Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › relocation issues
- This topic has 6 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 7 months ago by
bnw.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 20, 2016 at 10:31 pm #40851
znModeratorWill rift among NFL owners over Los Angeles linger?
Jarrett Bell
BOCA RATON, Fla. — Jerry Jones strolled through the lobby of the resort hotel where NFL owners are huddling this week with the upbeat vibe of a man who won.
Jones, the Dallas Cowboys owner, was a driving force in his peers’ decision to select Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s $2 billion-plus stadium plan for the Los Angeles market at the previous league meetings in January. That also meant rejecting the alternative site in Carson, Calif., proposed by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, a plan that initially had the backing of the owners’ L.A. subcommittee.
Jones, who supported Kroenke from the outset — to the point of lining up the architectural designers and marketing plan — was undoubtedly the most crucial voice in influencing the league to follow the money to Los Angeles rather than support the wishes of a longtime, loyal owner like Chargers CEO Dean Spanos.
“There were times over the past couple of years where I needed to remind myself, ‘This isn’t the Cowboys’ stadium we’re talking about,’ ” Jones told USA TODAY Sports on Sunday.
It just felt like a Cowboys project — Jones was that emotionally invested in the Rams’ proposal.
And now it’s fair to wonder whether any hard feelings over the battle for Los Angeles will linger while owners continue their business of growing the nation’s most popular sports league.
“That’s in the past,” Raiders owner Mark Davis insisted to USA TODAY Sports on Sunday.
The Chargers now have the option to join Rams in L.A., pending a new, viable stadium deal in San Diego. That leaves Davis in limbo. The Raiders only have the option to rejoin the Rams in Los Angeles if the Chargers decline — a long shot, I suspect, given the Bolts’ inability over more than a dozen years to get a new stadium in San Diego.
Davis, who has talked with officials in Las Vegas about relocating while still hoping to strike a new deal to remain in the Bay Area, hardly sounds like a sore loser. He downplays the notion that the L.A. outcome will divide owners over the long haul.
This week’s meetingswill be held without Carolina Panthers owner Jerry Richardson, who is undergoing shoulder surgery. As much as Jones carried the banner for Kroenke, Richardson campaigned hard for Spanos and Davis.
A Panthers spokesman told USA TODAY Sports that Richardson’s absence this week is coincidental and unrelated to the setback over L.A.
“Obviously, this is a sensitive situation,” Jones said. “But my experience has been that we may have differences of opinion, but the owners who are completely committed — and Jerry is certainly that — they mend their fences.”
Yet it appears there’s been a power shift.
The committee that supported the Carson plan included several owners from the traditional family owned franchises. But Kroenke’s project resonated financially.
“When you spend $1.4 billion for a franchise, and franchises are worth $3 billion, the concept of take-care-of-our-own is not as it once was,” former NFL executive Carmen Policy told USA TODAY Sports.
Policy, who once headed front offices for the San Francisco 49ers and Cleveland Browns, was enlisted for the Carson project. But after a few years away from the NFL, he noticed a changing dynamic among owners.
“In the ‘80s and ‘90s, when you’d come to league meetings, it was much more collegial,” Policy said in a phone interview from California. “People came early and stayed days later. Now it’s a business conference, with the jets on the runway ready to go as soon as the meetings are over. I think the league lost something with that.”
Jones contends that any change isn’t so much about power — during the 1990s, he opposed the late Art Modell and helped flip television negotiations that led to a new network partner in Fox and also changed the landscape when he sued the league over marketing — but rather a shift borne of transparency. Owners had not rejected a significant committee recommendation like they did on L.A. since denying Modell’s TV plan, which ultimately left longtime league partner CBS sidelined for several years.
“Not to demean the committee approach but, frankly, this was really more about analyzing the best growth opportunity for Los Angeles for ourselves,” Jones said. “We told the players (during labor talks) we’d be aggressive in growing the pie, and this was the opportunity to do that, which we could not pass up.”
Not with Jones sealing the deal.
“Jerry’s always had power, influence and stature when it comes to certain areas,” Marc Ganis, a consultant with SportsCorp, Ltd., told USA TODAY Sports, alluding to matters that include marketing, sponsorships and television.
“So it’s not new. He’s exercised a certain type of power going back to the Fox deal.”
Ganis doesn’t see a major power shift among owners as much as he sees those like Jones carrying more weight on certain issues.
“If it had been close, Dean would have gotten the votes,” Ganis said. “But the plans were not even close. That doesn’t diminish Jerry Richardson’s influence. It came down to picking the better project.”
Which for the changing ranks of NFL owners, is all part of a larger evolution.
March 21, 2016 at 9:24 am #40859
bnwBlockedI hope I live to see it bite the leagues ass hard.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 21, 2016 at 9:41 am #40864znModeratorRelocation no longer a factor for Rams at owners meetings
Nick Wagoner
BOCA RATON, Fla. — And now, it’s time for something different.
For the better part of the past couple of years, NFL owners meetings have covered a variety of topics but none has been more of a hot-button issue than relocation to Los Angeles. There have been long discussions nestled into the itinerary on things like rule changes. There have even been special meetings called specifically to talk about Los Angeles.
At this week’s owners meetings here in Florida, Los Angeles will likely come up again, but after the league decided to send the Rams back to the City of Angels in January, it’s no longer of primary concern. It’s certainly a welcome respite from the contentious and tedious process required to gain the league’s approval to move.
Here’s a look at what to expect from this week’s owners meetings from a Rams perspective:
— As mentioned above, the Rams are moving to Los Angeles so there are no more battles to be fought on that front. There is, however, some more business that has to be taken care of. While the San Diego Chargers have until next year to decide on whether to stay or join the Rams in Inglewood, it’s safe to expect that both Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis will be asked about relocation this week. The Rams’ position remains the same as they wait to see if another team will join them. It’s important from a business standpoint because the Rams can’t start selling the Inglewood stadium until they know if they’re sharing it per the agreement made with the league. Relocation to other cities also figures to be a topic for Davis and Spanos as San Antonio, Las Vegas and even St. Louis have been brought up in connection to both teams.
— Rams coach Jeff Fisher announced at last month’s NFL scouting combine that he has taken a hiatus from the competition committee so he can focus on the team’s move. That means Fisher will have a far more relaxed week in Florida than he did at past owners meetings. Just like at the combine, the lack of those additional meetings means Fisher can kick back a little bit and continue to invest his attention on his football team. Of course, Fisher will keep an eye on proposed rule changes as they relate to his team, but he’ll no longer be front and center in such discussions.
— Fisher is scheduled to speak to the media at the NFC coaches breakfast on Wednesday morning. It will be the first time he’s talked since the new league year began, so we should be able to get his thoughts on the team’s moves so far, the players they lost and what’s still to come in terms of the roster. Also, the Rams plan to be out of St. Louis by the end of next week so we should get an update on how things are going with the move. One more thing: We’ll see if there’s been any progress on a contract extension for Fisher.
— Rams owner Stan Kroenke has been more open and willing to speak since he was awarded the right to move to Los Angeles. Does that mean he’ll be speaking in Boca? It could. If nothing else, it could be a good chance to hear from him about the state of his football team moving forward now that the relocation process is complete.
— Although the Rams haven’t added but two outside free agents, I’ll also try to seek scouting reports on cornerback Coty Sensabaugh and defensive end Quinton Coples from their former coaches. And I’m sure there will be some other news and notes that pop up along the way.
March 23, 2016 at 3:50 pm #40952znModeratorRams prepare for LA reality – moving, traffic, facilities questions loom
By Vincent Bonsignore, Los Angeles Daily News
BOCA RATON >> The oddity and complexity of the Rams situation hits head coach Jeff Fisher at various times.
Like the other day when he was giving some prospective players a tour of the Rams St. Louis area team facility, only to walk past a bunch of rooms that were either completely baron or lined up with boxes waiting to get hosted onto a moving truck and transported to Southern California.
“You walk down the halls and there’s nothing left on the walls and boxes are packed and things are stacked in offices, coaches boards are down and there’s no video to watch,” Fisher said Wednesday at the NFL’s annual league meetings in Boca Raton, Florida. “So if they had any question as to whether we are moving or not, those were answered.”
Which invariably created some awkward exchanges.
“This used to be the locker room,” Fisher caught himself telling them, as if it even mattered.
Or when he spotted a few current Rams players working out in at the now nearly empty facility.
“And there are laundry bags, those mesh bags, just laying on the floor in the locker room,” Fisher recalled. “Only way they knew it was theirs is because it had their number and shoes next to it. There wasn’t even a table left to put it on.”
These are the constant little reminders Fisher and the Rams deal with every day as they try to conduct normal business in a decidedly abnormal work environment.
And how their soon-to-be former life in St. Louis keeps intersecting with their future existence in Los Angeles.
Like trying to manage the frenzy of free agency when the general manager is in Los Angeles and most of the coaching staff is in St. Louis.
“So instead of just walking down the hall and talking to someone in their office, you have to communicate more like our teenagers probably communicate,” said Rams general manager Les Snead said. “Snap chat, things like that.”
How much this will play into the Rams first year in L.A., which officially begins next week when they set up shop in Oxnard for their offseason program, remains to be seen.
For now, they are determined not to use relocation as a crutch. From putting together the roster, to draft scouting and analysis right up to the opening kickoff, the move to L.A. will create obstacles but not pitfalls.
“You’re well aware there’s going to be bumps in the road, spilled milk,” Snead said. “It’s not going to be easy or the same.”
But, well, deal with it.
Or, as Snead pointed out: “They aren’t going to call the games off.”
Nevertheless, the vitally important and structured routine every pro franchise seeks will be greatly compromised over the next 12 months.
It won’t be same stuff, different day for the Rams in 2016.
It’ll be: Buy in Irvine, rent in Thousand Oaks? Or the other way around?
Or: How do I get to the airport again?
And as much as the Rams have eased their players into the new reality of life as the Los Angeles Rams, at some point it’ll be time to play football.
At which the door on excuses will be slammed shut.
“Our approach is that the rest of the league doesn’t care what we’re doing. There’s 31 other teams getting ready for the offseason program and training camp and the regular season,” Fisher said. “We’ve got to do the same thing. The sooner we get set up and ready to go, the better off we’ll be. I’m not looking at this as a distraction or an excuse.”
All true, and all valid.
But the constant state of flux is impossible to ignore, and will remain so for the foreseeable future.
The Rams will be on the run through most of the offseason, beginning next week in Oxnard, were they will spend the next nine weeks conducting their conditioning program, organized team activity sessions and day-to-day operation. Then they’ll move to UC Irvine for training camp beginning in late July. Once that wraps up, it’s up to Thousand Oaks, where the Rams are closing in on a deal with Cal Lutheran University to develop open land for a temporary practice facility and headquarters.
Seems simple enough, except if you are a newcomer to Southern California trying to figure out where to live in proximity to where you work. For a wealthy young professional athlete, the lure of Manhattan Beach or West L.A. is hard to ignore. But what good is that if you have to be in Thousand Oaks by 8 am. Every morning?
Having grown up in Los Angeles, Fisher is a particularly helpful resource, He understands a 35-mile commute in L.A. is an entirely different animal that a 30-mile commute in St. Louis.
“We’re constantly talking to them about, not necessarily the lifestyle change but about where you’re going to relocate,” Fisher said. “As we’ve told them, there’s traffic patterns and we’ve explained to them the distance, the travel distance from a lot of different areas.”
Or in the Rams case, three different areas counting training camp.
“They have a general idea where we’re going to set up our temporary. Now the temporary is one thing, and it’s important because it’s probably three years. So for the next three years, in September, we’re basically working out of the same facility. So you’re going to want to live somewhere in the vicinity of that temporary facility for three years. And our hope is that the permanent is also built in the same area so we don’t have to move twice. So with respect to the players, yeah, we spend a lot of time with them.
“You can’t live in Orange County and train in Thousand Oaks. OK? you just can’t. Not with the hours we put in. We have to be on time. We have meeting start times that fluctuate during the regular season. Meeting end times that fluctuate so they need to be on time. We also had some former players come in and talk about it. Guys that were familiar with LA. So they have been given direction and they appreciate it.”
For the Rams, it’s about trying to make the abnormal normal.
The success of which might shape the 2016 season.
March 25, 2016 at 5:24 pm #41058znModeratorRams exit could come with $19 million parting gift
By David Hunn St. Louis Post-Dispatch
CLAYTON • The Rams have left St. Louis but there may be a $19 million parting gift for the team still on the table.
The same lease that allowed the National Football League team to leave for Los Angeles, may also allow it to buy its practice facility in Earth City for just $1.
The public board that governs the Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams played, sued on Thursday to block the team from buying Rams Park.
The Jones Dome authority owns the park’s 27 acres. It leased the facility to the Rams for $25,000 a year.
Now the board wants to sell the land, once appraised by the county for nearly $19 million. The proceeds could be used to refill dome authority bank accounts, after efforts to plan a new riverfront stadium and keep the Rams in St. Louis totaled more than $16 million. The authority has previously acknowledged it does not have enough money for future facility upkeep.
But a clause in the Rams lease gives the team the option to buy the park — for $1 — after the dome’s 29th anniversary in 2024.
And the dome authority says it can’t sell the land if the Rams have such an option.
The suit, filed by authority attorneys Blitz, Bardgett & Deutsch, wants an answer now.
“The (dome authority) owns the training facility, which is a valuable asset,” said Blitz attorney Chris Bauman. “We have a responsibility to maximize the value of that. And to do that, we need certainty concerning this invalid option.”
Rams owner Stan Kroenke applied to National Football League owners in January to move the team to Los Angeles. In his application, he blasted the region, arguing St. Louis’ population and economic growth is so sluggish it can’t support three professional sports teams.
Later that month, the NFL owners approved Kroenke’s move, leaving local officials embittered and fans distraught.
Now leaders here wonder if the Rams really do want to buy the land; they have intimated they do, the suit says.
“I think it would be bad form and in bad character,” said Dave Peacock, co-chairman of the effort to build the riverfront football stadium, along with attorney Bob Blitz. “Just because you have the right to do something doesn’t make it right.”
It is unclear if anyone has asked Kroenke to give up the option. Kevin Demoff, the Rams’ chief operating officer, declined to comment.
The Rams lease on the Jones Dome expires Thursday. The lease on Rams Park was extended to April 30, according to the lawsuit.
On its face, the lease says the Rams have the right to buy Rams Park for $1. Moreover, it says, that option “shall survive any termination of the Lease regardless of the reason for such termination, and Lessee shall after any termination continue to have the right to exercise the Option as herein provided.”
But the lawsuit argues that the Rams’ departure doesn’t terminate the lease; the Rams went year-to-year, as allowed in the lease, and the year simply expires. The lease, the suit continues, says the $1 option survives a termination, not an expiration.
Moreover, the suit argues that the lease gives the Rams the option forever, without an end date — and the law does not allow someone to tie up a property in perpetuity.
Jim Shrewsbury, president of the Dome Authority board, said he wasn’t emotional over the issue.
“It’s a dispute over the terms of the lease,” he said. “They believe they have an option. We do not believe that option is enforceable.”
“It’s a business dispute,” he said. “My goal is to do what’s best for the regional sports authority and for the region.”
And the dome authority, he said, needs the money.[
March 26, 2016 at 11:27 am #41085znModeratorBut the lawsuit argues that the Rams’ departure doesn’t terminate the lease; the Rams went year-to-year, as allowed in the lease, and the year simply expires. The lease, the suit continues, says the $1 option survives a termination, not an expiration.
Moreover, the suit argues that the lease gives the Rams the option forever, without an end date — and the law does not allow someone to tie up a property in perpetuity.
Jim Shrewsbury, president of the Dome Authority board, said he wasn’t emotional over the issue.
“It’s a dispute over the terms of the lease,” he said. “They believe they have an option. We do not believe that option is enforceable.”
“It’s a business dispute,” he said. “My goal is to do what’s best for the regional sports authority and for the region.”
I actually think it would be kind of classless for SK to exercise that option.
It is true that it was yet another bad move by the St. Louis 90s negotiating team and another screw-job perk Shaw got out of them.
I do think that it’s valid to challenge whether or not the option is valid or enforceable. I am no lawyer but the challenge sounds reasonable.
But then I wonder why SK would exercise that option at all…IMO it looks bad and he really has nothing to gain from it.
March 26, 2016 at 12:55 pm #41090bnwBlockedI actually think it would be kind of classless for SK to exercise that option.
It is true that it was yet another bad move by the St. Louis 90s negotiating team and another screw-job perk Shaw got out of them.
I do think that it’s valid to challenge whether or not the option is valid or enforceable. I am no lawyer but the challenge sounds reasonable.
But then I wonder why SK would exercise that option at all…IMO it looks bad and he really has nothing to gain from it.
Of course its classless but that is the character of StanK. StanK would certainly exercise the option to buy Rams Park if allowed since he has thrived off fleecing the public coffers wherever he slithers to a stop. He’ll try to get something out of that $1 option if not the entire at this moment $19 million then a very healthy, or more so an insanely outrageous profit on his $1 option. This is despite the fact that he trashed the entire metro area in perpetuity to the NFL while he continues to develop throughout the area.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
