in North Dakota.w
vFebruary 26, 2015 at 6:11 pm #19140
AgamemnonParticipantWhen Kroneke buys Denver, he doesn’t get to take Demoff.
AgamemnonFebruary 26, 2015 at 6:39 pm #19143wvParticipant<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>When Kroneke buys Denver, he doesn’t get to take Demoff.</span>
Demoff. You mean
the invisible man.w
vFebruary 26, 2015 at 6:50 pm #19145TackleDummyParticipantDemoff. You mean
the invisible man.Actually, Demoff has made quite a few public appearances until the relocation stuff came to the forefront. And he came at the Rams stuff from the perspective of the “money man” which was always interesting. I am sure that if he were to answer questions today it would all be about relocation. I am also sure that neither he nor Kroenke want this.
February 26, 2015 at 7:30 pm #19146wvParticipant<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>wv wrote:</div>
Demoff. You mean
the invisible man.Actually, Demoff has made quite a few public appearances until the relocation stuff came to the forefront. And he came at the Rams stuff from the perspective of the “money man” which was always interesting. I am sure that if he were to answer questions today it would all be about relocation. I am also sure that neither he nor Kroenke want this.
Exactly. Hence, he is now
the invisible man.w
vFebruary 26, 2015 at 7:37 pm #19147
ZooeyModeratorI tend to agree with all of that, too, with the exception of Assumption #5, and I am not sold on #3 or #4. I am not so sure that neither Oakland nor San Diego will come up with a stadium plan. St. Louis pulled one out when nobody expected them to.
I think it is less likely that Oakland will come up with anything because Oakland is working on a new stadium for the A’s right now. I think I read that, anyway. But I would not be surprised by a San Diego solution that is the equivalent to the St. Louis solution.
While I think the NFL would prefer the Rams to stay put, I think the likelihood of the Carson project unraveling at some point is greater than the Inglewood project unraveling. There are more variables, more ways the Carson project can go wrong. Kroenke’s stadium construction plan stops ONLY if he gets some other opportunity he likes as well i.e. the Broncos. While I have a hard time picturing Kroenke pulling an Al Davis and moving regardless, I also have an equally hard time seeing him settle for less than the vision of the Los Angeles Rams that he has created, drawn up, and planned for. Neither action seems in character for him. He has no history of going rogue, and he has no history of being denied. So either way, we are going to see something new from Kroenke. Remember how he got the Rams? There was Khan coming strong, and talk about cross-ownership impediments, and Kroenke can’t do it, and…BOOM.
I just think the St. Louis stadium is “settling for less,” and I’m not sure he’s going to be happy with the runner-up proposal when there isn’t anything to stop him from taking first place in the beauty pageant except his own conscience. That biography of Kroenke I posted a few weeks ago portrays a man whose business approach is to make a business goal, and treat it like a fence post. You just keep banging on it, again and again, until you get what you want. He is steady, he is patient, and he is relentless. In the mean time, his stadium project is in the lead in the timeline. We’re at the quarter post, and Kroenke is in the lead by two lengths. Stopping Kroenke, I think, will require a firm and united NFL (if LA is what he truly wants, and all indications are that it is). I am not making a prediction on how this will end, but I will say that if Kroenke gets more than half of the owners – including some rich and powerful ones (and it appears he has Jerry Jones) – I’d be surprised if he takes No for an answer.
I don’t think they are going to persuade Kroenke. They are going to have to compel Kroenke.
He is not going to accept the Spanos/Davis LA “solution” as being more appropriate. What? They’re entitled to it cuz their daddies were pioneers, and they have family legacies, and they live closer anyway, and besides, they couldn’t get anything done in their hometowns, so they should get LA.
Yeah, I don’t think so. The man is a sociopath, and he isn’t going to feel sorry for Dean and Mark, especially now that they are gunking up his business plan. The NFL is either going to have to forcefully stop him by making it too painful for him to move, or bribe him somehow, maybe by some ownership transfers that leave the Rams in St. Louis and Kroenke in LA with a different team.
February 26, 2015 at 7:47 pm #19148
InvaderRamModeratori want the rams to move to los angeles, but i think the chances of them staying in st. louis have increased dramatically. i still think they have the best chance of moving of the three teams.
maybe it comes down to who can build the stadium first. right now it appears to be kroenke.
also depends on how fast st. louis can get this stadium proposal off the ground.
right now st. louis, the raiders, and chargers are way behind kroenke. i wonder if that wins votes with the league.
February 26, 2015 at 7:59 pm #19149ZooeyModeratorright now st. louis, the raiders, and chargers are way behind kroenke. i wonder if that wins votes with the league.
I don’t think it does. What the NFL is going to want is Certainty, though. The timeline is less important.
So if the Carson deal is locked in, but a year behind, they might prefer that solution regardless of time.
But if the other things are not locked into place – while Kroenke’s already IS – then that is going to be a factor.
February 26, 2015 at 8:00 pm #19150InvaderRamModeratorI tend to agree with all of that, too, with the exception of Assumption #5, and I am not sold on #3 or #4. I am not so sure that neither Oakland nor San Diego will come up with a stadium plan. St. Louis pulled one out when nobody expected them to.
I think it is less likely that Oakland will come up with anything because Oakland is working on a new stadium for the A’s right now. I think I read that, anyway. But I would not be surprised by a San Diego solution that is the equivalent to the St. Louis solution.
While I think the NFL would prefer the Rams to stay put, I think the likelihood of the Carson project unraveling at some point is greater than the Inglewood project unraveling. There are more variables, more ways the Carson project can go wrong. Kroenke’s stadium construction plan stops ONLY if he gets some other opportunity he likes as well i.e. the Broncos. While I have a hard time picturing Kroenke pulling an Al Davis and moving regardless, I also have an equally hard time seeing him settle for less than the vision of the Los Angeles Rams that he has created, drawn up, and planned for. Neither action seems in character for him. He has no history of going rogue, and he has no history of being denied. So either way, we are going to see something new from Kroenke. Remember how he got the Rams? There was Khan coming strong, and talk about cross-ownership impediments, and Kroenke can’t do it, and…BOOM.
I just think the St. Louis stadium is “settling for less,” and I’m not sure he’s going to be happy with the runner-up proposal when there isn’t anything to stop him from taking first place in the beauty pageant except his own conscience. That biography of Kroenke I posted a few weeks ago portrays a man whose business approach is to make a business goal, and treat it like a fence post. You just keep banging on it, again and again, until you get what you want. He is steady, he is patient, and he is relentless. In the mean time, his stadium project is in the lead in the timeline. We’re at the quarter post, and Kroenke is in the lead by two lengths. Stopping Kroenke, I think, will require a firm and united NFL (if LA is what he truly wants, and all indications are that it is). I am not making a prediction on how this will end, but I will say that if Kroenke gets more than half of the owners – including some rich and powerful ones (and it appears he has Jerry Jones) – I’d be surprised if he takes No for an answer.
I don’t think they are going to persuade Kroenke. They are going to have to compel Kroenke.
He is not going to accept the Spanos/Davis LA “solution” as being more appropriate. What? They’re entitled to it cuz their daddies were pioneers, and they have family legacies, and they live closer anyway, and besides, they couldn’t get anything done in their hometowns, so they should get LA.
Yeah, I don’t think so. The man is a sociopath, and he isn’t going to feel sorry for Dean and Mark, especially now that they are gunking up his business plan. The NFL is either going to have to forcefully stop him by making it too painful for him to move, or bribe him somehow, maybe by some ownership transfers that leave the Rams in St. Louis and Kroenke in LA with a different team.
i still don’t understand why the league would favor a raiders/chargers move over a rams move. in fact, i’d see every reason to favor the rams move. kroenke would seem to be the more qualified owner. and the other team can always move at a later date and play in kroenke’s stadium.
plus, the chargers/raiders move depends on BOTH teams actually moving which is far from certain while kroenke seems intent on pushing through with the stadium project. and this is the league’s best opportunity yet to finally have an nfl team back in la. what happens if one of oakland or san diego come up with a stadium plan? the carson site is nixed and los angeles is again without a team. and i’m fairly confident the league does not want that to happen.
i agree with you. kroenke is a guy who is used to getting what he wants. the league also wants a strong owner in los angeles. spanos and davis don’t strike me as strong owners. at least in the business sense. kroenke might be a sociopath. but he’s a sociopath who gets things done. and that’d be just fine with the league.
February 26, 2015 at 8:36 pm #19152
joemadParticipant<P>i still don’t understand why the league would favor a raiders/chargers move over a rams move. in fact, i’d see every reason to favor the rams move. kroenke would seem to be the more qualified owner. and the other team can always move at a later date and play in kroenke’s stadium.</P>
<P>plus, the chargers/raiders move depends on BOTH teams actually moving which is far from certain while kroenke seems intent on pushing through with the stadium project. and this is the league’s best opportunity yet to finally have an nfl team back in la. what happens if one of oakland or san diego come up with a stadium plan? the carson site is nixed and los angeles is again without a team. and i’m fairly confident the league does not want that to happen.</P>
<P>i agree with you. kroenke is a guy who is used to getting what he wants. the league also wants a strong owner in los angeles. spanos and davis don’t strike me as strong owners. at least in the business sense. kroenke might be a sociopath. but he’s a sociopath who gets things done. and that’d be just fine with the leagueI agree.
Kroenke is a major player. 225th on the list of Billionaires, #6 on the list if you count his wife’s Wal-Mart Empire.
Majority owner of the Arsenal, where Arsenal billionaire share holders from Russia and Dubai have tried to out bid Kroenke as majority owner, but they can’t…… Kroenke is a major global player and has the LA Market within grasp. He doesn’t want the least valued NFL franchise that he has today in STL…
Kroenke has tried to buy the Dodgers in the recent past (2007) to get into this major market.
Kroenke’s M.O. is: own the land and venue that his teams play on, as he has with Arsenal and Denver Nuggets. He has this opportunity now in Inglewood where:
1) He has a fan base with a 50 year legacy to So Cal.
2) He owns the land, (recently purchased the land, in addition the surrounding parking areas.
3) He can host a Super Bowl and other big time events, like the Olympics etc…..
4) Own an NFL team that will dramatically increase in value based on location.Other than a dwindling fan base in STL, Kroenke can’t do the other 3 options mentioned above in the STL.
1) Carson is an environmental hazard
2) Carson stadium requires public funding
3) STL requires public funding for a new stadium, while STL is still paying for the outdated TWA Dome, err The ED.February 26, 2015 at 8:39 pm #19153TackleDummyParticipanttend to agree with all of that, too, with the exception of Assumption #5, and I am not sold on #3 or #4. I am not so sure that neither Oakland nor San Diego will come up with a stadium plan. St. Louis pulled one out when nobody expected them to.
I think it is less likely that Oakland will come up with anything because Oakland is working on a new stadium for the A’s right now. I think I read that, anyway. But I would not be surprised by a San Diego solution that is the equivalent to the St. Louis solution.While I think the NFL would prefer the Rams to stay put, I think the likelihood of the Carson project unraveling at some point is greater than the Inglewood project unraveling. There are more variables, more ways the Carson project can go wrong. Kroenke’s stadium construction plan stops ONLY if he gets some other opportunity he likes as well i.e. the Broncos. While I have a hard time picturing Kroenke pulling an Al Davis and moving regardless, I also have an equally hard time seeing him settle for less than the vision of the Los Angeles Rams that he has created, drawn up, and planned for. Neither action seems in character for him. He has no history of going rogue, and he has no history of being denied. So either way, we are going to see something new from Kroenke. Remember how he got the Rams? There was Khan coming strong, and talk about cross-ownership impediments, and Kroenke can’t do it, and…BOOM.
I agree with you that assumption 5 is the most likely to break down. Both owners have indicated that they would prefer to stay in their present cities. However, if assumption 5 does not hold up but the other assumptions do hold that will not make much difference to the Rams and St Louis. The Rams would stay in St. Louis but they would also stay in the NFC West.
With all of the statements coming out of the league office over the past many years about wanting to keep teams where they are I do not think that if the Riverfront Stadium gets final approval before the end of the year that the Rams will move from St. Louis. Even if Kroenke wanted to “go rogue” he might not be able to. There are rules put in place since Al Davis was doing his thing that would prevent that.
Right now, I really believe that the Rams will remain in St. Louis in the new Riverfront stadium.
As far as the way Kroenke got control of the Rams, that was a fairly unique thing. He had a clause in his ownership of 30% of the Rams that gave him right of first refusal if the Rams were sold. This plan had been approved by the league even though he had ownership in other teams. It would have been a real legal problem if the NFL turned Kroenke down.
February 26, 2015 at 8:44 pm #19154ZooeyModeratori still don’t understand why the league would favor a raiders/chargers move over a rams move. in fact, i’d see every reason to favor the rams move. kroenke would seem to be the more qualified owner. and the other team can always move at a later date and play in kroenke’s stadium.
plus, the chargers/raiders move depends on BOTH teams actually moving which is far from certain while kroenke seems intent on pushing through with the stadium project. and this is the league’s best opportunity yet to finally have an nfl team back in la. what happens if one of oakland or san diego come up with a stadium plan? the carson site is nixed and los angeles is again without a team. and i’m fairly confident the league does not want that to happen.
i agree with you. kroenke is a guy who is used to getting what he wants. the league also wants a strong owner in los angeles. spanos and davis don’t strike me as strong owners. at least in the business sense. kroenke might be a sociopath. but he’s a sociopath who gets things done. and that’d be just fine with the league.
They would favor the Raiders/Chargers over the Rams simply because St. Louis has offered a new stadium and SD and Oak have not. It’s the public appearance of the thing. The Rams’ move looks like the groom ditching the bride at the altar. Now they can spin that, and WILL spin that if the Carson project does not become viable in time, but with both projects viable, the jilting of St. Louis looks bad. And IS bad. They want LA, and they will jilt St. Louis if that is necessary, but they won’t jilt St. Louis if they can move other teams to LA with worse situations, and SD and Oak currently have no solutions on the horizon.
I don’t know what you even mean by “qualified” owner.
I think that if Carson falls apart, the NFL will back Kroenke’s move and try to lure either SD or Oak to St. Louis. Second choice would probably be to broker a deal where Kroenke and Davis trade teams and Davis keeps the Rams in St. L while Kroenke moves the Raiders to LA, or some variation of that.
If Carson AND St. Louis fall apart, the Rams move cleanly into LA, end of story. Maybe the remaining team joins them there later.
Kroenke will file to move at the end of next season, and the league will have to give him an answer. They won’t tell him No unless there is another LA plan nailed into place. There is no way the NFL does not have a team in LA in 2016. It will be the Rams, or the Chargers.
February 26, 2015 at 8:58 pm #19155ZooeyModeratorI agree with you that assumption 5 is the most likely to break down. Both owners have indicated that they would prefer to stay in their present cities. However, if assumption 5 does not hold up but the other assumptions do hold that will not make much difference to the Rams and St Louis. The Rams would stay in St. Louis but they would also stay in the NFC West.
With all of the statements coming out of the league office over the past many years about wanting to keep teams where they are I do not think that if the Riverfront Stadium gets final approval before the end of the year that the Rams will move from St. Louis. Even if Kroenke wanted to “go rogue” he might not be able to. There are rules put in place since Al Davis was doing his thing that would prevent that.
Right now, I really believe that the Rams will remain in St. Louis in the new Riverfront stadium.
As far as the way Kroenke got control of the Rams, that was a fairly unique thing. He had a clause in his ownership of 30% of the Rams that gave him right of first refusal if the Rams were sold. This plan had been approved by the league even though he had ownership in other teams. It would have been a real legal problem if the NFL turned Kroenke down.
We disagree on #3 and #4, then.
The NFL would PREFER to abide by their bylaws, but I have every confidence they will weasel their way around them if they want to. I am sure their PR people will compile some manure to explain it all. If it comes to that.
I am less certain of #4. I used to think Kroenke wouldn’t go rogue, but “rogueishness” will come in degrees here. If – as I said – he gets, say, 20 or 22 votes, but not they requisite 24, I can see him plowing ahead. He will have a bunch of owners that have no stomach for a fight over the issue, a fight that is going to cost millions of dollars and damage the shield in the news, especially when they think his plan is a good one. I think in this case, everybody settles. Kroenke ends up paying a fee, or “fine,” or whatever makes the most sense in terms of PR, and that’s that. And if you agree that the NFL didn’t want a legal problem contesting Kroenke’s assumption of ownership of the Rams, I don’t know why you think they would have any greater stomach for a fight over LA when he is going to deliver a HUGE asset to the league and a majority of the owners favor it, even if it doesn’t quite hit the 75% bar. I mean…they aren’t going to vote 31-1 against this move. So what does going rogue even mean?
Meanwhile, Baron Kroenke has been working towards LA a LONG time, and he isn’t going to accept a minority bloc of votes killing his plan and just roll up his blueprints. He will take another swing at the fence post.
February 26, 2015 at 9:52 pm #19160InvaderRamModeratorThey would favor the Raiders/Chargers over the Rams simply because St. Louis has offered a new stadium and SD and Oak have not. It’s the public appearance of the thing. The Rams’ move looks like the groom ditching the bride at the altar. Now they can spin that, and WILL spin that if the Carson project does not become viable in time, but with both projects viable, the jilting of St. Louis looks bad. And IS bad. They want LA, and they will jilt St. Louis if that is necessary, but they won’t jilt St. Louis if they can move other teams to LA with worse situations, and SD and Oak currently have no solutions on the horizon.
I don’t know what you even mean by “qualified” owner.
I think that if Carson falls apart, the NFL will back Kroenke’s move and try to lure either SD or Oak to St. Louis. Second choice would probably be to broker a deal where Kroenke and Davis trade teams and Davis keeps the Rams in St. L while Kroenke moves the Raiders to LA, or some variation of that.
If Carson AND St. Louis fall apart, the Rams move cleanly into LA, end of story. Maybe the remaining team joins them there later.
Kroenke will file to move at the end of next season, and the league will have to give him an answer. They won’t tell him No unless there is another LA plan nailed into place. There is no way the NFL does not have a team in LA in 2016. It will be the Rams, or the Chargers.
yes. i should have said all things being equal. assuming that oakland or san diego come up with a stadium plan.
i didn’t say a qualified owner. i said more qualified. and by that i mean the league wants an owner with a strong business sense. i think they want the team that’s here to have staying power. i believe the owners will think that guy is kroenke.
i’ve read that davis is not highly regarded. they don’t think he’ll have the ability to run a quality organization. and that’s not what they want in los angeles. maybe that guy is spanos? i don’t know. spanos has complained about not wanting another team in the southern california area because he believes it will hurt him financially and now he’s in bed with the raiders? does that sound like a guy who’s going to lead a new team into the second largest market in america? maybe the two of them combined can make it work and will give the league optimism that a joint venture will work? i don’t know.
i do know that kroenke has the financial might to do this on his own. he runs multiple sports teams. arsenal plays in london. a major metropolitan city.
he’s the only one of the three owners who just went forward with his plans and is making something happen. like really just happen, and he doesn’t need the city to help him out. we all know the problems with the rams on the field. but if kroenke moves to los angeles and builds this stadium, the league can be fairly certain that the rams are here to stay. even when he passes on, his empire will pass onto his children. davis and spanos can’t compete with that. does that even matter? maybe it doesn’t. my guess is it does matter to the league.
February 26, 2015 at 10:25 pm #19163ZooeyModeratorhe’s the only one of the three owners who just went forward with his plans and is making something happen.
This is the key to me.
For thirty years, there has been nothing but talk in LA about stadiums.
For 20 years, LA has been there for the taking.
Kroenke is the only guy who is making it happen. He owns the land. He has political clearance. He has the money. He needs No Help from anybody. The shovels are on site.
The other stuff matters. It matters a lot.
But the window of opportunity for alternatives is closing, and the competing groups have approximately a year to match, or there will be no showdown. Spanos can whine all day and night, but if he hasn’t got shovels on site, he’s toasted. Same with St. Louis.
I think there is enough time for those alternatives to match Kroenke and force a showdown, so it isn’t locked up, but those groups are going to have to show the committee a rock-solid plan, or they are going to be denied a seat at the table. Kroenke is already at the table.
By the way, I think the flaw in the St. Louis plan is that it asks Kroenke to pony up money. And I don’t think the NFL can tell a guy he HAS to spend his money on someone else’s business plan, regardless of how much they love that plan. They just cannot make him do it. The contract was to upgrade the dome, and they aren’t doing that, so no matter what, they are not meeting the terms of the agreement, and Kroenke is essentially a free agent. They can’t make him stay in the dome, and they can’t make him invest in the St. Louis stadium. So I don’t know where that leaves everything legally. The courts, I guess.
February 26, 2015 at 10:42 pm #19168InvaderRamModeratorkroenke might be a sociopathic asshole. but in a league of sociopathic assholes, he is an alpha male. and they will respect that on a certain level.
unless spanos and davis can come up with a plan that is more impressive than kroenke’s.
but like i said the chances have definitely increased on the rams staying in st. louis. i did not see the carson project coming at all. and there’s always the chance that the st. louis stadium happens.
i also think this carson project increases the chances of kroenke working out some deal with davis where davis takes the st. louis rams, and kroenke moves the raiders to inglewood if davis can’t work out a deal in oakland.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
