Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › NFL will 'sweeten the pot' to keep the Rams in St. Louis
- This topic has 50 replies, 14 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
waterfield.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 22, 2015 at 1:07 am #18838
JackPMillerParticipantNFL will ‘sweeten the pot’ to keep the Rams in St. Louis
by Vinnie Criscenzo 11h agoThe NFL will give the Rams a good deal on a new stadium, plus they would ‘sweeten the pot’ even more to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
Stan Kroenke may not be too crazy about the idea, but it seems the NFL will try it’s best to keep the Rams in St. Louis.
St. Louis Rams on Stan Kroenke has been lobbying for a new stadium and a possible move of the team back to Los Angeles. The NFL would like to have an NFL franchise back in Los Angeles, but the Rams are not the team they want to relocate to Los Angeles.
The San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders are two other teams that are in desperate needs of new stadiums and have expressed interest in relocating the team to the Los Angeles area. The NFL has come up with the idea of the Carson project.
The Carson project is an idea for a $1.7 billion stadium to be built in Carson, California that will by jointly used by the Chargers and the Raiders. Both teams would have to relocate, but they wouldn’t have to move well across the country. Also, it will give two NFL franchises the new stadium they so desperately need. Thursday night, the Carson project was agreed upon by both the Chargers and Raiders.
The Raiders are still playing on a field with a baseball diamond, they need a new stadium badly.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke is mostly likely disappointed about the plan. He never came out and actually said he wants to relocate the team to Los Angeles, but everyone knows that is ultimately what he wants. However, it’s not all bad news for Kroenke.
Jason La Canfora ✔ @JasonLaCanfora
FollowKroenke wouldn’t love it, but he would get a good deal on new STL stadium and NFL could find ways to sweeten the pot more. Crazy times ahead
7:18 PM – 20 Feb 2015
81 Retweets 56 favorites
The Carson plan in California could mean some good things for Kroenke as well. To keep Kroenke happy, the NFL approved a plan on Thursday to expedite the building of a new stadium for the Rams, as well as give Kroenke a better deal money wise.
It makes the most sense to work out this way. The Chargers and Raiders are already based in California, so it will give both teams stadium relief while not having to move them far away while giving the league an NFL franchise, or two, in the Los Angeles area. The Rams also are the only franchise with a contingency plan in place with their new stadium in St. Louis.
H/T Jason La Confora
February 22, 2015 at 5:07 am #18840
TSRFParticipantOK, so if the Rams stay and the Chargers and the Raiders move to LA, one of those two would have to move to the NFC West and one of the current NFC West teams would have to move to the AFC West.
I read here (somewhere), that the Rams would be asked to move to the AFC, but if you look at the 4 NFC West teams, the Rams, Cards and 9ers have a long and rich NFC tradition (granted, the Cards were in the East for a lot of that); the Seahawks were actually an AFC team for the majority of their NFL history.
When I look at the current AFC West, IMO, the Raiders have a stronger AFC identity than the Chargers. I think it is because of Al Davis being the maverick owner and the AFC being the upstart league. I have a much easier time seeing the Chargers as an NFC team than the Raiders.
My Favorite Realignment:
NFC West: Rams, 9ers, Cards, Chargers
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, SeahawksLess favored:
NFC West: Rams, 9ers, Cards, Raiders
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, SeahawksDon’t like:
NFC West: Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Chargers
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Raiders, RamsReally Don’t Like:
NFC West: Seahawks, 9ers, Cards, Raiders
AFC West: Broncos, Chiefs, Chargers, RamsFebruary 22, 2015 at 7:53 am #18841
wvParticipantSo now, not only is location an issue
but there might be changes in
the divisions/conferences.Wow.
Btw, why cant the Chargers
and Raiders stay in the same division?
I mean at some point they are gonna play
each other whether they are in the same
division or not — and they would have
to play in that Carson stadium.w
vFebruary 22, 2015 at 8:25 am #18843
PA RamParticipantI do NOT want the Rams in the AFC. That would just be weird.
The Seahawks have an AFC history. They should go.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 22, 2015 at 8:56 am #18845
DakParticipantInteresting development.
I think the NFL sees that St. Louis is most willing to build a new stadium among the three teams without a long-term lease. I also think that Spanos has been a busy boy within NFL owner circles. SK is the maverick, forcing movement with his independent actions. Looks like Spanos has countered with his personal relationships with other owners.
February 22, 2015 at 9:28 am #18848PA RamParticipantInteresting development.
I think the NFL sees that St. Louis is most willing to build a new stadium among the three teams without a long-term lease. I also think that Spanos has been a busy boy within NFL owner circles. SK is the maverick, forcing movement with his independent actions. Looks like Spanos has countered with his personal relationships with other owners.
That’s a good observation.
So I wonder how Stan responds. Does he take the win in St. Louis, look like a good guy and get on with things…or does he give the middle finger to Spanos and the NFL and do what he wants anyway and see what happens. Could go either way.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 22, 2015 at 10:15 am #18853
nittany ramModeratorRealignment would piss off a lot of people. The Rams, Raiders and Chargers all have long standing rivalries within their divisions. Of course, if it’s the Rams that move to LA then the current historic rivalries could be maintained because the divisions would not have to be realigned. That would be true even if either the Raiders or Chargers also moved to LA.
February 22, 2015 at 10:30 am #18854
AgamemnonModeratorNobody has to change conferences. They just can’t schedule both teams to play a home game on the same date.
AgamemnonFebruary 22, 2015 at 12:04 pm #18864JackPMillerParticipantI remember reading somewhere, that if it ended up being the Raiders and Chargers moving to LA, then the Raiders and Seahawks would switch.
The way I remember, the NFC West would be,
Cardinals, Rams, Raiders, 49ersThe AFC West would be,
Broncos, Chargers, Chiefs, SeahwaksFebruary 22, 2015 at 1:08 pm #18869
ZooeyParticipant<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>Nobody has to change conferences. They just can’t schedule both teams to play a home game on the same date.</span>
I will repeat what I said elsewhere. If there are two teams in LA, TV is going to want one in each conference.
February 22, 2015 at 2:32 pm #18874
bnwBlockedTV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it. Once the Rams left LA there became overlapping AFC West territories with the Raiders and Chargers. So nothing changes except both playing in LA makes it geographically more convenient, well unless most of their fans walk to games? He he.
No need to change divisions around either.
I will believe the Carson project once construction starts. It could end up with a deal that has both the Raiders and Chargers playing in Kroenke’s LA stadium.
Anything to keep the Rams in St. Louis is cool.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
February 22, 2015 at 2:34 pm #18875JackPMillerParticipantNobody has to change conferences. They just can’t schedule both teams to play a home game on the same date.
The Jets and Giants share the same stadium. They were able to work things out. It would work in LA as well.
February 22, 2015 at 2:51 pm #18877ZooeyParticipantTV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it.
I don’t agree with you there.
February 22, 2015 at 3:16 pm #18878bnwBlockedTV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it.
I don’t agree with you there.
There’s one NFL and lots of TV networks. Why would the NFL agree to any contract that gave a TV network control over the makeup of the divisions? That kind of money has not existed.
According to wikipedia-
With the Houston Texans joining the NFL, the league’s teams were realigned into eight divisions: four teams in each division and four divisions in each conference. In creating the new divisions, the league tried to maintain the historical rivalries from the old alignment, while at the same time attempting to organize the teams geographically.
No mention of TV.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
February 22, 2015 at 3:20 pm #18879wvParticipantTV can want all they want doesn’t mean they get it.
I don’t agree with you there.
I wonder what the rules are for moving
a team to a different division/conference ?
Do the owners have to vote? Can
Goodell do that on his own?
Will there be any requirement
for atonement for meddling with the
primal forces of nature ?w
vFebruary 22, 2015 at 3:45 pm #18881bnwBlockedIn the past the owners would have to agree. Bidwill refused repeated attempts to move his team (AZ) from the NFC east because he relied upon the revenue generated from playing Dallas every year. He only agreed after getting preseason game guarantee to play Dallas and getting his new stadium multiple Super Bowls.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
February 22, 2015 at 9:40 pm #18901
InvaderRamModeratorwhat i don’t understand is spanos complaining about not wanting the rams to take away potential revenue from the chargers. and then he goes and agrees to go half on a stadium with his own division rival.
what’s that about?
anyway. for a long time i didn’t think it’d be possible for the rams to st. louis until i read this. st louis does seem to have a viable stadium plan when compared to oakland and san diego.
February 22, 2015 at 9:43 pm #18902
znModeratorHe only agreed after getting preseason game guarantee to play Dallas and getting his new stadium multiple Super Bowls.
Didn’t know that. Interesting.
February 22, 2015 at 9:52 pm #18903ZooeyParticipantwhat i don’t understand is spanos complaining about not wanting the rams to take away potential revenue from the chargers. and then he goes and agrees to go half on a stadium with his own division rival.
what’s that about?
anyway. for a long time i didn’t think it’d be possible for the rams to st. louis until i read this. st louis does seem to have a viable stadium plan when compared to oakland and san diego.
I was thinking the same thing. It weakens his argument considerably. He came out and said, “Both the Rams and Raiders left LA, so it’s mine, and the Rams can’t have it, but the Raiders can.”
It will be interesting to see if either Oakland or San Diego can come up with something now. They haven’t got much time. One thing is certain, Kroenke just pushed the boulder off the top of the hill, and things are moving.
February 22, 2015 at 10:44 pm #18908
znhaterBlockedNot the most reliable site. One thing though, the raiders and chargers are not going to build on a chemical waste dump. This has the reeking of ploy and leverage. All these articles are nonsense and no one really knows what’s going to happen. I just can’t see Stan building a great stadium and letting someone else play in it.
February 22, 2015 at 10:52 pm #18909February 22, 2015 at 11:40 pm #18910InvaderRamModeratorI was thinking the same thing. It weakens his argument considerably. He came out and said, “Both the Rams and Raiders left LA, so it’s mine, and the Rams can’t have it, but the Raiders can.”
It will be interesting to see if either Oakland or San Diego can come up with something now. They haven’t got much time. One thing is certain, Kroenke just pushed the boulder off the top of the hill, and things are moving.
well i’m thinking this could end up biting him in the ass. if kroenke pushes full steam ahead, can spanos get other owners to agree that a move for the rams is not a good plan but moving in with the raiders is? his only argument now stinks of bs. meanwhile continuing to negotiate with their respective cities will only delay matters while kroenke goes about building in inglewood.
February 23, 2015 at 12:53 am #18913ZooeyParticipantKroenke’s obstacle to moving is a medley of competing projects which, in the right constellation, can stop him.
Peacock’s stadium alone can’t stop him. But Peacock’s stadium combined with a fix for both San Diego and Oakland might be enough to stop him. From the NFL perspective, that could be the best overall solution to 3 stadium issues.
And prospects for the Rams staying in St. Louis have improved significantly, I would say.
But that constellation is made of two stadium sites, and two municipalities, and two teams. Those projects are behind Kroenke’s, and have more things that can go wrong with them than Kroenke’s plan does.
February 23, 2015 at 9:00 am #18915
joemadParticipant1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this.
2) Environmental impact study still needs to take place in Carson will take 2 years to get done, the stadium also needs public funding
3) Kronke already has the environmental impact study done for his property and no public funding required.
February 23, 2015 at 9:50 am #18916ZooeyParticipant1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this.
2) Environmental impact study still needs to take place in Carson will take 2 years to get done, the stadium also needs public funding
3) Kronke already has the environmental impact study done for his property and no public funding required.
Haven’t seen #2 anywhere. Where did you get that? I saw that the cleanup at the site isn’t complete, and I saw that their answers to the question of financing were vague and dismissive.
I think Kroenke’s referendum on the ballot is a way to circumvent some environmental impact studies. He hasn’t completed all of them. And if the vote fails (which isn’t likely, I don’t think), he would still have hoops to jump through, and his push will suddenly tilt uphill. The vote there will matter. He isn’t in the clear yet.
February 23, 2015 at 11:17 am #18917joemadParticipant1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P>
2) Environmental impact study still needs to take place in Carson will take 2 years to get done, the stadium also needs public funding</P>
3) Kronke already has the environmental impact study done for his property and no public funding required.Haven’t seen #2 anywhere. Where did you get that? I saw that the cleanup at the site isn’t complete, and I saw that their answers to the question of financing were vague and dismissive.
I think Kroenke’s referendum on the ballot is a way to circumvent some environmental impact studies. He hasn’t completed all of them. And if the vote fails (which isn’t likely, I don’t think), he would still have hoops to jump through, and his push will suddenly tilt uphill. The vote there will matter. He isn’t in the clear yet.1) You are correct, Kroenke looking for a vote to rezone Inglewood to avoid environmental impact study requirements…… as well know, his M.O. for the Denver Nuggets and Arsenal is that he also owns the land and buildings his teams play in. He wants to invest his land money in LA, not STL for his Rams… A public funded stadium in STL does not meet his M.O.
2) Per the local radio station here in SF: Carson (most commercial sites in the California) require Environmental Impact study, this will be a requirement for Carson……….check this out from the LA Times:
There is a neighborhood in Carson of roughly 1,500 homes called the Carousel. It has been the subject of controversy and litigation for years. In some homes, oil actually seeped up onto the patio. Barbara Post, president of the Carousel Homeowners Assn., has been quoted in the Daily Breeze as saying, “People are contracting cancer and other debilitating diseases at an alarming rate.”
At one corner entry to the Carousel tract, there is a sign with an unusual addition. It says: “Got Benzine? Got Methane? We do, under our houses.”
The Los Angeles law firm of Girardi Keese recently won a settlement with original owner Shell Oil, which includes payments for homeowners and a $146-million commitment to a cleanup. There remains ongoing litigation with Dole Food Co., which bought the site from Shell and developed it into homes.
The Carousel tract is about 4.5 miles from the proposed NFL stadium.
Which brings us to the obvious stadium name:The Carson Exxon Valdez
URL = http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-nfl-stadium-dwyre-20150221-column.html
February 23, 2015 at 12:05 pm #18920bnwBlocked1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this.
What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by bnw.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
February 23, 2015 at 12:39 pm #18922joemadParticipant<DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>joemad wrote:</DIV>
<P>1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P><P>What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.</P>
Supporting 2 teams in the same market and conference will not work.
1) the local Network must carry the local NFL market team. (except when black outs apply)
2) each Network gets a doubleheader every other week. 8 doubleheaders per network….(e.g. CBS gets the double header week I, then FOX gets the double header on week II, etc….
2a) this is the problem, when CBS does not have the double header on week II, it will not be able to carry both games 100% of the time, especially when the games will be played in different time zones…..only when the local market team will host a game from the opposing conference… e.g., when the Raiders or Chargers, host an NFC team the game will most likely be shown on FOX.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television
February 23, 2015 at 1:31 pm #18927PA RamParticipantSo Spanos met with the San Diego mayor:
San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and Chargers Chairman Dean Spanos met on Sunday and afterward announced that a mayor’s advisory committee will speed up its work and present a stadium plan to the team within three months that could keep it from moving to the Los Angeles area.
The one-hour morning meeting at the Padres’ Petco Park came after a surprise announcement last week that the Chargers and Oakland Raiders are planning a joint stadium in Carson outside Los Angeles if they fail to get stadium deals in their hometowns."Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. " Philip K. Dick
February 23, 2015 at 2:00 pm #18931bnwBlocked<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>
<DIV class=d4p-bbt-quote-title>joemad wrote:</DIV>
<P>1) CBS will not be able to sort out NFL double header TV scheuldes with 2 teams in the same conference and market. SD or Raiders will need to move to the NFC to support this. </P><P>What is there to sort out? One game early other game late. Even if games were scheduled at the same time one of the games could be broadcast locally over another station. No moving of teams needed.</P>
Supporting 2 teams in the same market and conference will not work.
1) the local Network must carry the local NFL market team. (except when black outs apply)
2) each Network gets a doubleheader every other week. 8 doubleheaders per network….(e.g. CBS gets the double header week I, then FOX gets the double header on week II, etc….
2a) this is the problem, when CBS does not have the double header on week II, it will not be able to carry both games 100% of the time, especially when the games will be played in different time zones…..only when the local market team will host a game from the opposing conference… e.g., when the Raiders or Chargers, host an NFC team the game will most likely be shown on FOX.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_on_television
Still appears scheduling can handle it. To me it seems like you expect the doubleheader to be both LA teams games? 14 other teams in the AFC alone that can be scheduled.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
