Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Vincent Bonsignore, LA Sports columnist
- This topic has 30 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 2 months ago by
Herzog.
-
AuthorPosts
-
February 27, 2015 at 4:54 pm #19203
TackleDummyParticipantVincent Bonsignore
@DailyNewsVinny
Sports columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News following everything from the Lakers to L.A.’s 20-year quest to bring back the NFL
https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinnyVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny
#NFL VP Eric Grubman was on way to St. Louis morning after Inglewood approval #Rams #Raiders #ChargersVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
Knowing that, where has #NFL spent most of it’s time: San Diego Oakland or St. Louis #Rams #Raiders #ChargersVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
Let me also add, #NFL will look ridiculous if it ends up with 3 teams needing to move to L.A. #Rams #Chargers #RaidersVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
Also don’t think #NFL will expand until all 32 teams have updated stadiums #Rams #Raiders #ChargersVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
In no way am I saying it’s for sure happening in #STL. But understand there are powerful leaders in place in Missouri. #Rams #NFLVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
Ball is in #Missouri #STL court. If they come up with nothing #Rams have justification for relocation. #NFLVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
#Rams going rogue makes little sense. No G-4 from #NFL no Super Bowl hosting promises $$$$ that come with itVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 20h
If #Chargers and #Raiders have to move to L.A. why would #Rams want to share a market 3 ways, especially if STL offers a stadium? #NFL?Vincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 21h
From multiple #NFL people, sense I get is league more inclined to let #Raiders #Chargers make the in-state move and keep #Rams in St. LouisVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 22h
By the way, when I say #Chargers just go ahead and think #Raiders too. Silver and Black in same exact boat #NFLVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 22h
Bottom line, #Chargers have a critical decision to make soon on Los Angeles, and worry is San Diego might not be ready with counter offerVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 22h
Best hope for San Diego is St. Louis secures a stadium for #Rams, which would reduce heightened urgency and buy more time #Chargers #NFLVincent Bonsignore @DailyNewsVinny · 22h
The more I poke around #Chargers situation, the more challenging San Diego timeline appears to get a stadium deal done before 1-1-16 #NFLMarch 1, 2015 at 3:24 am #19274
znhaterBlockedJust someone else’s opinion. And when was the last time they hosted a super bowl in a rams stadium? Oh yeah, never. Kroenke is building the stadium. It remains to be seen if the st. Louis proposal even gets off the ground. I just can’t see him letting another team play there whem he settles for a stadium he won’t own. Plus San Diego and Oakland don’t have any money. It’s all just a ploy to get a better deal where they are now.
Just my opinion like everyone else’s but none of the other makes sense to me. Build on toxic land lol. I just don’t see it happening.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by znhater.
March 1, 2015 at 11:36 am #19282
ZooeyParticipantJust someone else’s opinion. And when was the last time they hosted a super bowl in a rams stadium? Oh yeah, never. Kroenke is building the stadium. It remains to be seen if the st. Louis proposal even gets off the ground. I just can’t see him letting another team play there whem he settles for a stadium he won’t own. Plus San Diego and Oakland don’t have any money. It’s all just a ploy to get a better deal where they are now.
Just my opinion like everyone else’s but none of the other makes sense to me. Build on toxic land lol. I just don’t see it happening.
Don’t be so sure. The St. Louis proposal looks good on paper, and apparently the NFL likes it because Grubman has flown to St. Louis twice to talk to Peacock since Kroenke’s plan was unveiled, and have said encouraging things publicly. I’d say it’s pretty clear that the NFL likes Peacock’s proposal enough to encourage its development as a future NFL home. And since that stadium is going to be built in St. Louis, that means a team in St. Louis, and the Rams are the logical tenant.
It is true that the money has not been worked out for the Carson site, but even though Spanos and Davis are not as wealthy as Kroenke, they are both billionaires, and there are two of them. The NFL can kick in money, public money could be used, and they could sell pieces of their teams to raise more capital. There are ways it can work. It is true, though, that the Carson proposal is much weaker at this point than Kroenke’s. But Kroenke’s project has everybody working intently to create viable alternatives.
March 1, 2015 at 12:06 pm #19284TackleDummyParticipantDon’t be so sure. The St. Louis proposal looks good on paper, and apparently the NFL likes it because Grubman has flown to St. Louis twice to talk to Peacock since Kroenke’s plan was unveiled, and have said encouraging things publicly. I’d say it’s pretty clear that the NFL likes Peacock’s proposal enough to encourage its development as a future NFL home. And since that stadium is going to be built in St. Louis, that means a team in St. Louis, and the Rams are the logical tenant.
It is true that the money has not been worked out for the Carson site, but even though Spanos and Davis are not was wealthy as Kroenke, they are both billionaires, and there are two of them. The NFL can kick in money, public money could be used, and they could sell pieces of their teams to raise more capital. There are ways it can work. It is true, though, that the Carson proposal is much weaker at this point than Kroenke’s. But Kroenke’s project has everybody working intently to create viable alternatives.
I agree with you about the St. Louis proposal. I think it is far enough along that it will be done and that the Rams will be staying in St. Louis.
I also think that if it came to it, as far as the Chargers and Raiders go, that they could make the Carson site work. But Davis cannot sell pieces of the Raiders to make it work. He, along with his mother, own only 47% of the Raiders that they inherited form Al Davis. The rest of the team is owned by the heirs of Al Davis’s partners when the Raiders were created. So if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.
March 1, 2015 at 12:20 pm #19285
znModeratorSo if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.
According to the NFL constitution, a principal or controlling owner must own at least 30% of a team.
I don’t know what that means in relation to the Raiders.
March 1, 2015 at 12:51 pm #19287ZooeyParticipantTackleDummy wrote:
So if Davis sold any of his share of the Raiders he would not be in control of the Raiders.According to the NFL constitution, a principal or controlling owner must own at least 30% of a team.
I don’t know what that means in relation to the Raiders.
Whatever.
The point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.
The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.
March 1, 2015 at 11:00 pm #19329TackleDummyParticipantThe point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.
The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.
I agree with that. As long as both teams stay a part of the Carson project it will not fail. But selling a part of a team would not really be an option for the Chargers and especially not the Raiders. I think that it is likely that both the Chargers and the Raiders will have to borrow to meet their $250M contributions to build the stadium. (Note, it will not be the owners who will be doing the borrowing, but rather the teams.) But the league contribution, plus the team contributions, plus PSLs will go a long way toward the total cost of building the stadium. The rest (probably under $500M) will not be too difficult to raise from private sources in LA. It is probably worth noting that both owners, Mark Davis (along with his mother Carol) and Alex Spanos are among the league’s least wealthy. ( http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/How-Much-Is-Each-NFL-Owner-Worth-10-206-847 ) Neither has a significant amount of wealth outside of their team ownership.
March 1, 2015 at 11:16 pm #19330ZooeyParticipantZooey wrote:
The point is that to discount Carson because of lack of money is not logical. The interested parties have time to put money together.The Carson project is more likely to fall apart because a better alternative arises, imo. For one or both teams.
I agree with that. As long as both teams stay a part of the Carson project it will not fail. But selling a part of a team would not really be an option for the Chargers and especially not the Raiders. I think that it is likely that both the Chargers and the Raiders will have to borrow to meet their $250M contributions to build the stadium. (Note, it will not be the owners who will be doing the borrowing, but rather the teams.) But the league contribution, plus the team contributions, plus PSLs will go a long way toward the total cost of building the stadium. The rest (probably under $500M) will not be too difficult to raise from private sources in LA. It is probably worth noting that both owners, Mark Davis (along with his mother Carol) and Alex Spanos are among the league’s least wealthy. ( http://www.chatsports.com/nfl/a/How-Much-Is-Each-NFL-Owner-Worth-10-206-847 ) Neither has a significant amount of wealth outside of their team ownership.
Well, I don’t think financing is their biggest hurdle. Maybe it will end up that way, but if I was them, I would worry about
1. the other team getting an offer elsewhere
2. the environmental clean-up of the site
3. resistance to re-alignment amongst ownersMarch 2, 2015 at 10:08 am #19336TackleDummyParticipantWell, I don’t think financing is their biggest hurdle. Maybe it will end up that way, but if I was them, I would worry about
1. the other team getting an offer elsewhere
2. the environmental clean-up of the site
3. resistance to re-alignment amongst ownersI agree that financing will not be a problem. And I have pointed out a couple of times how it can be done.
It is possible one of the teams could get a better offer. But I doubt it. However, both Oakland and San Diego have some time left. The Rams will build their stadium in St. Louis and the Rams will not move. The most likely alternative, IMO, is that Kroenke will sell the Rams to a St. Louis group and then he will buy the Raiders. That would put the Raiders in Inglewood. And I don’t think that would be likely.
The clean-up in Carson has been completed. It cost $50M. There will be some work done to release gases safely, but that will not be too costly since it is a stadium rather than a residential area.
Re-alignment will not be a problem, IMO. It will be a part of the three-team stadium/realignment solution. The Rams will go to the AFC West and one of the California team, likely Oakland, will go to the NFC West. The rest of the NFL will not care.
March 2, 2015 at 11:12 am #19339
bnwBlockedRe-alignment will not be a problem, IMO. It will be a part of the three-team stadium/realignment solution. The Rams will go to the AFC West and one of the California team, likely Oakland, will go to the NFC West. The rest of the NFL will not care.
Why realignment at all?
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 2, 2015 at 1:02 pm #19344
joemadParticipantwhy would the league and the city of STL want to spend public money to build a stadium in STL where NFL attendance has been in bottom 3 in total NFL attendance in each of the last 6 seasons?
why would the league stop an owner (Kroenke) that has his own land in LA to move from a market that has been bottom feeder in attendance and last in team value?
March 2, 2015 at 1:57 pm #19346TackleDummyParticipantWhy realignment at all?
If there are two teams in LA, and that is what it seems the NFL wants, then the FOX and CBS will each want a part of the TV pie. Thus, one team will need to be in the NFC and the other the AFC. Remember, it is TV that pays for the NFL. What they want is what will happen.
March 2, 2015 at 2:02 pm #19347TackleDummyParticipantwhy would the league and the city of STL want to spend public money to build a stadium in STL where NFL attendance has been in bottom 3 in total NFL attendance in each of the last 6 seasons?
why would the league stop an owner (Kroenke) that has his own land in LA to move from a market that has been bottom feeder in attendance and last in team value?
Don’t know why (I am not going to play that game).
But what will happen is
a) St. Louis will build the Riverfront stadium.
b) There will be $400M to $500M of public bonds used to pay for a portion of the stadium. Remember, these are bonds. They will be paid off from revenue earned by the stadium. No tax dollars will be used.
c) The league will uphold its bylaws and the Rams will play in that stadium for at least 25 years.March 2, 2015 at 9:18 pm #19361
InvaderRamModeratorthe raiders are worth 797 million. the rams are worth 750 million. i could see that happening. the rams staying in st. louis and kroenke moving the raiders to los angeles. he might actually prefer that as i think the raiders have a bigger following in los angeles. although that would majorly bum out los angeles rams fans.
-
This reply was modified 9 years, 2 months ago by InvaderRam.
March 2, 2015 at 9:58 pm #19364ZooeyParticipantthe raiders are worth 797 million. the rams are worth 750 million. i could see that happening. the rams staying in st. louis and kroenke moving the raiders to los angeles. he might actually prefer that as i think the raiders have a bigger following in los angeles. although that would majorly bum out los angeles rams fans.
Nobody cares about Los Angeles Rams fans except Los Angeles Rams fans. That sounds harsh, but it’s true.
Your scenario is possible, but I can make it worse.
Kroenke and Davis trade franchise NAMES. The Rams (newly christened the Raiders) move to Los Angeles as the Raiders, and the Raiders switch uniforms and move to St. Louis to be the Rams.
Cuz maybe they don’t want to trade their entire organizations that they have been building. Kroenke may very well want to hang onto his front office, Fisher and his crew, and his players. All of them become Los Angeles Raiders, but the “Rams” are still in St. Louis.
How’s that sound?
I’m not sure I could survive that.
March 2, 2015 at 10:01 pm #19365ZooeyParticipantBy the way, new renderings:
March 2, 2015 at 10:44 pm #19366InvaderRamModeratorthat would confuse the crap out of me. i would eventually get over it. unless the rams. er i mean raiders won a superbowl. then i think i’d have to hunt kroenke down. and eat the toupee right off his head.
it’s a nice looking stadium. look. i wouldn’t be disappointed if the rams stayed in st. louis. i love st. louis. and it really doesn’t matter where they play at this point.
but just let me enjoy this team. just do that. i like this team right now. i like the players. i want to root for quinn and donald and the rest of these guys.
i can only hope that the raiders and chargers work out a deal with their cities, and wherever the rams end up, they get to keep fisher and company.
March 3, 2015 at 1:27 pm #19383
rflParticipantYou guys are, I think, doing the very best that can be done right now trying to make sense of a bowl of spaghetti. Lots of good thoughts here.
I am note sure why TD is convinced the Rams will stay in StL. That still seems a far-fetched idea for me, given that Kroenke clearly wants LA. But what do I know.
I share Zooey’s concerns about weird swaps of parts of franchises that might undermine the whole meaning of the team. I might be done with the NFL if that happens. I’d sure miss you guys!
Right now, though, I really worry about this upcoming season. I won’t repeat what I’ve said before, but this year is going to be weird: 1) a possibly lame duck franchise 2) trying to break out into playoff contention after a decade in the wilderness. Weird. Very weird.
Imagine the bitterness if the Rams were to, say, lose in the 2nd round of the playoffs with a team clearly on the rise … and then head out to LA leaving StL fans in disgust.
Imagine the strangeness of a playoff game in the Ed with the team about to leave?
You know, if it becomes increasingly clear by, say, midsummer that it will be hard for Kroenke to take the team west, the team ought to begin to reassure StL fans.
If not … well, all concerned might be better off with another year of 7-9. Except of course for die hard Ram fans. But no one cares about us anyway, as Z says.
By virtue of the absurd ...
March 3, 2015 at 1:39 pm #19387TackleDummyParticipantthe raiders are worth 797 million. the rams are worth 750 million. i could see that happening. the rams staying in st. louis and kroenke moving the raiders to los angeles. he might actually prefer that as i think the raiders have a bigger following in los angeles. although that would majorly bum out los angeles rams fans.
http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/
FWIW, the Raiders are worth $970M and the Rams are worth $930M. This is according to Forbes.March 3, 2015 at 3:32 pm #19389bnwBlocked<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>
Why realignment at all?If there are two teams in LA, and that is what it seems the NFL wants, then the FOX and CBS will each want a part of the TV pie. Thus, one team will need to be in the NFC and the other the AFC. Remember, it is TV that pays for the NFL. What they want is what will happen.
Both networks already have a part of the LA TV pie. TV won’t realign divisions or conferences as it never has in the past side it would be giving up too much control to an outside entity. In this case a dependent entity.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 3, 2015 at 3:35 pm #19390bnwBlockedwhy would the league and the city of STL want to spend public money to build a stadium in STL where NFL attendance has been in bottom 3 in total NFL attendance in each of the last 6 seasons?
why would the league stop an owner (Kroenke) that has his own land in LA to move from a market that has been bottom feeder in attendance and last in team value?
What was LA attendance before the Rams moved? Shitty teams don’t draw well anywhere. When the team had a decent product on the field they filled the dome.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 3, 2015 at 3:36 pm #19391bnwBlocked<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>joemad wrote:</div>
why would the league and the city of STL want to spend public money to build a stadium in STL where NFL attendance has been in bottom 3 in total NFL attendance in each of the last 6 seasons?why would the league stop an owner (Kroenke) that has his own land in LA to move from a market that has been bottom feeder in attendance and last in team value?
Don’t know why (I am not going to play that game).
But what will happen is
a) St. Louis will build the Riverfront stadium.
b) There will be $400M to $500M of public bonds used to pay for a portion of the stadium. Remember, these are bonds. They will be paid off from revenue earned by the stadium. No tax dollars will be used.
c) The league will uphold its bylaws and the Rams will play in that stadium for at least 25 years.That would be awesome.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 3, 2015 at 3:38 pm #19392bnwBlockedBy the way, new renderings:
I can already see my seats.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 3, 2015 at 7:26 pm #19399TackleDummyParticipantBoth networks already have a part of the LA TV pie. TV won’t realign divisions or conferences as it never has in the past side it would be giving up too much control to an outside entity. In this case a dependent entity.
Yes, right now both Fox and CBS have equal access to LA. But that would not be true if two teams from the same conference were in LA. Fox broadcasts away games for the NFC and CBS broadcasts the away games for the AFC. If two AFC teams move to LA, CBS would get to broadcast the away games for both LA teams and most of the home games for both. That would give CBS a big advantage for the LA market. By moving one of the LA teams to the NFC it would give the two networks an equal share of the LA market.
March 3, 2015 at 7:31 pm #19400TackleDummyParticipantWhat was LA attendance before the Rams moved? Shitty teams don’t draw well anywhere. When the team had a decent product on the field they filled the dome.
Interesting numbers to think about when anyone from LA throws out the “St. Louis fans don’t support football!” insult.
Los Angeles Rams
Year Record Avg Att
1984 (10-6) 54,455 (playoffs)
1985 (11-5) 56,242 (playoffs)
1986 (10-6) 59,285 (playoffs)
1987 (6-9) 47,356
1988 (10-6) 54,469 (playoffs)
1989 (11-5) 58,846 (playoffs)
1990 (5-11) 59,920
1991 (3-13) 51,586
1992 (6-10) 47,811
1993 (5-11) 45,401
1994 (4-12) 43,312
10 Yr Avg 52,608St. Louis Rams
Year Record Avg Att
2004 (8-8) 66,035
2005 (6-10) 65,585
2006 (8-8) 65,326
2007 (3-13) 64,294
2008 (2-14) 59,980
2009 (1-15) 55,237
2010 (7-9) 52,922
2011 (2-14) 56,394
2012 (7-8-1) 56,703
2013 (7-9) 56,957
2014 (6-10) 57,018
10 Yr Avg 59,677That’s 7.36 wins per year for LA vs. 5.18 wins per year for STL. Attendance per win: 114,309 in LA, 184,266 in STL.
Not bad for a region with 2.8 million people!
Note: This is a post from the HERD board by courtland1.
March 3, 2015 at 7:47 pm #19402
wvParticipantInteresting numbers to think about when anyone from LA throws out the “St. Louis fans don’t support football!” insult.
Los Angeles Rams
Year Record Avg Att
1984 (10-6) 54,455 (playoffs)
1985 (11-5) 56,242 (playoffs)
1986 (10-6) 59,285 (playoffs)
1987 (6-9) 47,356
1988 (10-6) 54,469 (playoffs)
1989 (11-5) 58,846 (playoffs)
1990 (5-11) 59,920
1991 (3-13) 51,586
1992 (6-10) 47,811
1993 (5-11) 45,401
1994 (4-12) 43,312
10 Yr Avg 52,608St. Louis Rams
Year Record Avg Att
2004 (8-8) 66,035
2005 (6-10) 65,585
2006 (8-8) 65,326
2007 (3-13) 64,294
2008 (2-14) 59,980
2009 (1-15) 55,237
2010 (7-9) 52,922
2011 (2-14) 56,394
2012 (7-8-1) 56,703
2013 (7-9) 56,957
2014 (6-10) 57,018
10 Yr Avg 59,677That’s 7.36 wins per year for LA vs. 5.18 wins per year for STL. Attendance per win: 114,309 in LA, 184,266 in STL.
Not bad for a region with 2.8 million people!
Note: This is a post from the HERD board by courtland1.
Well, my own personal complaint about St.Louis is not about attendance numbers exactly.
Its about this —
I have NEVER seen another stadium that was filled
with so many Opponent-Fans as often as has been the case in St.Louis.
I mean there have been times were its been
downright embarrassing.I love open-air stadiums btw. I will be thrilled if
St.Louis builds one and then
blows up the Jones-Dome.
The ‘elements’ should play a part
in Football. This isn’t badminton.w
vMarch 3, 2015 at 9:00 pm #19403TackleDummyParticipantI love open-air stadiums btw. I will be thrilled if
St.Louis builds one and then
blows up the Jones-Dome.One thing, St. Louis will not blow up the Jones-Dome. The estimates are that the Dome will make more without the Rams than they currently make with the Rams. The Dome is a very valuable property for conventions, etc.
March 3, 2015 at 9:34 pm #19404wvParticipantI love open-air stadiums btw. I will be thrilled if
St.Louis builds one and then
blows up the Jones-Dome.One thing, St. Louis will not blow up the Jones-Dome. The estimates are that the Dome will make more without the Rams than they currently make with the Rams. The Dome is a very valuable property for conventions, etc.
Well thats what domes are for — conventions.
Football should be played outdoors.
On real grass.w
v
http://www.ebay.com/sch/sis.html?_nkw=12×18+Rams+Vikings+1969+PLAYOFF+Gabriel+Photo+Poster
March 4, 2015 at 8:33 am #19418bnwBlocked<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>
Both networks already have a part of the LA TV pie. TV won’t realign divisions or conferences as it never has in the past side it would be giving up too much control to an outside entity. In this case a dependent entity.Yes, right now both Fox and CBS have equal access to LA. But that would not be true if two teams from the same conference were in LA. Fox broadcasts away games for the NFC and CBS broadcasts the away games for the AFC. If two AFC teams move to LA, CBS would get to broadcast the away games for both LA teams and most of the home games for both. That would give CBS a big advantage for the LA market. By moving one of the LA teams to the NFC it would give the two networks an equal share of the LA market.
Again the NFL won’t let a fundamental business decision be decided by an outside entity. If it is as valuable to the TV network as you claim then the AFC television rights will be more expensive than the NFC television rights. NFL retains control and gets more money.
The upside to being a Rams fan is heartbreak.
Sprinkles are for winners.
March 4, 2015 at 8:40 am #19419bnwBlocked<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>TackleDummy wrote:</div>
I love open-air stadiums btw. I will be thrilled if
St.Louis builds one and then
blows up the Jones-Dome.One thing, St. Louis will not blow up the Jones-Dome. The estimates are that the Dome will make more without the Rams than they currently make with the Rams. The Dome is a very valuable property for conventions, etc.
Well thats what domes are for — conventions.
Football should be played outdoors.
On real grass.Without the dome the Rams don’t win the Super Bowl. Attendance is better in a dome too since a butt in a seat is counted as attendance, not tickets sold. Most places that have a retractable roof rarely open it for games. Game experience for fans is better.
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.
