relocation: Former Raiders CEO Amy Trask Talks Kroenke, Rams' Future & Stadium

The Amy Trask interview… was…um…interesting: Cool-Corporate-shark vs Emotional-celebrity-Homer.

w
v

Agamemnon wrote:

wv wrote
The Amy Trask interview… was…um…interesting: Cool-Corporate-shark vs Emotional-celebrity-Homer.

w
v

She seems to be the most intelligent of the people who have talked about Kroenke and the Rams.;

Agreed.

Cept i suspect she doesn’t
have a Soul.

w
v

NFL exec: St. Louis must build new stadium to keep NFL

By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/nfl-exec-st-louis-must-build-new-stadium-to-keep/article_1683d7d6-ddf1-545f-9c95-5f5b6d6a4ff4.html

ST. LOUIS • Local planners must build a new football stadium here, or St. Louis will not hold on to its franchise, a key National Football League executive said Thursday.

NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, who is in charge of stadium development as well as exploration of the Los Angeles market, came to St. Louis on Thursday to meet with Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium team.

Grubman confirmed, for the first time by a league official, that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is indeed “looking” elsewhere.

“I’m not going to get into specifics, other than he has said he’s going to keep his options open and he’s looking,” Grubman said.

Grubman also said Kroenke has not made it clear to the league whether he wants to move to Los Angeles. More telling was an announcement this month that Kroenke is part of a development group with plans to build a stadium outside Los Angeles in an area where Kroenke bought land last year.

League officials are not considering such a move, Grubman said.

“We’re looking for a solution to the St. Louis Rams to be the St. Louis Rams, not for some other team to be the St. Louis Rams,” he said.

Is a stadium necessary for that solution?

“Yes,” Grubman said.

Grubman said he came to St. Louis this week to offer the NFL’s help in development of a new stadium here, and with hopes that Nixon’s team will make progress on the plan announced last week.

Last Friday, that team — Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock — proposed a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi riverfront, just north of downtown.

It would cost between $860 million and $985 million. Estimates call for as much as $450 million from Kroenke and the NFL, and $350 million in an extension of the public bonds still paying down the Jones Dome, where the Rams now play.

The riverfront plan is the newest effort to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Regional officials have struggled for years to come up with a solution to an aging Edward Jones Dome. Kroenke, they said, never sat down to negotiate.

While the league has previously said no team will move this year, owners don’t usually tell the league how they plan to act, Grubman said. Certainly not before “they’ve fully investigated all the different opportunities.”

Grubman would not further discuss what Kroenke has said to league officials. But moving, he noted, would at least require the vote of 24 of the league’s 32 owners, and there is no indication that Kroenke would break league rules, he said.

Grubman also said that St. Louis can’t keep the Rams without a new stadium.

Two years ago, the team won a lengthy battle over upgrades required by its lease at the Jones Dome. An arbitration panel ruled in favor of the Rams’ request for publicly financed renovations worth perhaps $700 million. Dome authorities declined, giving the Rams the option to go year-to-year on their lease.

“The way that was pursued over the past couple years has failed,” Grubman said.

“The probability that that gets resurrected is zero. Therefore we have to look at a new solution.”

The NFL’s role, he said, is to help give the St. Louis effort “the best chance possible.”

The north riverfront proposal, he said, isn’t yet real.

“A real plan means that the steps are all actionable,” he said. “If you need authorities, you’ve assembled those authorities. If you need land, you’ve assembled that land.”

Grubman described the plan here as something of a race. Multiple sites appear attractive in Los Angeles. Multiple teams are interested. By necessity, the addition of a team in one city requires the loss of a team from another.

Adding a team to the league, Grubman said, is “not on the table.”

The league must have a solution here soon. Certainly by the end of the year, he said.

Is the Los Angeles plan ahead of St. Louis? “I don’t look at it that way,” he said.

He’s looking instead at what St. Louis can do: “Can you assemble the site? Can you assemble the financing? And can a business plan be put together, collectively, by all of us, that’s attractive?”

It’s too early to grade the St. Louis plan, he said. The location on the waterfront is “terrific.” But the league needs more certainty about the costs and the revenue.

The NFL is embarking on a market study in St. Louis, he said.

“This is a great sports market. It’s been a terrific football market,” Grubman said. “But I don’t know what this project is going to yield. That’s not just about how many fans went to games in the past few years. That’s about what the cost is for the stadium, how long it will take to build it, and what’s the economic yield out of that project.”

Grubman hopes that all of the St. Louis unknowns will be nailed down before he reports back to the league and owners.

“I don’t want to put any lines in the sand,” he said. “… But what we’ve talked about is we really ought to be assembling this plan this calendar year. Which doesn’t mean Dec. 31.”

Peacock later said that he met with both the league and the Rams on Thursday.

He termed the meetings “very good.”

In a nutshell:

“….The NFL’s role, he said, is to help give the St. Louis effort “the best chance possible.”
The north riverfront proposal, he said, isn’t yet real.
“A real plan means that the steps are all actionable,” he said. “If you need authorities, you’ve assembled those authorities. If you need land, you’ve assembled that land.”
Grubman described the plan here as something of a race…”

w
v

I’ve never understood this “The League wants TWO teams in LA” thing.

Why, if its true, would the NFL want two teams in LA?
Isn’t it better if markets are spread out a bit?
Is it so that teams can still leverage their towns for
new stadiums even if one team moves to LA ?

Bernie Article on the Grubman meeting:
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-nothing-guaranteed-with-rams/article_f53d3d86-9308-54e9-a4e0-21620da753ac.html

w
v

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

One very interesting thing that Grubman said yesterday. When asked about Kroenke’s announcement and if it caught the league by surprise two weeks ago now, Grubman said they were made aware it was coming and they expected it. BOOM!

Okay, so, they didn’t exactly tell Kroenke not to do it, did they? Oh my, after the alleged there shall be no teams moving to LA in 2015 and they give Kroenke the thumbs up on the City of Champions? Hell yes they did! You know why because now they have a viable stadium situation in LA. An 80,000 seat palace which only needs approval of the Citizens of Inglewood and let me tell you that the response from the citizens of Inglewood is favorable. They are collecting signatures already and if they get enough signatures this will not even have to be put to a public vote in June. It would be confirmed by as early as March.

One thing the league allegedly stated was that 2015 would be a year they identify viable stadium options in LA. And they knew this City of Champions announcement was coming. Interesting, don’t you think?

One other statement Grubman made was St Louis is going to have to build a new stadium. Lets focus on that word “New” for a moment. Peacock’s presentation was for a new stadium, however, if you compare that 64,000 seat 1970s style stadium Peacock has proposed compared to AT&T Stadium in Dallas, the new Falcons 70,000 seat stadium in Atlanta and the City of Champions 80,000 seat stadium you may come to understand that “New” means new as in style of stadium trending in the NFL. AT&T has set the bar high folks and Kroenke has already set up a deal that will give the league a brand new 80,000 seat stadium in Inglewood/ LA.

Get the drift? Grubman is being very professional and saying all the right things but lets be clear. The league is not going to kill a deal for an 80,000 seat stadium in LA and keep the Rams in the love child of QualCom and Anaheim stadium.

Grubman is in STL to rubber stamp the league’s position.

Grits

GreatRamNTheSky wrote:

Dak wrote:
Bottom line, from that Grubman story, is that the STL group has to put together all of the particulars NOW of how they plan to build an NFL stadium. If they can’t do that get their ducks in a row by the end of this year, it sure sounds like that leaves the door open for Stan to move whenever he pleases.

Just my opinion but and I think you said this in a sense but, I think Grubman is in STL to rubber stamp this thing as concluded. and I think that the league is not going to kill an 80,000 seat stadium in LA to keep STL happy.

Stan is moving and the league knows it. Grubman even said the league was made aware of the City of Champions deal before it was announced.

Grits

Well if its a done deal, then why is the league telling St.Louis
to go ahead and build a New stadium?

w
v

Yeah, it’s an effed up world where we’re expected to provide hundreds of millions of dollars to support wealthy owners. And, well, it’s an effed up world. Cities really, really want their major sports franchises.

wv wrote:

i dream of a day
when cities build giant
Used Book Stores.

w
v

Oh, sure, you socialist commie. And, I bet they just let people borrow the books for free.

wv wrote:

I picked up a book by Jim Hannifan the other
day for a quarter. I figured i might find one
anecdote or a quote or two.

Nada.

Nothin.

The most useless book I’ve ever skimmed.

I should just bake it.

w
v

I’m reading 11/22/63 right now. It’s a Stephen King book about a guy who goes through a time portal and tries to stop the JFK assassination. It’s over 1,000 pages, and in the middle of the book, it’s a little slow. I’m about two-thirds the way through. I forgot how much I like King’s writing.

well from grubman’s statements the league obviously knew about kroenke’s plans.

and while they’re doing and saying the right things right now i wouldn’t be surprised if they find some way for the rams to move to los angeles. it’s the move that makes the most sense and it’s their best chance of having a team in los angeles.

a team with previous ties to the city. an owner capable of building a stadium with a good business sense and plenty of money. a team that actually has grounds to make a move.

i also wouldn’t be surprised if the league has known this for a long time and has given their tacit approval.

i also wouldn’t be surprised if they have a plan for another team to eventually move to st. louis at some point in the future. jacksonville. but i think this is all stuff we’ve been saying for awhile now.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/goodell-jones-have-a-talk/article_a7578c2f-c649-51b3-b87e-9f5c00291b27.html

Goodell, Jones have a talk

By Jim Thomas

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell personally called Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones this week to get clarification on Jones’ comments to the New York Times suggesting Stan Kroenke can move the Rams to Los Angeles if he wants — with or without league approval.
“Put (Jones’ remarks) in context,” NFL executive Eric Grubman told the Post-Dispatch on Thursday. “This man’s trying to get to the Super Bowl. He was in Green Bay, Wis., and he just lost an incredible game. A lot of passion and emotion.

“And he gets hit with that question from an out-of-town reporter. … Jerry wasn’t even quite sure what he said beyond acknowledging historically teams have moved without (permission). So when asked — ‘Did you say that?’ — he wasn’t even sure.”

As in not even sure what he had said.

“Now, is that impossible?” Grubman said. “What if you just lost that game and somebody hit you with that question? … I’m not going to speak for him. But I’ll hazard a guess on this one, that he would not tell you this could be done without a vote.

“To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that any owner can pick which rules they want to go for a vote and which they don’t want to go for a vote.”

Grubman said Goodell didn’t talk to Jones in a critical way, but simply asked him what he meant by his comments.

“It quickly became obvious that there’s nothing really here,” Grubman said. “Because in the heat of the moment, you had an owner who wasn’t really focused on the issue at hand, and talked about history and remembers that but doesn’t remember much of the detail beyond that.”

In summary, Grubman characterized Jones’ remarks as a stray comment that needed to be put to bed.

“Everybody’s gonna follow the rules,” Grubman said.

Grubman was in St. Louis on Thursday meeting with local officials on the region’s stadium plan. He said he has been to St. Louis about a half a dozen times over the last two or three years.

Jones’ remarks cast doubt on whether Kroenke would try to follow relocation guidelines and gain owners’ approval to move. It would take approval of 24 of 32 NFL owners to move the Rams to Los Angeles.

Team and league officials have told the Post-Dispatch that Kroenke will not go rogue and try to relocate without approval. Grubman reiterated that on Thursday.

When asked if Kroenke has said he will follow league rules, Grubman replied: “Oh, yes. And he has followed the rules. Not on this (specifically), because there’s never been any suggestion that he wouldn’t.

“Here’s the better example: We’ve proscribed guidelines for how to approach the L.A. market for any club that was interested, including keeping the league staff informed and so forth and so on.

“All the clubs that have been acting in that regard have been doing that, including the St. Louis Rams. So there’s no hint of (going rogue).”

As much as Grubman underscored the fact that Kroenke would follow the rules, he pointed out that there could be subjectivity in how those guidelines are interpreted as well as subjectivity on how individual club owners might vote if it gets to that.

“I don’t know how to gauge the probability of votes,” Grubman said. “I do know how to look at history and I know in the time that I’ve been associated with the league, the league has made some tough calls to keep teams in their markets and to do things that are quite extraordinary to keep teams in their markets.”

He cited Minnesota, New England, and New Orleans as examples of franchises where the league was successful in helping to prevent a move.

If Kroenke did in fact try to move the Rams without approval, Grubman said he had no idea how the league would respond.

“But I do know there are tremendous tools available,” he said. “There’s a charter and by-laws, and there’s ample authority in the commissioner’s office to make sure that everybody follows the rules.

“That’s what we are. We’re a league of rules. So having something which is a subjective judgment, subjected to a vote, is very different than having a league without rules.”

In terms of what kind of penalties Kroenke could face for an unauthorized move, Grubman didn’t want to go there.

“That’s so far off topic and so hypothetical, let’s pick another time,” he said. “There are going to be recommendations that are analyzed and made. And then there’s gonna be votes, but everybody’s gonna follow the rules.”

If Kroenke plays by the rules and somehow gains approval from the league to relocate, what are the alternatives for St. Louis? Is there another path to get another team here, such as San Diego or Oakland — franchises that also have stadium issues and could potentially relocate to Los Angeles as well? Grubman didn’t offer much hope there for St. Louis.

“I view that as such an undesirable path to take that I haven’t even thought about the probabilities,” he said. “Because you not only have to do all the hard work that you’re already (doing), then you’re gonna have to convince somebody that this is the market that they want to go to as opposed to some other market, or some market that they can stay in.

“The objective is to give the St. Louis Rams the best opportunity to be healthy in this market.”

So I read through all of these posts. I still don’t get it. But it’s early on a Saturday, and I’ve only had one cup of coffee. Help me, please.

Suppose Stan says, “I’m moving to LA”. What can anyone really do about it?

Can the other owners fine him? Stan could just not pay it.

The NFL isn’t gonna kick the Rams out of the league, no matter what their owner does.

So what penalty, that can be enforced, could the league impose on Stan? It would have to be something involving money, because I can’t see any other way of punishing an NFL owner. But what do I know?