Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Dirt is turning in Inglewood; Stadium up next? … and other relocation stuff
- This topic has 16 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 9 months ago by
zn.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 8, 2015 at 8:59 am #18152
sdramParticipantDirt is turning in Inglewood; Stadium up next?
45 minutes ago • By David Hunn
41INGLEWOOD-CA-JANUARY 5, 2014: St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build an NFL stadium in Inglewood-across from the Forum, which could pave the way for the league’s return to Los Angeles. (Christina House / For The Times)
INGLEWOOD, Calif. • Dump trucks and excavators are lined up at the Hollywood Park Racetrack. Dirt is piled in mounds, concrete and brick broken and stacked.
Developers have begun clearing land and laying water lines in preparation for $2.2 billion in shops, offices, houses and town homes here among the palm trees and parking lots.
Up next, perhaps? A $1.7 billion football stadium, funded by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
City officials here say the plan is real, with or without a National Football League team.
“If you have the most modern, the most beautiful NFL stadium in the world, you’re not going to have any problem populating it,” Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts told the Post-Dispatch on Wednesday. “If the NFL wants to migrate here, we would welcome it. But that’s not what this is about.
“This is ‘Field of Dreams’ stuff. Build it and they will come.”
Los Angeles has gone without an NFL team for 20 years. Residents have seen proposals come and go. But this one feels different, many here say.
This time, the developer has a team.
Now, Los Angelenos — notorious for their distraction-fueled ambivalence — seem to genuinely want the NFL back to stay.
Amar Singh, 35, from West Los Angeles, and his boss, Jess Rodriguez, 42, who lives downtown, both regularly drive two hours south to see the San Diego Chargers play. “I’m tired of driving to San Diego,” Rodriguez said.
They’d welcome the Rams back to their city.
Still, stadium construction is a race in Los Angeles. And it’s not clear Kroenke will win.
At least two other teams, the Chargers and the Oakland Raiders, need new stadiums and have history in Los Angeles.
And at least two other LA developers want to build stadiums. Entertainment giant AEG has all of the approvals needed to build a stadium downtown, as part of the LA Convention Center complex. And Edward P. Roski Jr., president of Majestic Realty Co., has been working for years to build in the City of Industry, about 20 miles east of downtown Los Angeles.
Both just need a team.
SPECULATION
The Rams left Los Angeles in 1994. That same year, the Raiders returned to Oakland. Los Angelenos have been hearing stadium proposals ever since.
Then, in 2013, the Rams convinced a panel of arbitrators that the Edward Jones Dome would need a major overhaul to turn it into a top-tier stadium, as required by the team’s lease. Regional leaders estimated the cost at $700 million and declared it too expensive for the public to bear.
Since the city wouldn’t renovate the Dome, the lease allowed Kroenke to go year-to-year, instead of staying through 2025.
Speculation ran widely that the Rams would leave St. Louis.
Last month, Kroenke added to it, announcing a partnership with real estate investment firm Stockbridge Capital Group in Inglewood.
Stockbridge had been sitting on a $2.2 billion plan to redevelop 238 acres at Hollywood Park, turning the old racetrack into what is now proposed to be 890,000 square feet of retail space, 780,000 square feet of office space, 2,500 residential units, a 300-room hotel and 25 acres of parks, open space and trails.
The recession, Mayor Butts said, had shelved it.
Early last year, word leaked out that Kroenke, who has often developed retail malls anchored by Walmarts, had bought from Walmart about 60 acres next to Hollywood Park. That same year, Stockbridge broke ground on the project.
And, barely a month ago, Kroenke and Stockbridge announced their intentions for Kroenke’s land: a privately financed 6,000-seat performing arts theater and an 80,000-seat NFL-spec stadium, tied to the Stockbridge development.
Details are still unclear. A project spokesman did not respond to a request for an interview.
Butts, however, talked for two hours. The project, he said, will transform Inglewood.
A ‘RESURRECTION’
Inglewood is a town of 115,000 south of downtown Los Angeles. Well-manicured neighborhoods of newer homes, BMWs and Mercedes-Benzes in driveways, are overshadowed by rows of apartment complexes, strip malls, check-cashing stores and takeout food.
It has a reputation for gang problems and bankrupt schools,
and has seen some rough years.
About 15 years ago, the LA Lakers and LA Kings left a city landmark, the Fabulous Forum, taking basketball and hockey to the new Staples Center downtown.
At the same time, attendance was falling at the racetrack. Butts said that when Hollywood Park closed in 2013, it was getting barely 1,000 visitors a day, in comparison to as many as 60,000 who came to see big-name thoroughbreds in years past.
“There was our economic furnace, gone,” Butts said, sitting in his office last week.
“When I took office on Feb. 1 of 2011, we were down to our last $11 million in the bank,” he said. “We had an $18 million structural deficit. We were burning $50,000 a day more than we were taking in in revenues. By our second payroll in June, we would have been cash-flow bankrupt.”
Moreover, he said, the city hadn’t been paving streets or repairing 60-year-old water pipes.
And developers weren’t interested in Inglewood, he said.
Butts, a former Inglewood police officer who worked his way up to police chief in beachfront Santa Monica and security director for the Los Angeles airport, said the city had to “right-size.” Officials cut 140 positions, he said, put employees on a 10 percent furlough and also cut contractor pay by 10 percent.
Butts said he got a call from New York’s Madison Square Garden Co. A church had bought the Forum after the Lakers and Kings left, but it couldn’t make the deal profitable.
In 2012, the legendary New York company bought the arena, spending about $100 million in the purchase and renovations, the company said. It opened last year. The Eagles headlined, and tickets sold out.
“There were a lot of people who scoffed at that,” Butts said.
“Just like they scoff at this.”
An artist’s rendering shows the planned City of Champions Revitalization Project in Inglewood, Calif., where Rams owner Stan Kroenke plans to build an NFL stadium. (HKS Inc.)
‘PRETTY IDEAL’
Project developers gathered 22,216 signatures, Butts said, to put the stadium rezoning on the ballot. The stadium has to be added to the development plan, and, in California, an initiative petition is one way to do it.
Butts isn’t sure Inglewood residents need to vote on the project.
City attorneys think the signatures may be enough, the mayor said. They need to be validated by the Los Angeles County registrar, who has about two more weeks to check them. Then, he said, attorneys think the City Council could approve the rezoning.
The theory, Butts said, is that 22,000 signatures shows enough support in a city of 55,000 registered voters.
The council is conducting an economic impact study before it decides, he said. But he didn’t think another environmental impact study was necessary.
Several have been done in years past.
He chuckled about concerns over Los Angeles airport flight paths, which cross over the stadium site, and increased traffic on city streets.
The racetrack could bring in 60,000 on big nights. The Lakers sold out at the Forum, adding an additional 17,000, often on the same evenings.
Butts remembers dealing with that traffic when he was a patrol officer. They learned to make it work.
Ronald J. Labinski, a retired HOK architect who has designed at least 30 stadiums, said he studied the site years ago, when Raiders owner Al Davis was looking.
“The site there is pretty ideal,” he said. “It’s already flat. It’s got acres of parking. The soil conditions are good.”
Still, he warned, California has more standards than many states; it’s a tough place to build.
The more stringent hurdle might be the NFL. If Kroenke wants to move the Rams after the 2015 season, it’ll take 24 votes from the league’s 32 owners, or he’d risk a lawsuit to stop him.
The owner of the Chargers has already said he has the votes to block Kroenke.
Butts said that won’t stop the project. If they can’t get an NFL team — well, there are two big college football teams in LA too, he said.
Residents in Inglewood talk like there’s little doubt that a stadium is coming.
Some worry about the effect on their taxes. Some, about traffic.
But more think it will bring business to the mobile phone store, to Chu’s Garden Chinese, to the tax prep services.
“Everybody I talk to wants it,” said Bernard Lomax, 67, who lives on a block that backs up to the racetrack. Housing values will rise, he’s sure.
“Inglewood is moving up,” he said. “Traffic will be heavy, but we’ll find a different way in and out. It’s time to grow.”
He wants an NFL team here, he said. But the Rams?
Lomax smiled widely, idling his 1964 lime-green Cadillac convertible on a 75-degree day last week among the palm trees. “It really doesn’t matter.”
February 8, 2015 at 11:32 am #18165
InvaderRamModeratorit’ll be interesting to see what happens to the city of inglewood.
the whole area is changing there. not just inglewood but leimert park and baldwin hills to the north.
February 8, 2015 at 10:59 pm #18198
znModeratorInglewood football stadium developers run a hurry-up offense
By Tim Logan and Angel Jennings
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-inglewood-stadium-20150209-story.html
Inglewood football stadium backers are slicing through red tape in hopes of getting the project underway soon
By the plodding standards of big development in Southern California, the plan to build a football stadium in Inglewood is moving at a brisk pace.
The developers aim to slice through red tape that normally entangles major projects — often for years — by using a quirk in the way the state election and environmental laws work together.
They have proposed zoning changes for the stadium through a ballot initiative, which would allow them to skip lengthy reviews that civic and environmental activists say protect surrounding neighborhoods.
It’s unclear how soon full-scale construction could begin, but developers want to break ground on the 80,000-seat, billion-dollar-plus stadium at the former Hollywood Park racetrack by year’s end. That would give St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, a partner in the project, a big head start in the race to bring an NFL team to Los Angeles, though neither he nor the league has committed to moving a team here.
“It’s moving forward pretty fast,” said Inglewood resident Katrina Anderson, who attended a recent neighborhood meeting on the project. “I’m still not sure what we’re signing or voting on.”
In just 18 days, the developers collected 22,000 signatures, more than twice what was needed to put the measure on the ballot. The county is expected to finish certification by the end of the month, and city officials say an election could be held as soon as June.
There is one potentially even quicker option.
The Inglewood City Council, under initiative law, could bypass an election entirely and simply adopt the measure itself. City Council members would not discuss their intentions. They either did not return calls seeking comment or referred questions to Mayor James T. Butts Jr., a strong supporter of the stadium.
“I’m not prepared to make a commitment as to what way we are going to go,” he said.
The city is ordering its own studies of economic and environmental impacts, due by early March. Those reports will be released, and public comment taken before any vote, he said.
The ballot initiative has become a popular strategy to fast-track major projects, especially in small municipalities where signatures can be gathered quickly, said land-use attorney Kristina Lawson, a former councilwoman in Walnut Creek, Calif.
“It’s really in large part a CEQA-avoidance strategy,” she said, referring to the California Environmental Quality Act, which mandates a lengthy investigation of potential environmental impacts and can trigger litigation that’s even more time-consuming.
Whether to hold an election is a political calculation, Lawson said. Neighbors can organize against the project. Rival developers could finance a “no” campaign. But skipping one can anger residents who want a say.
“It’s always a strategic consideration,” Lawson said.
The Inglewood council would be on solid legal ground if it decides not to call an election. The California Supreme Court in August ruled that the City Council in Sonora could bypass the environmental review for a planned Wal-Mart store without a vote of the public.
Now developers and city councils have a clear path around CEQA reviews, said Juliet Cho, an environmental lawyer in San Francisco. But, she said, they still have to deal with public opinion.
Sentiment at town-hall meetings on the Hollywood Park project has been mixed.
At a recent gathering of the Around the Block Club, a neighborhood group near the Forum, people asked about parking, signage and public use of parks on the 298-acre site, but generally expressed support. Several signed the petition at the meeting.
“The stadium will change my neighborhood and my income,” said James Burt, the group’s president and a retired electrician who now works security at the Forum. “I wouldn’t say 100% of people around here support it, but 98% or 99% do.”
At another meeting, opponents voiced concerns about the hasty environmental-review process.
“It seems like you guys are not doing enough research before you’re committing to do this to our city,” one man shouted from his seat.
As a project spokesman tried to respond, the man cut him off.
“This idea about building a stadium has only been out there a month or so,” he said. “No way you have done proper environmental studies on this thing.”
Butts pointed out that the original Hollywood Park plan — for 3,000 houses and office and retail buildings on the former racetrack site — had an environmental review before the council approved it in 2009. And experience with the racetrack and the Forum across the street suggest that the area should be able to handle game-day traffic, he said.
The developers have plans to clear federal regulatory hurdles too. The Federal Aviation Administration requires in-depth reviews of tall buildings near airports; Los Angeles International Airport is three miles west of the stadium site. The developers plan to sink the stadium 100 feet into the ground, making it low enough to avoid the FAA study.
The goal, project spokesman Gerard McCallum said, is to work quickly so that when an NFL team officially declares its desire to move to Los Angeles — which could happen as early as January 2016 — it’ll have a new home already under construction in Inglewood.
“We want to be playing football there,” he said, “in September of 2018.”
February 9, 2015 at 11:37 pm #18252znModeratorNixon to announce progress on new riverfront stadium
• By David Hunn, Tim Bryant
ST. LOUIS • The effort to build a new football stadium along the north riverfront is creeping forward.
Gov. Jay Nixon is set to announce Tuesday that regional officials have cut deals with Ameren Missouri and the Terminal Railroad Association concerning land the two agencies own in the proposed stadium’s footprint.
Railroad association President Mike McCarthy said Monday that the association has a nonbinding letter of intent to move the rail line that bisects the proposed stadium’s site. The plan is to curve part of the line westward to accommodate the stadium. McCarthy said railroad engineers have looked over the plan and found it doable.
“We have yet to come up with anything that looks like a fatal flaw,” he said.
The lines carries about 15 freight trains a day, McCarthy said. If relocated, it would have a gentle enough curve to accommodate the faster Amtrak trains proposed to run to Chicago. Walkways over the relocated line would connect the stadium to parking lots.
A spokesman for Ameren, which has power lines running through the site and a substation taking up a block, declined to comment.
This fall, Nixon appointed former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and current Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz to craft a proposal for a new stadium, in hopes they could keep the St. Louis Rams from leaving the region.
In January, Peacock and Blitz unveiled plans for a 64,000-seat, open-air arena along the Mississippi River north of downtown.
And last week, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority hired its first consultant, John Loyd, to pin down details of the plan.
Meanwhile, Stan Kroenke, owner of the Rams, is making strides toward construction of an 80,000-seat stadium in Inglewood, Calif., just south of downtown Los Angeles.
The National Football League insists relocation decisions must go before team owners. A committee of owners from six teams — Kansas City, Boston, New York, Houston, Carolina and Pittsburgh — has worked for months on stadium options in Los Angeles.
Jacob Barker of the Post-Dispatch contributed to this report.
February 9, 2015 at 11:40 pm #18253znModeratorNFL formalizes panel to assess Los Angeles stadium plans
By ANDREW DALTON Associated Press
http://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article9645182.html
LOS ANGELES (AP) — NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has established an internal committee to review stadium options in Los Angeles and coordinate any possible move to Southern California, according to a league memo obtained Monday by The Associated Press.
Goodell’s action comes about a month after a development group that includes a company controlled by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles suburbs. The proposal that envisions a stadium rising on the site of a former horse track in Inglewood once again raises the possibility that Los Angeles could get another NFL team after a two-decade drought.
The memo emphasizes that the league, not a single team, controls when and where a move can take place. Among its duties, the Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities is charged with confirming that any steps taken in Los Angeles are consistent with the NFL’s constitution and policies.
Any decision to bring an NFL team to Southern California would require multiple steps and approvals from NFL owners, which can only be granted by a three-fourths vote of the teams. Those decisions include selection of a stadium site, approval of stadium lease and financing arrangements and relocation terms.
A key role of the committee is to preserve the voting rights of the clubs on each issue.
The memo was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
The Inglewood plan is the latest in a string of stadium proposals in the Los Angeles area since the 1994 exit of the Rams and Raiders from Southern California.
The memo does not refer to the Rams, the San Diego Chargers or the Oakland Raiders, which have been considering a move.
The committee formalizes a panel of owners that had been advising the league on Los Angeles in the last year, which includes John Mara of the New York Giants, Clark Hunt of the Kansas City Chiefs, Bob McNair of the Houston Texans, Jerry Richardson of the Carolina Panthers, Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots and Art Rooney of the Pittsburgh Steelers.
The Kroenke Group has entered a joint venture with Stockbridge Capital Group, which had been developing a 238-acre tract of homes, parks and office space at the former Hollywood Park track, on the edge of Los Angeles. Kroenke’s company owns an adjacent 60 acres, which would be merged into the overall development. The expanded project would include a stadium, a separate 6,000-seat performance venue and parking.
___
AP NFL Writer Barry Wilner also contributed to this report from New York.
February 10, 2015 at 12:50 am #18259znModeratorNFL reminds teams that only the league can make relocation decisions
By Sam Farmer
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-nfl-la-memo-20150209-story.html
As the owner of the St. Louis Rams inches closer to a possible relocation of his team to Los Angeles, the NFL reminded all 32 teams Monday that the league as a whole — and not an individual club — will make the major decisions regarding relocation.
The memo was provided to The Times by an individual not authorized to speak on behalf of the league.
The league declined to comment on the memo, in which Commissioner Roger Goodell announced the new Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities, consisting of owners Clark Hunt of Kansas City, Robert Kraft of New England, John Mara of the New York Giants, Bob McNair of Houston, Jerry Richardson of Carolina, and Art Rooney of Pittsburgh.
The committee will “evaluate the various stadium options available in Los Angeles, oversee the application of the relocation guidelines in the event that one or more clubs seek to move to Los Angeles, ensure proper coordination with other standing committees … and confirm that all steps taken in Los Angeles are consistent with the Constitution and Bylaws and NFL policies.”
Although the memo does not specifically name the Rams, San Diego Chargers or Oakland Raiders — all three on year-to-year leases and mulling a relocation — it is clearly a reminder to them that the league has no intention of straying from protocol and allowing a club to unilaterally decide to move and begin construction of a stadium in the L.A. area.
Last month, Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans to build an 80,000-seat football stadium on the Hollywood Park site, nearly 300 acres in Inglewood.
The memo reads:
“In particular, as has been discussed on numerous occasions and confirmed in various memoranda, any decision to resume NFL team operations in Los Angeles will require multiple approvals from NFL ownership, which can only be granted by a three-fourths vote of the clubs. These decisions include selection of a stadium site; approval of stadium lease and financing arrangements; and debt ceiling and sharing waivers (if needed); relocation consent and terms; and Super Bowl awards, among other subjects. A key role of this Special Committee will be to preserve the voting rights of the clubs on each of these important issues.”
In an interview with The Times last month, Rooney, speaking on behalf of the ad hoc committee, said: “I think we’re comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn’t go through the process.”
The NFL does not have a strong history of successfully blocking teams from relocating. The only instance in the modern era of a team moving to a new city, then reversing its decision after pressure from the league, came in 1996, when the Seattle Seahawks set up operations for one week in Anaheim.
At that time, Ken Behring, then owner of the Seahawks, immediately returned his team to Seattle when then-Commissioner Paul Tagliabue threatened to impose fines on the club.
In all other cases, teams that have moved have either been successful in litigation or have reached settlements with the league enabling them to stay. However, since the Raiders and Rams left Southern California after the 1994 season, the NFL has strengthened its relocation guidelines, and won a legal battle with the late Raiders owner Al Davis regarding his claim that he owned the rights to the L.A. market.
If a team were to move without the league’s blessing — and people close to Kroenke insist he would not be inclined to do so — the NFL could withhold stadium financing and choose not to award Super Bowls to the new venue as a disincentive. However, an owner who went rogue and moved would not necessarily be subject to a relocation fee.
In his state-of-the-NFL news conference at the Super Bowl, Goodell said NFL owners take “very seriously” the obligation to vote “on any serious matter, including relocation of a franchise.”
“There’s a relocation policy that is very clear,” he said. “We have shared it with our ownership over the last several years. We have emphasized the point, in each of those meetings, that there will be at least one vote, if not multiple votes, if there is any relocation. We would have potentially the relocation itself, potential stadium funding, potential Super Bowls.”
February 10, 2015 at 1:23 am #18260
ZooeyModerator<strong class=”d4pbbc-bold”>NFL reminds teams that only the league can make relocation decisions
By Sam Farmer
That’s the right way to do it, for lots of reasons.
Passing through those hoops will increase the likelihood of getting 24 votes.
You know, the interesting thing here is the fact that St. Louis appears to be presenting a much stronger stadium proposal than Oakland or San Diego.
Still. Kroenke’s stadium is privately financed and owned, and has lots of attractive qualities. Moreover, if LA is going to be a two team city, one of those teams will be in the NFC, and one in the AFC. The Rams are the only NFC team in the running, and they have the deepest historical ties to the city, and it’s their owner who owns the land.
February 10, 2015 at 6:58 am #18263
wvParticipant…The NFL does not have a strong history of successfully blocking teams from relocating. The only instance in the modern era of a team moving to a new city, then reversing its decision after pressure from the league, came in 1996, when the Seattle Seahawks set up operations for one week in Anaheim….
? Wow, i had no idea the Seahawks were the Anaheim Seahawks
for a week. Does anyone remember that ?w
vFebruary 10, 2015 at 1:21 pm #18277
DakParticipantYou know, the interesting thing here is the fact that St. Louis appears to be presenting a much stronger stadium proposal than Oakland or San Diego.
Yeah. I can’t get too upset with the local effort right now. There’s movement on the stadium construction front. It looks doable in STL.
I wonder, if at the end of this, we don’t have the St. Louis Chargers or Raiders. I really think it could be either team that could decide they want a sure-thing new stadium for a few hundred million dollars, rather than continue to dick around in those cities.
I guess the Rams could stay here, and the Chargers or Raiders could move to Kroenke’s stadium. I just don’t see that happening, though. I am inclined to believe that SK wants to move HIS team to HIS stadium, and help build that entire Inglewood development. And, I just don’t see an owner swap, where SK owns the L.A. Chargers or Raiders. I guess it’s possible, since SK would control the lease on the stadium. It’s conceivable that it would be cheaper to build a new stadium than lease SK’s new stadium. And, the NFL likely would not want an owner of one NFL team leasing to another NFL team. Although, at the same time I write that, I remember that they’re sure ignoring the cross-ownership rule in place right now in order for SK to continue to own the Rams, so maybe those little details aren’t that important to NFL ownership.
It’s an interesting situation, for sure. And, it seems to evolve weekly.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by
Dak.
February 10, 2015 at 3:00 pm #18283ZooeyModeratorYeah. I can’t get too upset with the local effort right now. There’s movement on the stadium construction front. It looks doable in STL.
I wonder, if at the end of this, we don’t have the St. Louis Chargers or Raiders. I really think it could be either team that could decide they want a sure-thing new stadium for a few hundred million dollars, rather than continue to dick around in those cities.
I guess the Rams could stay here, and the Chargers or Raiders could move to Kroenke’s stadium. I just don’t see that happening, though. I am inclined to believe that SK wants to move HIS team to HIS stadium, and help build that entire Inglewood development. And, I just don’t see an owner swap, where SK owns the L.A. Chargers or Raiders. I guess it’s possible, since SK would control the lease on the stadium. It’s conceivable that it would be cheaper to build a new stadium than lease SK’s new stadium. And, the NFL likely would not want an owner of one NFL team leasing to another NFL team. Although, at the same time I write that, I remember that they’re sure ignoring the cross-ownership rule in place right now in order for SK to continue to own the Rams, so maybe those little details aren’t that important to NFL ownership.
It’s an interesting situation, for sure. And, it seems to evolve weekly.
I don’t see it (the Rams staying), either. If Kroenke is going to present the league with a crowning jewel, he’s going to want to wear the crown himself. I’m not 100% sure of the Rams moving to LA, but I am 100% sure of Kroenke moving to LA. Well, 99.9%, with a 0.1% chance of trading franchises with the Bowlen family.
I don’t think it would be a big issue for a team to lease a stadium from another owner. Most teams have a lease. So what does it matter? Any relocation and stadium lease gets passed by the Committee for Overseeing Opportunities to Make Fortunes in Los Angeles, or whatever it is. I can’t think of anything that would be an inherent conflict of interest in that kind of arrangement.
My intuition tells me that the Rams, and eventually the Raiders, end up back in LA, with St. Louis getting either the Chargers or the Jaguars.
It’s a strange world. I mean, if you look at the St. Louis stadium…that’s a nice looking stadium. Right on the River. It’s nice. It’s certainly better than what the Rams have right now, better than what the Chargers or Raiders have. That stadium is an upgrade for any of those teams.
It’s just that the LA project trumps it. It just does.
February 10, 2015 at 3:31 pm #18286DakParticipantYeah. Going back many moons, if the Dodgers can leave Brooklyn for L.A., nothing’s sacred. Certainly not a STL franchise that once came from L.A. And, I have to admit, that Inglewood stadium looks pretty sweet, and costs nothing for the NFL.
One thing that I’d like to see happen: The NFL kick in a little extra $$$ than normal for the STL stadium, just as payback for allowing SK to leave even though he has no justification under current NFL relocation guidelines (as I understand them).
I tell you, though, I’d hate to have the Jags here. I mean, that’s a scenario where I might actually have to avoid following the home team. I hate the jerseys, and the team sucks. There’s nothing there for me. I guess STL could change the name and logo. But, Jacksonville still has a stadium, anyway, so that could take years.
Taking away my personal feelings about a Rams move, and just considering what NFL football means to STL as a sports town, and I’d have to say that it’s a huge blow if/when the Rams move. We don’t have NBA basketball or a legitimate college basketball team in STL. We have hockey and, of course, we have baseball. That’s about it when it comes to big-time sports. And, the NBA just does not care about this town, or maybe it’s vice-versa. And, in another way, if there’s no NFL, it kind of mirrors a long and continuing trend of major corporations moving their corporate offices out of STL. The STL area is a region in decline. I think the NFL is important for the urban core of STL, even if it doesn’t create a great amount of money for the economy. Let’s just say that a loss of an NFL franchise will only erode the appeal of this region for commerce.
Or, not. Who knows? Maybe we do something else to develop the area where the stadium would go. I don’t see it, but I guess it’s possible. There’s just not a lot of foresight from our corporations here. In fact, it’s telling that there’s little corporate support to try to block a Rams’ move from STL. We’ve got a former official of Anheuser-Busch, which is now a Belgian company, and an attorney working behind the scenes with politicians and the NFL. The only guy who has the money and prestige in STL to stop the Rams is probably the guy trying to move the Rams. Who is going to stand up against SK in STL? A two-man committee? I don’t think so.
February 10, 2015 at 6:07 pm #18297InvaderRamModeratori think st. louis gets an mls team in the near future. especially if they have that stadium project going. and i’m almost 100% sure that they end up with an nfl team. i think the nfl does want a team in st. louis. it’s a great sports town. i don’t think they want one in jacksonville. and that’s why i think that the jaguars end up going to st. louis.
February 10, 2015 at 6:22 pm #18298wvParticipant<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>Dak wrote:</div>
Yeah. I can’t get too upset with the local effort right now. There’s movement on the stadium construction front. It looks doable in STL.I wonder, if at the end of this, we don’t have the St. Louis Chargers or Raiders. I really think it could be either team that could decide they want a sure-thing new stadium for a few hundred million dollars, rather than continue to dick around in those cities.
I guess the Rams could stay here, and the Chargers or Raiders could move to Kroenke’s stadium. I just don’t see that happening, though. I am inclined to believe that SK wants to move HIS team to HIS stadium, and help build that entire Inglewood development. And, I just don’t see an owner swap, where SK owns the L.A. Chargers or Raiders. I guess it’s possible, since SK would control the lease on the stadium. It’s conceivable that it would be cheaper to build a new stadium than lease SK’s new stadium. And, the NFL likely would not want an owner of one NFL team leasing to another NFL team. Although, at the same time I write that, I remember that they’re sure ignoring the cross-ownership rule in place right now in order for SK to continue to own the Rams, so maybe those little details aren’t that important to NFL ownership.
It’s an interesting situation, for sure. And, it seems to evolve weekly.
I don’t see it (the Rams staying), either. If Kroenke is going to present the league with a crowning jewel, he’s going to want to wear the crown himself. I’m not 100% sure of the Rams moving to LA, but I am 100% sure of Kroenke moving to LA. Well, 99.9%, with a 0.1% chance of trading franchises with the Bowlen family.
I don’t think it would be a big issue for a team to lease a stadium from another owner. Most teams have a lease. So what does it matter? Any relocation and stadium lease gets passed by the Committee for Overseeing Opportunities to Make Fortunes in Los Angeles, or whatever it is. I can’t think of anything that would be an inherent conflict of interest in that kind of arrangement.
My intuition tells me that the Rams, and eventually the Raiders, end up back in LA, with St. Louis getting either the Chargers or the Jaguars.
It’s a strange world. I mean, if you look at the St. Louis stadium…that’s a nice looking stadium. Right on the River. It’s nice. It’s certainly better than what the Rams have right now, better than what the Chargers or Raiders have. That stadium is an upgrade for any of those teams.
It’s just that the LA project trumps it. It just does.
I dunno. Based on everything I’ve read, it sure seems like
Khan wants to stay in Jacksonville.
And for the life of me, i cant imagine San Diego
moving to St.Louis. That would really surprise me.What wouldnt surprise me is that if and when the NFL
expands again, St.Louis might get an expansion team.Just seems like a game of musical chairs where St.Louis
is left without a chair. I blame Bidwell.w
vFebruary 10, 2015 at 7:49 pm #18304znModerator
Jay Nixon: We’ll be proactiveBy Nick Wagoner |
sT. LOUIS — As momentum builds toward a new stadium project in Los Angeles that could take the NFL out of St. Louis, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon is ramping up the urgency for a stadium in the Gateway to the West.
Speaking at a news conference to announce the clearance of a couple of logistical hurdles on the St. Louis stadium project, Nixon made it clear that while he won’t venture to guess the future of the Rams in the city, he knows what inaction will yield.
“I’m not going to handicap this other than to say that if we do nothing then we’re not an NFL city,” Nixon said. “If we do nothing, then $10 million a year of taxes is gone. If we do nothing, then people will stand right here 10 years from now and that [dilapidated building] will look exactly like it looks right there.
“This is our chance to get a dual benefit of using tax dollars appropriately [and] get the redevelopment of an area of the downtown that has been very hard to redevelop. Doing nothing, it’s really easy to see what’s going to happen.”
Even with work being done on the Inglewood, California, site partially owned by Rams owner Stan Kroenke, Nixon and his task force of local businessmen Bob Blitz and Dave Peacock have continued to forge ahead on the St. Louis project.
On Tuesday, Nixon announced that the region has cut a deal with Ameren Missouri power company and the Terminal Railroad Association to make alterations to their respective power sources and rail lines that currently fall within the proposed stadium’s footprint. That means relocating Ameren’s power lines and transmission towers and curving part of Terminal’s railroad to the west to create space for the stadium.
The power lines and towers move would cost $20 million and the railroad move would cost $3 million. Both are contingent upon the stadium deal being finalized. That $23 million was already accounted for in the initial proposal submitted by Peacock and Blitz last month.
“To get a site ready that has issues involving railroad lines and power stations, those are basically the two hardest things of infrastructure to deal with,” Nixon said. “These folks can never have a break in service. They can never have a redundancy in all of their issues. To get the organizations behind me to jump to that quickly, I would argue are among the most difficult tasks on the front end.”
As Nixon went on to point out, there are still plenty of obstacles to clear before the St. Louis stadium could become a reality — namely, finalizing the financing plan. According to the current proposal, $450 million would come from a combination of $250 million from Kroenke or the owner of any team that would occupy the stadium, and another $200 million would come from the NFL’s G4 loan. The rest of the money would come from public sources, including the extension of the current bonds on the Edward Jones Dome, with a price tag of between $460 million and $535 million.
Nixon said Tuesday that the hope is to have the financing finalized by the fall, and he offered some insight into how that might get done, potentially without a vote at the state level.
“The financing options at the state level will be consistent with the laws approved by the legislature, and the legislature would obviously also need to appropriate the annual bond payments as they have been doing for a couple of decades over here,” Nixon said. “There are a number of financing options available to the city and the county, some of which would require a public vote, and if it does, the public will be heard. At the state level, due to existing authority in state law, a vote of the people would not be required.”
As for the private financing, Nixon said he has not had any conversations with Kroenke but has been in regular communication with the NFL and commissioner Roger Goodell, with the two speaking as recently as last week.
Nixon said he continues to get positive feedback from the league, but knows there is no time to waste.
“We are just on a time frame here that requires us to move forward,” Nixon said. “So I feel that with the discussions we’ve had with the league and others, we’re in a positive framework to get redevelopment and progress here.”
February 11, 2015 at 6:16 pm #18336znModeratorPeacock and Blitz keep working, progressing
By Bernie Miklasz
St. Louis stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz continue to make progress on the attempt to develop a new football-soccer stadium on the north riverfront.
First, Peacock and Blitz hired stadium consultant John Loyd, who brings established credibility to the St. Louis project.
Next, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon came to the proposed stadium site Tuesday to announce a tentative agreement with Ameren Missouri and the Terminal Railroad Association to clear space on the stadium grounds. The railroad will reroute some tracks, and Ameren will move some power lines.
The announcement wasn’t a blockbuster in that it didn’t ignite the “hot take” bellowing that arouses the short attention span crowd. But the news was important. You can’t build a stadium without first buying the property, and you can’t purchase or prepare the property if it isn’t clear and free. Building a stadium there would be impossible if Ameren and the railroad balked at the request to relocate infrastructure.
As sports consultant Marc Ganis told sports-radio station 920-AM: “Very significant. There was always the subtext of whether the site could be acquired or not. The fact that that is being done, without having to force people to do it, does two things. It locks up the site and it demonstrates that cooperation is taking place. Both are positive signs.”
Peacock and Blitz continue to check the necessary boxes.
That’s all they can do: take care of business, one goal at a time.
Peackcock and Blitz are racing against the clock; the NFL wants “actionable” development on the STL stadium plan by the end of the year. But the Peacock and Blitz can’t make everything happen in 30 seconds. This is a long process. And at least so far Peacock and Blitz are methodically moving the chains.
I’m not sure why anyone would expect them to go about this differently. But that’s the wait it works in today’s culture. We want a resolution — thumbs up, thumbs down — and WE WANT IT RIGHT NOW!
That’s not realistic. When we’re talking about building a second new stadium for the NFL here in 23 years, there’s no way to fast-forward the project. There are too many boxes to check.
In my opinion, Peackcock and Blitz are progressing more quickly than I anticipated. This doesn’t mean they’ll succeed; this doesn’t mean the Rams are staying; this doesn’t mean the Oakland Raiders will be moving to St. Louis.
It just means that after two highly capable and ambitious individuals agreed to lead a stadium initiative, they’ve stayed on course and have managed to keep the process moving forward.
This would be a good thing, yes?
You would think so.
It’s funny …
Peacock and Blitz were absent when Nixon spoke on Tuesday. This, of course, was interpreted by some as an ominous sign. Here’s an email that popped up yesterday:
Peacock and Blitz weren’t there. What does that tell you? They didn’t stand with the governor. They stayed as far away from the scene as possible. Obviously, Peacock and Blitz know this stadium plan is doomed to fail, and they’re already distancing themselves. This entire thing is a joke!
You could see similar snippets of wisdom on Twitter.
So where were Peacock and Blitz? Why weren’t they standing with Nixon?
Well, they were meeting with NFL executive VP Eric Grubman.
Grubman was in town (again) to confer with Peacock and Blitz on the stadium. Rams chief operating officer Kevin Demoff was involved in the meetings.
And after completing the news conference, Nixon joined the private discussions with Grubman, Demoff and the task force.
In other words … instead of wasting time, Peacock and Blitz were staying busy on the stadium issue — keeping the NFL fully apprised on the progress that’s being made here.
Two guys working quietly on an important project? Imagine that.
February 11, 2015 at 6:18 pm #18337znModeratorfrom off the net
===
twilson2000
Jason La Canfora: “Kroenke doesn’t need a handout from the NFL.”
CBS Sports NFL insider Jason La Canfora joined The Home Team this morning, after the NFL formed a committee and drafted a memo to help plan the future of the league in Los Angeles, to talk about what that move means and how it will affect Stan Kroenke’s plan to build a stadium in Inglewood and move the Rams back to L.A.
In the end, Stan Kroenke doesn’t need the NFL’s money, he doesn’t need their land, he doesn’t need public money. He doesn’t really need a handout from anyone, he doesn’t need a G4 loan, and I think, in the end, that will carry the day here regardless of memos, and reminders, and protocol [from the NFL].Click here to listen…… http://kfwbam.com/2015/02/10/jason-la-canfora-kroenke-doesnt-need-a-handout-from-the-nfl/
The Home Team is L.A.’s only local morning sports show, and can be heard weekdays from 5:30am-9am on your new home for sports, The Beast 980.
February 19, 2015 at 11:52 pm #18728znModeratorRams ending popular St. Louis fan events, promotions
INDIANAPOLIS — The St. Louis Rams are canceling a series of events for fans and season ticket holders, including the popular Fan Fest held in August and the Cheer for a Cure breast cancer awareness fundraiser held in October, sources confirmed Thursday.
Rams staffers were recently notified that the activities were canceled via internal memo on Feb. 12. The team is not expected to officially announce that the events are cancelled, opting instead to move forward with a reduced promotional schedule.
The Rams have not responded to SB Nation’s request for comment.
Fan engagement has been an important part of the team’s marketing efforts in recent years, with an increasing number of events added to the calendar. One of the more popular events, Fan Fest, began in 2012. Free and open to the public, it’s centered on the team’s intrasquad training camp scrimmage that includes an autograph session with players afterwards and other activities. Last year’s Fan Fest drew more than 15,000 fans.
Yoga Blitz, the Voice of the Fan Luncheon, and a breakfast event for personal seat license holders were also on the list of cancelled events.
Brian Killingsworth, the Rams vice president for marketing and brand strategy, resigned last month after the three seasons with the team. During his time in that role, the Rams ramped up their efforts to connect directly with the team’s fans. He took a similar role with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers.
The news comes with the Rams facing the potential of a lame duck season in St. Louis. In January, it was revealed that owner Stan Kroenke is planning to build an NFL stadium along with the Stockbridge Capital Group in the Los Angeles market, on 300 acres of land in Inglewood owned by the two partners. Efforts are also underway to build a new NFL stadium in St. Louis, but the project still has a number of hurdles to clear, including details about how the project would be financed.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 9 months ago by
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
