stadium wars

Looks impressive.

“The Rams named a construction group Monday to build their structure along the north riverfront, but questions of financing and land approval linger.”

The Rams?

NFL home base is in NYC.

The sad part is that St. Louis has a really good plan with a vision … and could have no team to make it happen.

I’m telling you, my friends, that my excitement for NFL football is at an all-time low. Just don’t have much interest in this year’s draft, and it’s hard to get excited for a team that’s got one leg out of here.

InvaderRam wrote:

He also brought up they might try to bring in Superbowl PSLs and Inglewood. Possibly 3-4 Superbowls in LA to help pay for the stadium. Pay for Superbowl PSLs.

of course. kroenke finds a way to not have to pay for the stadium. shoot. it’ll probably also pay for the relocation fee.

Yeah, that’s probably true. Well, I guess if people want to spend their money on it, SK will gladly take it.

wv wrote:

InvaderRam wrote:

inglewood’s stadium presentation.

starts at 2:37 mark.

http://www.cityofinglewood.org/soc15.html

it’s sad. lots of loyal st louis rams fans are getting jobbed on this. i don’t know how this can be stopped.

Well…um…so did lots of loyal Los Angeles fans back in 1995. Ya know.

I cant see any way out of the ‘jobbing’
of loyal fans somewhere — unless the NFL
adds a coupla teams.

w
v

I think I’m mildly offended.

wv wrote:

In a weird post-modern-way
itz better to be a Nomad.

w
v

Indeed. Using algebraic equations too complicated for the human mind to grasp, I was able to determine that being a nomad is better than being a non-nomad by a factor of 8.63.

Here’s the hierarchy of “things to be” listed in descending order from best to worst, in case you’re interested…

Nomad
Non-nomad
Banana slug
West Virginian
Slime Mold

Good news, wv…West Virginian has moved up the list!

• This reply was modified 9 years ago by nittany ram.

I’m a St.louis guy. Born and raised in a small town in Missouri. I was in middle school when the Cardinals left, so I hadn’t entered my die hard fan years. (Lomax was the only thing we had to cheer for). But It still hurt a lot.

Maybe that whole “too little too late” mantra is true. Logically, I totally get that. Had Peacock given this proposal a couple of years ago, before the lease expired, than maybe none of this happens. It’s true right? St. louis didn’t hold up to it’s part of the agreement, so the Rams have every right to go.

What makes it feel like we’re being ‘jobbed’ is the fact that St. Louis IS stepping up now. In a big way. In a way that none of these other cities have before. If L.A. had proposed this kind of stadium back when Georgia was in L.A., she never would have left. If Oakland gave this proposal to the Raiders, they’d be over the moon.

The other reason it feels like we are being “jobbed” is b/c we were told that if a city makes a real attempt to accommodate the team, than the NFL will not allow that team to move. It certainly doesn’t feel like that’s how its going to turn out here does it? And furthermore, the NFL has moved up the deadline to make it even harder for the cities to come make this attempt.

The “being jobbed” doesn’t come from the team leaving. It comes from the NFL telling the Cities “If you give a solid plan, they won’t leave.”

Was there any other team that left a city despite the fact that the city was building them a stadium? I can’t think of any, can you?

Herzog wrote:

. Logically, I totally get that. Had Peacock given this proposal a couple of years ago, before the lease expired, than maybe none of this happens. It’s true right? St. louis didn’t hold up to it’s part of the agreement, so the Rams have every right to go.

The too little too late routine is a Kroenke schtick. It has no basis in reality. Until the dome arrangement went through arbitration, St. Louis could not do anything.

Dak wrote:

The sad part is that St. Louis has a really good plan with a vision … and could have no team to make it happen.

I’m telling you, my friends, that my excitement for NFL football is at an all-time low. Just don’t have much interest in this year’s draft, and it’s hard to get excited for a team that’s got one leg out of here.

I feel the same way. None of it matters to me if the Rams move and that is Kroenke’s plan by design.

Zooey wrote:

bnw wrote:

Dak wrote:

The sad part is that St. Louis has a really good plan with a vision … and could have no team to make it happen.

I’m telling you, my friends, that my excitement for NFL football is at an all-time low. Just don’t have much interest in this year’s draft, and it’s hard to get excited for a team that’s got one leg out of here.

I feel the same way. None of it matters to me if the Rams move and that is Kroenke’s plan by design.

I cannot think of an example the equal of it. While teams have left strong fan loyalty before, and have done so brutally, there is no equivalent in terms of stadium issues. When the Rams left LA, they were playing in a baseball stadium. The Raiders were playing in a stadium built in 1923. The Browns had a dismal stadium situation. And so on.

No team has left a city with a brand new stadium in the works.

This city (St. Louis) is being force fed a shit burger with the works by the NFL. It is more than the team leaving. The last 30 years of the NFL and St. Louis is unprecedented.

Bidwill moved to AZ claiming he needed the additional revenue from sky boxes and concessions and parking. He needed a new stadium for those revenue streams. So he leaves blaming St. Louis and his team plays 20 years in an oven masquerading as a crappy college stadium.

St. Louis loses its bid for an expansion team to Carolina and Jacksonville while building a new stadium. Loses to Jacksonville. Hey NFL how has that worked out?

Rams relocate to St. Louis but the dickhead forever LA based John Shaw insists upon a top 25% stadium venue clause while making a freaking killing on the very revenue streams Bidwill was demanding 10 years earlier.

With LA without a team NFL teams use the threat of moving to LA to leverage better deals with their city resulting in an unprecedented stadium building boom throughout the NFL which in 20 years forces into effect the top 25% clause for St. Louis with a new team owner who can afford such a stadium in St. Louis but chooses to spend twice as much money to build a stadium in LA.

St. Louis is forced to build another stadium with no guarantee of a team for the second time in 20 years while LA has continued to refuse to do so despite having many times the population of St. Louis.

Bernie: Goodell says only one stadium for LA

By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-goodell-says-only-one-stadium-for-la/article_84b17867-4bee-5f4c-825a-b821f7081b42.html

In an interview with Charlie Rose of “CBS This Morning,” NFL commissioner Roger Goodell said the league will have to decide between two stadium proposals in the Los Angeles area.

“We have two proposed, but we have to pick one or the other,” Goodell told Rose. “It’s not likely we’ll pick both stadiums.”

That’s an understatement.

Not that this news should surprise anyone that’s paid attention to the Los Angeles saga. The NFL wasn’t going to allow three teams to move from their current markets to set up in two stadiums in Los Angeles.

So it will come down to a choice between Stan Kroenke’s plan in Inglewood and the Carson proposal that would house the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, who are partnering on the project.

Kroenke, the Rams owner, aggressively tried to jump the line and stake a claim on the LA market by announcing his stadium plan in early January.

The Chargers and Raiders countered on Feb. 19 by announcing their joint intention to construct the Carson stadium.

Kroenke’s proposed venue ($1.86 billion) is more extravagant and exciting.

The Carson proposal ($1.7 billion) offers better freeway access and can give the NFL a two-team presence in Los Angeles.

Of course, given the wheeling, dealing and conniving that takes place in the NFL it’s possible for Kroenke to entice the Raiders or Chargers to join him in Inglewood.

It’s strongly believed that Kroenke would like to have the only team in the LA market. But having a tenant and a second NFL team in his I-wood complex presumably would be preferable to getting shut out of Los Angeles altogether.

And if Kroenke can lure the Chargers or Raiders to Inglewood, the team that doesn’t end up with a new stadium in SoCal could look to St. Louis for a new start.

Needless to say, Kroenke may not receive league approval to move. And then he’d have to make a big decision between staying in St. Louis for 2016 — or bolting to LA to likely set off a pitched battle that would pit NFL lawyers vs. the Kroenke lawyers.

Just a reminder:

• The NFL will do what it wants to do. Words are meaningless. And relocation rules are meaningless until the NFL proves otherwise.

• This game is far from over; there are many variables in play.

• The strategy will take more turns.

• The NFL will do what it wants to do.

• And finally … the NFL will do what it wants to do.

As for now …

“In San Diego, Oakland or St. Louis we would like to know can a stadium get built there and can a team be successful long-term,” Goodell told Rose.

(The “can a team be successful long-term” gives the NFL the wiggle room to justify any decision.)

St. Louis has clearly made more progress on the stadium front. San Diego and Oakland are trying to catch up.

There isn’t much hope for a new stadium in Oakland, and San Diego’s efforts have failed (at least so far) to satisfy the Chargers.

As for the ongoing effort in St. Louis, Goodell offered encouraging words Friday in comments made at an annual gathering of the Associated Press Sports Editors.

In remarks that were oddly underplayed or ignored nationally and in St. Louis, Goodell said:

“We think it’s exciting. We think they’ve made a lot of progress. To the point where they’ve identified the site, identified various funding sources, identified design plans, that we think is responsive to having a franchise be successful in St. Louis. I would tell you that I think they’re continuing down a path that is a very positive path.”

“I think we’ve been very clear with every community, including the L.A. communities, that we want to see real progress,” Goodell said. “It has to be substantial. … This is not a new issue to any of these communities, including San Diego. I think this is 13 or 14 years they’ve been working on a stadium.”

Contrast that to comments made by Goodell when assessing the situation in Oakland and San Diego.

“I think we’ve been very clear with every community, including the L.A. communities, that we want to see real progress,” Goodell told the editors. “It has to be substantial. This is not a new issue to any of these communities, including San Diego. I think this is 13 or 14 years they’ve been working on a stadium.”

Goodell, of course, is excited by both stadium plans in LA, saying that they have the potential “to be successful for generations going forward.”

But now, according to Goodell, the NFL will choose only one.