Kroenke ready to show detailed stadium plans … plus other relocation things

F Kroenke and his plan.

I am tired of being neutral on the subject. If the NFL had any type of integrity, it wouldn’t let Stan leave St. Louis … and I don’t buy any argument that St. Louis spent too long making an offer. First, they let SK buy the team even though he was in violation of cross-ownership rules. They told him to fix the cross-ownership issue, but he never does. And, now, with St. Louis putting together a plan that includes public assistance, SK steamrolls ahead with this opulent, privately financed stadium in L.A. Everyone’s like, well, it’s Stan’s team. No, it’s an NFL team, in an NFL City, that already lost a team to an owner who expected assistance despite incompetence. But, SK is worse than Bidwill. Bidwill talked to City leaders. Stan says nothing to nobody here. He doesn’t have to say “F you, St. Louis,” that’s obvious. So, F you, Stan. F you, too.

Dak wrote:

F Kroenke and his plan.

I am tired of being neutral on the subject. If the NFL had any type of integrity, it wouldn’t let Stan leave St. Louis … and I don’t buy any argument that St. Louis spent too long making an offer. First, they let SK buy the team even though he was in violation of cross-ownership rules. They told him to fix the cross-ownership issue, but he never does. And, now, with St. Louis putting together a plan that includes public assistance, SK steamrolls ahead with this opulent, privately financed stadium in L.A. Everyone’s like, well, it’s Stan’s team. No, it’s an NFL team, in an NFL City, that already lost a team to an owner who expected assistance despite incompetence. But, SK is worse than Bidwill. Bidwill talked to City leaders. Stan says nothing to nobody here. He doesn’t have to say “F you, St. Louis,” that’s obvious. So, F you, Stan. F you, too.

it’s all very unfortunate. ultimately the nfl will do what’s best for the nfl. question is is it better for the nfl to keep the rams in st louis or in los angeles?

Zooey wrote:

Interesting board glitch.

Sorry. What is?

another article.

Bernie: More pressure on STL effort to keep Rams

By Bernie Miklasz

Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times wrote about the specifics of Stan Kroenke’s stadium plans for Inglewood. And really, the plans are spectacular. You can read about them by clicking Farmer’s piece and/or the Associated Press story we posted on STLtoday.

My takeaways from the story:

• If the plan is executed as drawn up, it would be the most dynamic stadium the NFL. Actually, it would be the most dynamic venue in North American professional sports.

• The stadium is being designed to accommodate two NFL franchises. Which shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. It would be short-sighted and stupid to build a place in LA that could only house one franchise.

• This only reaffirms something I’ve written a couple of times. I know that the Raiders and Chargers have gone in together for a stadium project in suburban Carson. But it’s possible for Kroenke to split one of the teams off from the other, enticing one to join him in Inglewood. It would benefit Kroenke to have the only NFL team in town — but if it helps him get the Rams to LA by procuring a second franchise for his venue, then why wouldn’t he do that? What remains to be determined is whether San Diego and Oakland can put together new-stadium projects to keep their franchises.

• The Kroenke stadium plan will surely impress his fellow NFL owners. This one seemingly checks all of the boxes and has the glamorous, glitzy, over-the-top element that’s right for the Los Angeles style. To return to the nation’s second-largest market, the NFL wants more than a functional, solid, stadium. The one in Los Angeles must be something special. By the design appearance, this one qualifies.

• This is mere speculation on my part … but I’d have to think the detailed unveiling of the Kroenke stadium could sway some owners’ votes to his side, should it come down to that.

• I don’t know what the stadium in suburban Carson will look like (in terms of specifics) but I find it hard to believe it will top Kroenke’s palace.

• The Kroenke stadium in LA is more grandiose and impressive than the proposed stadium in St. Louis. But that’s inevitable given that Inglewood is a (mostly) privately-funded project and the STL stadium requires a significant commitment of public dollars. I don’t think any reasonably sane person ever believed, for a second, that the STL drawing would be equal to the LA drawing. And that really isn’t the point. The standards are different. And the proposed stadium in St. Louis is absolutely suitable for the market.

So what does this mean for St. Louis?

As wonderful as the Kroenke kingdom appears to be, the basic challenge for STL remains the same.

If St. Louis can fund a stadium plan by the end of the year, then STL will put strong pressure on the NFL to keep the Rams here.

Why? Well, we’ve gone over this many times, and I guess we’ll go over it again …

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and NFL executive VP Eric Grubman have repeatedly stated that the league’s primary objective is to help existing markets come up with a stadium solution that will keep their franchise in place. And never in NFL history has a team moved from a market that has a new, funded stadium project ready to break ground.

And allowing the Rams to be stripped from St. Louis would be even more outrageous considering that (A) the league has encouraged St. Louis to build the stadium; and (B) the NFL dispatched Grubman to St. Louis to assist with the planning of the new stadium.

The NFL is hardly a bastion of ethics. But how can you tell a city to fund and build a new stadium and send your second-most powerful exec to oversee the project and then take the franchise away after the city complies with your instructions?

On the flip side: if the stadium plan here fails to become an actionable reality by the end of the calendar year, then the Rams are most likely gone.

The reason I don’t say “definitely” gone is because of the Carson plan, which would allow the league to solve the California problem with California teams instead of ripping another franchise from another region.

Aside from that, Kroenke’s path to Los Angeles is obviously much clearer without a new stadium in STL. Without a stadium, St. Louis makes it much easier for the owners to vote in Kroenke’s favor if he applies for relocation. (Presuming he doesn’t go rogue and move anyway.)

Related note: Sports Illustrated’s Peter King asked Goodell about the LA situation. King even asked about Kroenke’s ongoing status of being in violation of the NFL rules that prohibit cross ownership.

Here’s the pertinent passage, presented verbatim:

King: I mean, L.A. is going to happen … As you look at the landscape, what has changed to make it logical and likely that there will be football in Los Angeles?

Goodell: I’m not saying it’s likely. I think a couple of things are positive. One is our long-term labor agreement. I would say that when someone is making the kind of investment that you have to make in the Los Angeles market as well as a lot of other markets—you need the long-term stability so that we can invest back in the business. Ultimately that will pay you back. That’s why we’ve seen the salary cap increase by $20 million per team over the past two years. That investment is paying back. I think the long-term labor agreement has given us the ability to evaluate a long-term investment in Los Angeles to make it work successfully—because it’s a challenging market. It’s competitive. The stadium is a critical component of that. They’re not getting cheaper.

King: Doesn’t it make the most sense to have Oakland and San Diego combining in a stadium in L.A. and the Rams staying in St. Louis?

Goodell: Our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done—that they can get a stadium built to secure the long-term future of their franchise. San Diego has been working 14 years on a new stadium. Oakland is not in a new debate either, for the A’s or the Raiders. Same with St. Louis. … These are long debates about what is the right solution for the community and what is best for the team. We’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.

King: Gut feeling—football in L.A. in 2016?

Goodell: I really don’t know, Peter. I’m not relying on my gut, I guess. I’m relying on if there is a real alternative where we can return to the market successfully for the long-term; that is the biggest priority in Los Angeles. And the other one is obviously making sure that we’re doing whatever necessary in the local markets to keep our teams successful and give them every opportunity to create a solution that works for the team long-term.

King: One other thing about L.A.—Stan Kroenke and the cross-ownership rules. Several times the league has told Kroenke to divest the ownership of his hockey and basketball teams. What can the league do to make him get rid of those teams?

Goodell: The finance committee has been working on this. They’ve given him periods of time to correct it and different ways in which to correct it. I think progress is being made on that. Stan hasn’t said, “I’m not going to be in compliance with the rules.” He wants to make sure that if we’re going to change our rules, he can get consideration for that. If we’re not going to change our rules, how can he do it in the appropriate way?

Goodell, as expected, is giving the NFL plenty of wiggle room on the LA front. As he should, because this drama could swerve in several different directions.

But St. Louis-based Rams fans can take at least a little comfort from Goodell’s claim that “our first objective will be to make sure that those markets have had the chance to get something done,” … and “we’re looking to see if we can create those solutions locally. If we can’t, we obviously have to look at long-term solutions for those teams.”

That brings us back to the main point.

If St. Louis secures the necessary stadium funding, the city will remain in contention to keep the Rams or possibly attract another franchise.

If the St. Louis stadium plan collapses, then the “long-term solution” will most likely come elsewhere. That would be Los Angeles.

Thanks for reading …

— Bernie

Kraft: NFL has ‘obligation’ to stay in St. Louis

• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football/professional/article_b71863ad-59ba-56d3-a9e3-5ced69af0eb8.html

PHOENIX • Not only is New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft one of the NFL’s most influential owners, he also sits on two committees that will have a lot to say about relocation of teams to Los Angeles and the future of pro football in St. Louis.

His message to St. Louis is direct and simple.

“From my point of view, if they come up with a plan that looks pretty good and a strong financial package, I think we — the NFL — have an obligation in my opinion to be able to have a team in St. Louis,” Kraft said Monday at the NFL owners meetings.

Note that he said “a team.” He didn’t specifically mention the Rams. But his general point is that if St. Louis steps up with stadium and financing plans that work, the city will continue to have NFL football.

“We have to be very careful and responsible to different markets who really step up and do what they want to do (in terms of keeping a team),” Kraft continued. “If they do, we have a responsibility to make sure there’s a team in that market.”

That sentiment appears to be widespread among league owners and insiders assembled here this week for the annual NFL owners meetings. The two-man task force of Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz has made impressive progress on the stadium plan in St. Louis, but the hard part remains on the horizon — especially coming up with the financing.

But if the financing’s in place, the league will have a hard time turning it’s back on roughly a half-billion dollar investment by St. Louis on a new riverfront stadium on the north edge of downtown. It would be the second stadium St. Louis has built for the NFL in less 25 years, basically unprecedented in league history.

However encouraging Kraft’s words might be at face value, he did throw out one caveat for St. Louis: “But they have to be able to support the team,” Kraft said. “Any community that’s privileged to have a team, love ‘em up.”

Along those lines, the league is in the process of making market assessments in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland, Calif. — three cities in which franchises are free agents in terms of potential relocation.

The NFL is doing the same in Los Angeles, where Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants to build a stadium in the nearby Inglewood, Calif., area. Meanwhile, the Chargers and Raiders have formed an alliance to build a stadium in suburban Carson, Calif., if they can’t settle their stadium issues in their current home markets of San Diego and Oakland.

Eric Grubman, the NFL’s point man on Los Angeles/relocation/stadium development, plans to visit all the cities in play in April as part of the market assessment program.

Regardless of what happens in St. Louis, it never has seemed clearer that Los Angeles is on the brink of getting an NFL franchise for the first time since 1994. The Rams (to St. Louis) and Raiders (to Oakland) both left the LA market in the spring of 1995.

“In my opinion, I think there’ll be a team and possibly two playing in LA somewhere in 2016,” New York Giants president and CEO John Mara said. “But that remains subject to the league approval and that’ll happen at some point in the future.”

Kraft went even further, saying it’s more likely the NFL will have two teams in Los Angeles in 2016 than just one.

“Twenty-one years ago when I moved into the league, we had two teams move out of the LA market,” Kraft said. “It was just very unfortunate. And I don’t think it’s good that we’ve let a generation of fans, young kids, grow up (without the NFL in LA).

“It’s not good for the NFL, and I really believe within the next year we’ll have two teams in that market. I don’t know who they’ll be. … We have some real good options. We’ll see what happens in the end game.”

Kraft saved football in New England when he purchased the Patriots from St. Louisan James Busch Orthwein in 1994 amid rumors that Orthwein might move the franchise to the Gateway City.

Kraft doesn’t think Los Angeles should have an NFL team or teams without a top-flight venue, and expressed optimism that that would be the case.

“I think LA should be a market where we play Super Bowls, where we have an NFL Experience,” he said. “We have a (television) network out there. There’s a lot of things that can be done around it, and allow the NFL to really be a showplace. And integrating everything, and doing it in a proper real estate development.”

Without mentioning Kroenke’s plan by name, that seemed to be an endorsement of the Inglewood project because the 80,000-seat stadium planned there is just one part of a massive real estate development on the site.

Given the financial commitment necessary to build a — pardon the expression — top-tier stadium the league wants in the Los Angeles market, Kraft thinks having the resources of two teams in one building is a necessity. Although there have been differing opinions, Kraft thinks it’s best to have the two teams move simultaneously into a new LA-area stadium.

“Sort of in a way that happened in New York-New Jersey, where they corrected a situation that had gone on, I think, for many years where the Jets felt maybe like they were second class,” Kraft said, speaking of the Giants and Jets sharing MetLife Stadium.

“And now you have two NFL teams and two fan bases that are both treated in a professional way,” he added. “You could have it that one team would come in later (in LA), but I’d like to see it be simultaneous.”

New stadium renderings for Kroenke’s Inglewood project made available to the Los Angeles Times revealed that plans called for locker room facilities for two NFL teams. That might have seemed like a revelation, but it wasn’t.

Grubman pointed out Monday that a stadium designed for two teams was made a requirement by the league for Los Angeles in order to be eligible for the NFL’s so-called “G-4” stadium funds.

So if the Kroenke plan is successful, you could see the Rams and Chargers there in 2016, which could put the Raiders in play for St. Louis if the Peacock and Blitz plan becomes a reality in terms of land acquisition and financing.

But Raiders owner Mark Davis stopped a couple of steps short of discussing the possibility of the St. Louis Raiders in brief comments with reporters Monday.

When asked if he thought Carson is a viable site, Davis said: “Absolutely. But I don’t really want to get into talking about any of the other plans. Right now we’re talking about Oakland, and we’ll see what we can do there.”

NFL will do what it wants

By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-nfl-will-do-what-it-wants/article_8098b84e-dd1a-589a-a6a0-e258b319899d.html

The National Football League is conducting a market study of St. Louis in an attempt to assess our level of fandom and corporate support.

This is all part of the feverish chariot race to Los Angeles pitting the Rams, Chargers and Raiders. St. Louis isn’t the only market being scrutinized by the NFL; Oakland, San Diego and LA are also going through an official league inspection.

There have been a few problems; some longtime St. Louis-based fans complained that they never received the survey, which was supposedly distributed to season-ticket holders here. It was the first sign of a potentially flawed process.

So what will the St. Louis market study show?

Easy answer: whatever the NFL wants it to show.

These NFL operatives have more moves than Marshall Faulk; you can’t hem them in. They always find wiggle room.

There’s NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who on Wednesday praised the STL effort to get a new stadium off the ground here. But Goodell added that the NFL is considering speeding up the timetable to allow owners, including the Rams’ Stan Kroenke, to apply for relocation sooner than the league’s original Jan. 1 window.

So while Goodell says he likes what’s going on in St. Louis, he also pivots and offers that Kroenke (and others) may be allowed to apply for a move in the fall. Which, of course, would give St. Louis less time to finalize the stadium plan. If that happens, advantage Kroenke. You have to admit it: This was a nice cutback move by Goodell.

NFL executive VP Eric Grubman has also praised the progress being made toward a new St. Louis stadium. And if task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz can complete the land acquisition and stadium funding, then St. Louis should be in a great shape, right?

Uh, well … not necessarily.

“Your supposition is that it’s just public money that turns the key in the lock that opens the door that makes the market viable,” said Grubman, as quoted by the Orange County Register. “That’s not all there is. Let’s put the pieces together. You have to have a stadium and a financing plan … You have to have a market assessment that suggests that the market can and will be healthy for the long term so that stadium plan is supported.

“And if you do that then you’ve demonstrated viability against relocation guidelines, but it still goes to a vote. But the reason I make that distinction is that I could see a scenario where a financing plan is assembled and land is assembled and an entitlement is assembled but the market assessment is dim. And in that scenario, I don’t know that the owners would necessarily feel compelled to keep the team there.

“I could see a scenario where the market assessment is terrific and the land is assembled and the financing plan is not quite done and the owners may say, too late. let ’em go. Or they may say, let’s give them a little bit more time. That’s up to the owners.”

After absorbing all of that, please allow me to repeat what I said earlier in this piece: In the matter of franchise relocation, the league will do as it pleases. Do not even try to box these people in. It’s impossible.

This is a helpful reminder from the men who run the league. Seriously, it’s better to know what we’re up against instead of being naive and making false assumptions. I made that mistake — a big one — at the beginning of this escapade. Well, never again.

This is their league, they have full control of the process, and the relocation guidelines are essentially relocation suggestions. If this comes down to a relocation vote, the owners can disregard the rules and vote as they please.

If the NFL and its owners decide it’s smart to have the Rams head to SoCal and play in Kroenke’s spectacular new stadium, then this is exactly how things will go down.

I’m not saying situation is hopeless. It’s possible that the NFL will conduct an honorable process. And we were the first to discuss alternatives, including the NFL redirecting the Raiders to St. Louis, or Kroenke selling the Rams to buy the Raiders and set them up in Los Angeles.

A lot of this sounds goofy, but you just can’t rule anything out. This competition for the LA market already has featured surprise developments and frequent revisions to the narrative.

One thing has not changed: St. Louis must have a new stadium to stay in the game, and stay in the NFL. Peacock and Blitz have to finalize the land purchase and stadium funding as soon as possible. Without the stadium, it’s over for the NFL here. That’s the one absolute.

As for the NFL’s market study of St. Louis, I’ll try to offer some assistance.

This is a good football town that’s been stuck with bad teams and worse owners. There have been 48 NFL seasons here, with only 16 ending with a winning record, and only eight resulting in a trip to the postseason.

The Cardinals were here 28 seasons, ranked 18th in winning percentage and went 0-3 in the postseason. The Rams have been here 20 seasons, and while the “Greatest Show” era was tremendous (but brief), the franchise ranks 27th in the league in wins since moving here. Only the Raiders have won fewer games since 2004.

Despite already having endured decades of sad-sack football and having a 6-10 team and an owner plotting to move the franchise, St. Louis fans still averaged 57,000 in attendance per home game in 2014. These fans have had every reason to be demoralized but still filled the sterile Edward Jones Dome to 88 percent capacity.

I’d say this is strong but undernourished football market. One that hasn’t had the chance to enjoy many winning seasons or benefit from quality, or truly local, ownership. One that has watched home games in a cookie-cutter baseball stadium (Busch II) or in the current convention-center warehouse.

I doubt that any of this will make it to the NFL’s market-study report. The best we can hope for is that this town will receive fair treatment from the NFL. But this is the NFL’s game, and the league makes the rules. That’s the reality.

It seems that the NFL didn’t distribute the survey as claimed so the fix is in any way. Last year Rams attendance was 30th at 57,000 and Raiders was next at 53,700 with Vikings last at 52,200. Given all that went into that 2014 season for Rams fans that is very respectable. An increase of 7000-10,000 per game gets the Rams at Indy, Seattle and New England attendance.
With an owner not trying to move the team and a starting QB that doesn’t sit out two seasons and a modestly competitive team such attendance figures are easily within reach in St. Louis. Though I realize it doesn’t matter.

• This reply was modified 9 years, 7 months ago by bnw.

The Vikings played at the University of Minnesota last season while their new publicly-funded stadium in being built. So really, St. Louis is 31st in attendance.

That all makes sense to me, Zooey.

w
v

I agree with Zooey’s assessment, for the most part.

I also agree that the Ed is a horrible stadium and needs to be replaced, no matter what happens.

What could have happened is that Kroenke could have worked with STL to build a new stadium and surrounding commercial development and “entertainment experience,” and it would have happened, and the Rams would stay here, and who could argue with that outcome? But, SK’s California dreamin’, and steering the ship to L.A. All along the way, the NFL has bowed to SK’s wishes. Moving up the time frame the deadline for a decision on various stadium plans is another move that helps grease the skids for “Silent” Stan.

My prediction at this point is that the NFL will find that St. Louis deserves a franchise, but not as much as L.A., and it’s SK’s team, so sorry, St. Louis fans, hope you find something in the future.

I mean, the writing’s on the wall. I haven’t seen anything happen recently that would change the story.

Dak wrote:

My prediction at this point is that the NFL will find that St. Louis deserves a franchise, but not as much as L.A., and it’s SK’s team, so sorry, St. Louis fans, hope you find something in the future.

That is pretty much the way I see it, too.

You are right about the Development. The fact that Stan – who is a developer – has plans for a massive Los Angeles development, and no plans for a St. Louis development…. I mean, you’re right. He could have found a place to build a massive retail/commercial/residential/office stadium complex in St. Louis, and made another fortune.

This isn’t just a leverage play against St. Louis. This is no “Build me a stadium, or I’ll leave” threat. Compared to the LA project, getting an absolutely free $1 billion stadium in St. Louis STILL isn’t as attractive. And it won’t be absolutely free. And he wouldn’t own it.

At this point, I think the only hope for St. Louis Rams fans is a franchise swap between Kroenke and Davis in which the Rams stay in St. Louis, and Kroenke takes the Raiders to LA. But while I think Kroenke probably doesn’t care about the Rams per se, I’d be willing to bet that the NFL doesn’t want the Raiders to be the team elevated to Glory Status in NFL West. The Raiders are not a good poster child for the NFL.

I think it comes down to what you said when the dust settles. “St. Louis is a great city, and we want the NFL there, and we are really sorry it isn’t going to be the Rams, but we will take care of you somehow.”

That is what the tea leaves look like now.

But then…there is still the possibility of a wild card that changes everything. Such as….Dodgers Stadium.

**********************

I don’t see very much there that has substance, and I can’t imagine anybody wanting to work with McCourt. But. Who knows?
http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/03/dodgers_nfl_stadium_chavez_ravine.php#more

Could Dodgers Owners Swoop in With NFL Stadium Proposal?
Thursday, March 19, 2015, by Adrian Glick Kudler

Guggenheim Partners, the group that bought the Dodgers a few years back, knows its Los Angeles history: wait around long enough and every last NFL stadium plan will die off. Plus, the NFL has always coveted Chavez Ravine, home of Dodger Stadium. With all that in mind, they seem to be biding their time, holding their cards close to the chest, and quietly considering the idea of putting a football stadium on the copious amounts of land that surround their baseball stadium. Much-hated former Dodgers owner Frank McCourt still owns most of that land, and he tells the LA Business Journal (via LAObserved) in an interview this week—as coyly as possible—that the idea is still very much in play for him and Guggenheim.

Years ago, when McCourt still owned the team and stadium, he proposed a massive multi-use campus surrounding the stadium, but now he says there are no firm development plans: ” think that Guggenheim has some ideas in terms of what they’d like to develop by Dodger Stadium, so we’ll be having conversations with them in the future.”

When the LABJ asked about potential proposals, he gets sly: “There’s a lot swirling around regarding the NFL and all that, so I think we’ll see what plays out in various locations and then we’ll see what they want to do.” He’s referring to the latest most-promising plan, in Inglewood (from St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke) and the latest second-place player, a joint Chargers/Raiders proposal for Carson. But the Inglewood plan now has its first official legal challenge in the works, and the most promising plan of the last half-decade, Downtown LA’s Farmers Field, just got killed off last week. LA is like a Hunger Games for NFL stadiums.

Guggenheim has also reportedly had talks with the NFL in the past about bringing football to the Dodger land—were those talks secretly massively successful and they’re all just waiting for the right moment to say something? Or have they already failed and McCourt is just being typically douchey? Or maybe he’s burnishing his rep, since in the past the NFL has not seemed too thrilled to work with him.

McCourt adds a commonly-held truth: “I think that Chavez Ravine has always been a preferred location for the NFL.” But the more persistent truth is that the NFL loves not having a team in LA, because it loves all these battles, it loves developers competing for its affections, and it loves having the threat of a move to hold over other cities’ heads.

*************************

How six NFL owners will change the fate of St. Louis football

By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/how-six-nfl-owners-will-change-the-fate-of-st/article_85bbe024-ef0e-5e65-b7f1-20588b5a6597.html

PHOENIX • The face of St. Louis football walked the gilded halls of the Arizona Biltmore hotel last week, in double-buckled loafers, a blue plaid suit, aviator sunglasses and a grin.

At the close of last week’s annual meeting of National Football League owners, there was no longer any doubt: Stan Kroenke wants to move the Rams to Los Angeles.

On Monday, a league executive briefed teams on Kroenke’s plans for a glamorous, 80,000-seat, $1.86 billion stadium in Inglewood, Calif.

Afterward, a group of key owners and league executives made another thing clear: Moving the Rams will be difficult if St. Louis planners nail down a proposal to build a new football stadium downtown.

And that shifts the fate of St. Louis football out of the enigmatic owner’s hands and — temporarily — into those of St. Louisans.

Eventually, the decision will come down to a room and the NFL’s 32 owners. “At the end of the day, it’s an owners vote,” said Pittsburgh Steelers owner and NFL stadium committee chairman Art Rooney II. “That’s where this will wind up. It’s got to get 24 votes.”

But St. Louis’ chance won’t get that far if local planners can’t cement the details of their riverfront stadium proposal.

The fight for a team in Los Angeles changed battlefields last week. The debate moved from the public forum into a private and much more managed setting: owners committees. One such committee will research, debate and eventually write recommendations on a move to the LA market.

There is no longer real discussion of whether owners will try to relocate. Only which teams will go. And which cities will lose a team.

“This could come to a vote in a year,” said Steve Tisch, co-owner of the New York Giants. The NFL has made it “very clear,” he said — St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland need to “get their proposals to their respective teams sooner rather than later.”

“Is it crunch time? Is it a two-minute warning yet? No,” said Tisch. “But … those three cities are kind of in the fourth quarter.”

‘SOMETHING HAS TO GIVE’

The NFL governs itself much as does any large company or association. A chief executive — Commissioner Roger Goodell — runs the organization and reports to the board — the owners. The owners break into small working committees, which tackle major tasks and make recommendations to the full board. While the full board votes on final decisions, those committee recommendations carry weight.

And the first stop for each of the stadium plans will be the newly formed Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities.

As the Phoenix meeting stretched into the week, the Post-Dispatch tracked down all six team owners Goodell appointed to the LA committee.

All but one — Kansas City Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt — spoke about their task. New England Patriots owner Robert Kraft, New York Giants co-owner John Mara, the Houston Texans’ Bob McNair, the Carolina Panthers’ Jerry Richardson and the Steelers’ Rooney each emphasized their commitment to keeping teams in local markets.

“I mean, when we put these relocation guidelines in place, again, it was with the intent to create stability, to create a bias for keeping a team in the home market, if at all possible,” Rooney said. “And I don’t sense that there’s any big change in that thinking in the league.

“We never wanted to be a league that had teams moving all over the place at the drop of a hat,” Rooney continued.

But they each also stressed that only applies under one condition: if hometowns mount real plans.

“We’ve got to remove the uncertainty,” Richardson said.

The owners’ declarations are heavy with meaning. The San Diego Chargers have been asking for a new stadium for 14 years, and yet the city isn’t scheduled to present a proposal to the team until mid-May. “It’s kind of getting to the point where something has to give,” Chargers owner Dean Spanos told the Post-Dispatch.

And Oakland regional officials have been at such odds with each other, they didn’t even vote to begin working together on a project until last week. Their proposal won’t be ready until August.

“If you want to consider that progress, that’s what it is,” Mark Davis, owner of the Raiders, said Tuesday. “Yeah, we’ve been at it for six or seven years now.”

The Chargers-Raiders two-team, $1.7 billion stadium proposal in Carson, Calif., announced just a month ago, is quickly gaining ground on Kroenke’s plan. But it’s still in second place.

And all of that leaves St. Louis planners in a unique position. Yes, they face an owner with means and momentum. But they are front-runners, too.

If St. Louis planners can hammer out the financing and market feasibility of their 64,000-seat, $985 million riverfront proposal, then perhaps they can persuade NFL owners that the region doesn’t deserve to lose a team.

‘GOOD TO SEE YOU’

The first Kroenke sighting came late Monday afternoon. A throng of reporters chased him down the Biltmore hallways. Rams operations chief Kevin Demoff flanked his left. “We’ve got to run,” Demoff told them. “I’m sorry.”

The Post-Dispatch caught up. Kroenke smiled, then chuckled upon hearing the name of his team’s hometown paper.

“Good to see you,” said Kroenke.

“We’ll keep walking,” said Demoff.

By the meeting’s end on Wednesday, Kroenke’s timeline was clearer: Los Angeles stadium plans due to Goodell at the end of April. A potential vote at the next owners meeting, in May in San Francisco. And proposals for hometown stadiums this spring.

Goodell has praised the progress in St. Louis. And it has been substantial, by all accounts.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force has directed the Edward Jones Dome Authority to hire Doug Woodruff and his team at Downtown STL to assemble land north of downtown. The authority refused to release Woodruff’s contract, citing real estate exceptions to Missouri public records laws. But Woodruff said they’ve already cut a few checks to land owners.

Designs are progressing. Demoff, who is attending task force meetings — as requested by the NFL — is helping advance the stadium’s design. Local design firm HOK is consistently updating stadium plans.

And the Pennsylvania venue management firm SMG is already assessing the market, stadium financing deals, and possible lease agreements with a team, at a cost of $200,000 to the Dome Authority.

Former Anheuser-Busch executive Dave Peacock, the face of the local effort, says he and his team have made multiple presentations to the league and to the Rams.

But the NFL owners are looking for certainty. And the St. Louis plan isn’t yet that.

“We still have to get ducks in a row on our side, in our community,” Peacock said last week. “There’s still homework being done. People way smarter than me are looking at this.”

A contingent of taxpayer-funded stadium opponents insist Nixon will need voter approval in St. Louis and St. Louis County to “extend” the payments on the Edward Jones Dome so they could cover as much as $350 million of the new stadium, too. The Missouri Senate recently passed a bill requiring legislative or voter approval to extend bonds for a new stadium.

An NFL-commissioned market study is another question mark. The study sent 30-minute online surveys to a database of thousands of Rams fans and corporate sponsors, with the goal of determining just how many will buy season tickets, fancy suites and the like.

Peacock said he wasn’t worried. But some owners and NFL executives privately said they were.

Peacock said he understands what he’s up against. “We have to do our job to keep a team,” he said.

“We’re acting with urgency.”

In the meantime, Kroenke is on a bullet train to LA.

He ran into reporters one last time as he left the Biltmore Wednesday afternoon.

He said hello, chuckled again, and paused, for a moment.

Then he patted a reporter on the side, turned.

And left.

Jim Thomas of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.[

InvaderRam wrote:

i just remember how fisher kept telling thomas there was no way the rams were trading sam. flat out denied it. we all know what happened.

so do i think the league can pull the rug out from under st. louis while saying in public that they will not abandon them? absolutely.

They absolutely can.

Remember that as this story unfolds, and we encounter twists and turns that change what the landscape looks like from one week to the next, the one thing never to lose sight of is the fact that this is a business.

And in the end, the NFL is going to make the decision they think is best for the business.

Not for any one city. Not for any one owner. But for the business as a whole.

it will be what’s best for the league. they couldn’t ask for a better situation what with three teams with southern california connections. the one sure thing is the chargers. they’re already based in this area. i think it’s a no brainer.

so then it comes down to the rams and raiders.

i think the rams win in almost every category.

they have a long history in los angeles. it should be much easier establishing a fan base.

and as much as fans aren’t fond of stan he’s the stronger owner at least in the eyes of the league.

i have a hard time believing spanos and davis will come up with a better stadium plan in carson.

while raider nation has a strong fan base i believe they are largely irrelevant in the eyes of corporate sponsors. i don’t think the owners will shed too many tears if the raider brand is gone. meanwhile they can draw upon a strong ram brand in los angeles. yeah it was a long time ago but it makes for good nostalgia. there’s a strong connection there.

so what happens with the raiders. like i said. the nfl doesn’t need the raider brand anymore. they can rebrand them as the stallions and send them to st louis. a natural rivalry can be established in missouri with the chiefs. the preseason rivalry was nice but largely irrelevant but now you get a true division rivalry between kansas city and st louis in the afc west. that’s something corporate sponsors could get behind? i think so. it’s something fans in missouri could definitely get behind. rams niners rivalry? sure. but i’m not sure st louis fans really truly got behind that.

does that sound like something the league would get behind? to me it makes sense. just a hunch.