znhater wrote:

Ravens, broncos, chickens and green bay. With Baltimore and the pack in the bowl.

That’s what I’ve got.

zn wrote:

Jim Thomas @jthom1
Not many details on public financing, but Peacock says he’s been given confidence that there’s a way make it work w/out new taxes.

WTF?

This is an important detail.

And public money is public money. Unless I’m missing something, that’s either taxes or bonds. Which are still paid off by taxes in the long run.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/01/09/8334/st-louis-stadium-task-force-lets-throw-450m-at-kroenke-to-get-rams-to-stay/

St. Louis stadium task force: Let’s throw $450m at Kroenke to get Rams to stay
Posted on January 9, 2015 by Neil deMause
Live from watching the St. Louis how-we’re-gonna-keep-the-Rams press conference on the interwebs:

That was a question to Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium negotiator (and Anheuser-Busch exec) Dave Peacock, who presented his proposal for a new stadium to make Rams owner Stan Kroenke re-up his lease in St. Louis. And yes, that’s a $900 million price tag, with $450 million of it coming from the public. More from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:

The facility would feature 64,000 seats, with 7,500 club seats. Financing the project, he said, would involve public and private money, as well as seat licenses paid by fans.

“There are ways to source public financing and do it with the same or less burden on the taxpayers,” Peacock said.

And:

The current Edward Jones Dome would become “a competitive asset to use” to attract conventions, Peacock said.

I will endeavor to get Heywood Sanders in here to comment on that one, if he ever stops laughing.

Anyway: 450 million smackeroos. That is a hell of a lot of money to keep a team that you just spent $600 million to lure to town 20 years ago, so either Peacock knows something we don’t know about the seriousness of Stan Kroenke’s threat to go to L.A., or he’s ignoring my advice about not bidding against yourself. Or he just figured most new stadiums cost around $900 million and thought, “Enh, let’s offer to go halfsies and see what they say. That sounds fair, right?” Dumber things have been done for dumber reasons.

wv wrote:

Someone needs to write a book
about this whole move-to-StLouis/move-to-LA
thing.
Or at least an article in the Atlantic
or New Yorker or Field and Stream
or somethin.

w
v

Matt Taibbi.

OahuRam wrote:

Grits,

I cannot remember, after Los Angeles was awarded an expansion team in 1997 how did they end up losing it to the now Houston Texans?

There was no stadium deal possible.

And LA wasn’t awarded an expansion team precisely because there was no stadium, iirc.

InvaderRam wrote:

in this instance. they can control the flow of information. the only people who would actually have to be in the know is kroenke, goodell, and some select owners with influence. and no physical evidence to speak of and all just people talking.

i mean the only reason we know kroenke is building a stadium is because he released the information. and all this talk about meetings with the inglewood mayor are just hearsay.

ok. i’m being stupid and suspicious.

First of all, I’m not sure specifically what “in the know” means. If that means “knows that the fix is in for moving,” then that just isn’t true. The NFL has rules for relocation that have been established by the owners. They made those rules so that the interests of the NFL as a whole can be protected, and so that relocation can be fully vetted, and all concerns considered. The proposals are carefully considered by the Finance Committee. They consider the proposal, look deeply at the financing, and look at what it means in terms of competitive balance, potential re-alignment, and, of course, cash flow. In this case, they will do a full analysis of the St. Louis proposal as well. Every single team is a billion dollar corporation with a slew of smart guys in suits who will look very carefully at what a relocation means to THEM, and their bottom line. (And, btw, I agree with something zn said early in the thread; I don’t think a move to LA benefits the league much. Not financially anyway. Mostly it provides a glamour site in a glamour town and a nice place for Super Bowls, but that’s it. It doesn’t increase revenue for the other 31 teams in any significant way).

This isn’t something that can just breezily be passed through without anyone much noticing. Stan needs votes from 24 teams. There’s a VOTE. The owners don’t just wake up in the morning, snap open their papers, and find out that an NFL team has moved. The more I think about, the more amazed I am that I even gave a moment’s consideration to the possibility that “the fix is in.” It can’t be. Stan’s proposal was just released the other day, and we haven’t seen the Peacock proposal. Even if you assume that the NFL people have been kept in the pipeline on developments of each of these proposals, and already have a good idea what they look like, the close examination and hard questions have not been begun – unless you think 32 owners have already studied this, argued about, voted on it, and just decided not to tell anybody publicly because they prefer to play charades to no advantage whatsoever.

Nope. I am starting to think there is no choice but to believe our eyes here. Kroenke really did that. Now, he may have let the other owners know in advance he was going to do that. But that still isn’t a fix even if he did. And maybe he didn’t. Maybe it was a surprise. We don’t know yet.

But I still don’t think this is brash, impulsive behavior. I’m convinced Kroenke is not going Rambo here. He’s going Bobby Fischer. He’s playing chess, imo, even if it looks like wild west cowboy behavior. He released his plan deliberately, and timed it with purpose.

I think he released his plan when he did because now the Peacock proposal will be compared to his proposal. Had Peacock’s proposal come out first, most people would be looking at its virtues. “Nice new stadium, wow, isn’t that pretty? Some commercial development…my, what a concept. Good deal. That could work!”

If Kroenke’s proposal followed that, it would just look like an attempt to One-Up a solid plan. A few more seats, a few more retail spaces, whatever.

Coming out after Kroenke’s proposal, Peacock’s is likely to be examined for its shortcomings in comparison to his. It will be considered a weaker version. Its unveiling is more likely to disappoint. Especially if it involves public money.

That’s my guess.

I’m looking forward to Friday.

Where the hell is MacKeyser?

InvaderRam wrote:

the league knows and approves. i’m sure of it. they’ve known this for awhile. wouldn’t be the first shady thing they’ve done.

i bet even peacock knows while getting assurances that st louis will get a team in the future. maybe jacksonville.

Yeah, I don’t think so.

They couldn’t keep the Ray Rice video a secret, and that involved only the league office and one football ownership.

This gambit would involve all 32 ownerships and the league office. That’s hundreds and hundreds of employees.

Meanwhile there is ample reason to believe that there are people in the league who oppose the move. That means there is no way there CAN be a hidden approval. Who would approve it? Goodell? You think Goodell would be telling Stan to just go ahead without going through the proper committees for approval? There is no way in the world. That would lead to a bloodbath in the league, and Goodell would be the first person executed. There is no “fix” in. And not much motive to have a “fix.”

PA Ram wrote:

Well, let’s say that St. Louis keeps the name, “Rams”.

If St. Louis doesn’t get a team for a few years the Rams cease to exist.

Maybe they never get a team.

Maybe they become the Oilers.

In a case like that I’d probably become a “Surf” fan since that’s where the players are I was following.

It would be weird.

Very weird.

Oooo…”the Rams cease to exist altogether” plotline.

Good one.

That will throw the Huddle into complete chaos. Probably already happening in one of the alternate universes.

This is fascinating.

I am dumbfounded to learn that SK hasn’t met with Peacock. That certainly creates a strong impression that he is hellbent on LA.

Yet one would think that SK would be going through all the motions even if he IS hellbent on LA just to make the transition easier. The rougher the voyage out of town, the more it will cost him. And…in the millions. It would be cheaper and easier to play games with Peacock, make requests that cannot be met, hang them out with a plan they can’t finance, and walk away with the blessing of the NFL owners.

But surely SOMEBODY has met with Peacock??? Demoff or someone?

I wonder is Stan has decided to go Al Davis. That would surprise me, though. He doesn’t seem like the renegade type.

Here’s a question – since we are asking St. Louis fans what they think – here’s a question for everybody.

Suppose SK moves the Rams to LA. And a new team moves to St. Louis. Supposing the NFL goes Cleveland on this deal, and the Rams logo and horns stay in St. Louis with the new team, and Donald, Bradford, Bailey, and Quinn all play for the Los Angeles Surf. Now what? Which team do you follow?

But Dak…you don’t know that Kroenke isn’t just leveraging.

You don’t know that he isn’t seriously exploring options in St. Louis. I’m sure he knows what Peacock is doing; he’s seen the sketches, and has an idea of the plans.

And over the past 20 years, there have been more than a dozen Los Angeles plans, some promising, all of which died in the 11th hour. There are two other plans which still have a heartbeat.

Meanwhile…Kroenke’s plan has to make it through various legal hurdles (which have killed other plans) and navigate lawsuits from opponents.

Plus…he has to get 24 votes from the owners. No sure thing. There are the cross ownership issues for one thing, and there may be owners who believe that letting Kroenke get by that rule creates potential problems for them down the road. There are Spanos and Davis who make money out of merchandising in LA right now. If the Rams move back, they will absorb most of that revenue stream.

No deal in business – or in life – is done until it’s done.

We don’t know how ANY of that is going to play out. Kroenke has a LOT of money, and that is a useful tool, but the other 31 ownerships have a lot of money, too, and some of them may feel their interests are threatened.

St. Louis will make its offer shortly, and the direction of this conversation will turn again on the basis of that information.

In the mean time, all we know is Kroenke laid a very interesting card on the table, carefully timed, and with a strategy behind the move. But we don’t know what the end game is. And we don’t know what the other owners think. At all.

wv wrote:

I dont know how you can be skeptical about
Bradford’s “injury-proneness”.
He gets injured just by planting his foot
in the turf. He gets injured by running
to the sideline. He missed an entire season
at Oklahoma. He’s had ankle issues.

He is no Cal Ripkin.

w
v

Why don’t you just openly declare your allegiance to the Seahawks, then, since you hate the Rams so much?

zn wrote:

“The Rams finished strong but were the least consistent team in the league. They had the highest variance overall, the highest variance on defense, and one of the five highest variance ratings on offense.”

For the youngest team in the NFL, that is not surprising.

And I don’t think it takes a “homer” optimist type to think that it is likely – with maturity – that the team tends to stabilize in consistency, and more towards the top end of the scale than towards the middle or bottom of their rankings.

Get a QB. Solidify the OL. And rally around Kurt Warner, and play good football.

Two biggest leaders this year were probably Hill and Britt.

Which isn’t all that inspiring. But Britt could become something, I think. I really liked it when I heard he wears Quick’s number during practice.

znhater wrote:

wv wrote:

Rams4life wrote:
Hazier akim? I assume he means Az Hakim. And he was twice the player tavon is at this point imo.

I dunno. What if Tavon was playing alongside
Faulk, Holt, Ike, Warner, etc ?

w
v

As a returner, yes. But he’s not even close as a receiver.

I dunno. Maybe.

But I wouldn’t be surprised if Austin would look close as a receiver to Hakim if he had Bruce, Holt, and Faulk drawing everybody’s attention. I bet Austin is getting CB coverage from higher on the depth chart, and a little more safety attention than Hakim did.