Seems like a simple outcome when these guys hash it out.
Interesting to see this video today followed by this evening's big news.
Seems like a simple outcome when these guys hash it out.
Interesting to see this video today followed by this evening's big news.
This certainly got a whole lot interesting. Did I read/understand the LA times article that the Raiders and Chargers have actually purchased the Carson site? If so, I wonder how long that has been in the making and if Stan K knew something was up. Or if this is a deal that came together after it was known that Stan K purchased the Inglewood site., From the article, apparently the site was on the NFL radar before but fell off after the latest round of proposals, including Industry City and Farmers Field. It is also interesting to note that they only need to get enough petitions together so the city council is forced to either vote on it or put it to ballot just as Inglewood. Inglewood might approve first but doubt it would take that long for the same thing to happen for Carson site.
You also wonder what games are going on within the NFL front office? A shared Raiders and Chargers stadium gets the Raiders out of the Bay, gets Chargers in a new stadium but stay in Southern Cal and strengthens their position that Stan K has to stay put because of new stadium deal in St. Louis. This seems like the best outcome for the other NFL 29 teams as it gets a team(s) back into LA media market with no expansion teams involved to cut into the revenue sharing pie and three more teams would be in new facilities.
You also wonder what games are going on within the NFL front office? A shared Raiders and Chargers stadium gets the Raiders out of the Bay, gets Chargers in a new stadium but stay in Southern Cal and strengthens their position that Stan K has to stay put because of new stadium deal in St. Louis. This seems like the best outcome for the other NFL 29 teams as it gets a team(s) back into LA media market with no expansion teams involved to cut into the revenue sharing pie and three more teams would be in new facilities.
To get into the semantics of this, I could have missed some of the verbiage in the reams of cyber ink printed about this subject, but I find it interesting that this says the "Raiders" and "Chargers" in the headlines. All of the moves coming out of Inglewood have only said "Stan Kroenke" as far as I've seen. The Carson proposal is also attached with an actual of statement of intention to move if a deal can't get done by both teams. The Rams have yet to say anything.
The Inglewood project is much more diverse with mixed use, retail, residential, commercial, corporate facets....much more in line with Kroenke's business history and something he could personally benefit from even if the stadium component never happened. And if it does, as has been stated, other tenants besides the NFL could use it.
Get your popcorn ready.
The Inglewood project is much more diverse with mixed use, retail, residential, commercial, corporate facets....much more in line with Kroenke's business history and something he could personally benefit from even if the stadium component never happened. And if it does, as has been stated, other tenants besides the NFL could use it.
Get your popcorn ready.
- 3,767
The big difference here is that Dean Spanos and Mark Davis have both come out and said several very important things. First off, both have said all along, they want to stay in their current cities. They have also maintained that they want to continue to try and work out deals in their current cities. While here in STL, Stan has said absolutely nothing. He has made every move possible, to indicate he is leaving. I do not believe for one second, he is bluffing. He wants to go to LA. The question is, who will get there first, him or the Raiders &/or Chargers. Will the NFL allow him to move. This is another play in this game of high-stakes poker. Now all 3 teams have land in LA. My only concern, is that this will push Stan to attempt a move even faster than he planned. It may also light a fire under San Diego & Oakland politicians. Maybe they now understand how serious the possibility of a move is. I just can't understand why SD wouldn't be open to assisting Spanos in building a new venue. They would definitely be on the rotating list for Super Bowls every few years. There is big money to be had for cities on that distinct list.
On another note, I find it very disturbing that the Rams send an internal memo cancelling 2015 Fan Fest, season ticket holder events and even a charity event for cancer. That is a slap in the face to loyal St. Louis Rams fans. This toupee - wearing jerk is really trying to alienate St. Louis. That just infuriates me, that this guy swoops in and is now attempting to take our NFL team away, especially in this cowardly fashion. I find it hard to believe this is all a ploy to extort St. Louis. I can think of better ways to get a new venue here. He will never be liked or accepted in STL even if he stays. He will always be a villain.
On another note, I find it very disturbing that the Rams send an internal memo cancelling 2015 Fan Fest, season ticket holder events and even a charity event for cancer. That is a slap in the face to loyal St. Louis Rams fans. This toupee - wearing jerk is really trying to alienate St. Louis. That just infuriates me, that this guy swoops in and is now attempting to take our NFL team away, especially in this cowardly fashion. I find it hard to believe this is all a ploy to extort St. Louis. I can think of better ways to get a new venue here. He will never be liked or accepted in STL even if he stays. He will always be a villain.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... um-carson/
Based on this article, not only did the Chargers stadium announcement light a fire under San Diego officials, but they have a meeting that could be as soon as Monday, with the team.
Based on this article, not only did the Chargers stadium announcement light a fire under San Diego officials, but they have a meeting that could be as soon as Monday, with the team.
Spanos continually reiterates his commitment to staying in San Diego. At least SD has that going for them.One source said the Chargers alerted Faulconer prior to the Times story being posted. The team reiterated to the Mayor its commitment to work toward a solution in San Diego. The sides had scheduled a meeting between Chargers president Dean Spanos and Faulconer for Tuesday, and the team offered to move that meeting up in light of this announcement.
- 9,566
one of the LA ESPN guys tweeted that there is .01% chance to get public funds in SD and Oakland....he says their line about working with current city til end of the year is just a good faith effort check box crossed.
thats been blown out of proportion soooo much....Demoff explained that Fan Fest is moving to smaller venueDogtownBnR wrote:
On another note, I find it very disturbing that the Rams send an internal memo cancelling 2015 Fan Fest, season ticket holder events and even a charity event for cancer. That is a slap in the face to loyal St. Louis Rams fans. This toupee - wearing jerk is really trying to alienate St. Louis. That just infuriates me, that this guy swoops in and is now attempting to take our NFL team away, especially in this cowardly fashion. I find it hard to believe this is all a ploy to extort St. Louis. I can think of better ways to get a new venue here. He will never be liked or accepted in STL even if he stays. He will always be a villain.
- 3,767
I don't know that I agree with you on that one. Why cut the promotional & event schedule, when they've been ramping that up that last several years. That sends a clear message to me. Then their president of marketing resigns. I know he claims that he wanted to go back to Tampa and all, but I don't even know if that job is as good as the one he held here in St. Louis. Even so, I think it is odd timing (not really) for the Rams to cut promotions and events. They surely do not want to face the 7 season ticket holders that renewed, in an open forum, Q&A setting, putting Kevin Demoff in the line of fire, for LA questions.
- 9,566
by the time this event rolls around in August a lot of this will be resolved.
- 3,767
dbinSouthcity wrote:
On another note, I think Spanos knows somebody is going to LA. If he is so concerned about losing 30% of his fanbase, he is going to have to go to LA. I'm not sure if he realistically thinks he can keep everyone out of LA. Not going to happen.. only solution, LA Chargers. I still think he might consider renting from Stan, if SD and Carson fall through. All of this will make a great book someday.
Maybe the fire lit under the politicians increases those odds. Maybe the locals in SD find alternatives for financing the deal. You never know. It just seems to me, that Stan's deal is much further along and a more likely option for the NFL. Whether they throw out there own bylaws, that remains to be seen, but is very likely if they want Stan in LA.one of the LA ESPN guys tweeted that there is .01% chance to get public funds in SD and Oakland....he says their line about working with current city til end of the year is just a good faith effort check box crossed.
On another note, I think Spanos knows somebody is going to LA. If he is so concerned about losing 30% of his fanbase, he is going to have to go to LA. I'm not sure if he realistically thinks he can keep everyone out of LA. Not going to happen.. only solution, LA Chargers. I still think he might consider renting from Stan, if SD and Carson fall through. All of this will make a great book someday.
^^ I feel like this is going to drag out way, way , past August. Why would anyone show their poker hand that early. They have to apply for relocation in Feb 2016, then wait for the vote after that, then if denied, they'll either go rogue, sue the NFL to move or crawl back to their respective cities begging for forgiveness. I doubt Stan ever does that btw. I think we are in the early stages of this poker game. August to me, is not that far away. I'd be shocked if anything is resolved by then. What I do see is 20K fans per game, unless the visiting team travels in and fills the Dome. It is going to get worse, before it gets better, as Demoff always says. What better is, remains to be seen. Things to me are pretty bad. The lame duck season will be difficult to watch. No matter what, every season will be perceived to be a lame duck season, until they commit or move.
I think it helps their argument to the NFL that they should move if they are selling fewer tickets here and not getting as much fan support. The easiest way to do that is cutback on caring about the fans. They cut a breast cancer benefit from their promotional scheduleDogtownBnR wrote:Why cut the promotional & event schedule, when they've been ramping that up that last several years.
. There's not much more you can do to push people away, especially at a time when the NFL is struggling to appeal to women (i.e. Ray Rice domestic violence issues) NFL team owners want other teams to be healthy, profitable, and increasing in value. If the Rams show that their support here is declining, attendance is down, viewership is down, etc... more owners (like Jerry Jones) will get behind the Rams move.
- 3,767
^ I agree completely! Some think we will not be judged by an awful lame duck season, but I believe we will be judged. Not for refusing to support a lame duck team necessarily. I think we will be perceived as a city that has been jaded and no longer cares about football or the Rams. We all know that STL has great fans, but we have been force fed an awful product, terrible PR, terrible owner and for so long, very little community involvement. At the same time, the Cards have been in the midst of an epic run and the Blues have been very good as well. Both of those teams have been all over the community. While the Rams have improved in recent years, it looks like they are ramping that down significantly, in preparation for the pending move.
I wonder how much advertising, billboards, commercials (TV/Radio) and public appearances by Demoff and others, will happen as this 'lame duck' season approaches. Last year, they put out an extensive ad campaign, the awful 'defend our turf' ads. Can't wait to see how ramped down their advertising will be this summer.
I wonder how much advertising, billboards, commercials (TV/Radio) and public appearances by Demoff and others, will happen as this 'lame duck' season approaches. Last year, they put out an extensive ad campaign, the awful 'defend our turf' ads. Can't wait to see how ramped down their advertising will be this summer.
All of these concerns are valid, however:
1. How can the NFL believe the Rams are losing fans organically if/when they see they see active cut back attempts to grow and stoke the fan base. Rams: "we are losing support" NFL: "then why the heck did you cut back/scale back/eliminate your community efforts and fan events?" It goes both ways. You can't suck, be noncommittal on your geographic future, and stop providing benefits for season ticket holders and expect hard working people to just hand you money and watch your mediocre team.
2. All of our fan behavior aside, the fact is in a matter of months we are light years ahead of San Diego and Oakland on putting a real stadium solution in place (as Bernie would say, "again" for the second time in 20-25 years). If that's on the table, how can the Rams get preference over SD and Oak? What says support more, a few thousand fans showing or not showing, or a region agreeing to help foot the bill for new digs?
1. How can the NFL believe the Rams are losing fans organically if/when they see they see active cut back attempts to grow and stoke the fan base. Rams: "we are losing support" NFL: "then why the heck did you cut back/scale back/eliminate your community efforts and fan events?" It goes both ways. You can't suck, be noncommittal on your geographic future, and stop providing benefits for season ticket holders and expect hard working people to just hand you money and watch your mediocre team.
2. All of our fan behavior aside, the fact is in a matter of months we are light years ahead of San Diego and Oakland on putting a real stadium solution in place (as Bernie would say, "again" for the second time in 20-25 years). If that's on the table, how can the Rams get preference over SD and Oak? What says support more, a few thousand fans showing or not showing, or a region agreeing to help foot the bill for new digs?
^ Have to agree, Peacock and Gov. Nixon have put together a legitimate stadium deal way above and beyond what San Diego and certainly Oakland have accomplished. Heck, I think their is real frustration brewing in Oakland over the fact that the hugely successful Bay Area Tech companies and Bankers are unwilling to invest in the city for office and residential while the bay area booms, rents go sky high and demand is way ahead of supply let alone the idea that somehow a privately finance football stadium is going to happen for the sake of Oakland. You are starting to see comments that redlining is in place not for a neighborhood here or there but for the entire city of Oakland.
If the NFL gets their choice, this thing is basically settled (but it's far from actually being settled). The Rams would stay in St. Louis and play in the new stadium. And the Chargers and Raiders would move to this new stadium in Carson (LA).
It's the best and most right outcome. The two owners who have been working for years to secure a stadium in their current cities who still have nothing realistic on the table their would get a new stadium in LA while fulfilling that big market for the league. In doing so, the league wouldn't be losing the Bay Area (San Francisco) or SoCal (LA still fulfills much of that).
The owner who's made little more than a token effort towards securing a new stadium in St. Louis would not get to his new stadium in LA, but they would still be happy to see him get the new stadium in St. Louis.
The NFL doesn't really lose any markets, and everyone gets their new stadium.
However, a few things could screw that up.
1. Kroenke could go rogue and stick a shovel in the ground in 3 weeks after the Inglewood City Council approves the plans.
2. San Diego and Oakland could get into gear and actually get a realistic stadium plan going (although this currently seems doubtful).
3. The funding for the St. Louis stadium plan could fall through.
Any of these are reasonable possibilities. Especially, I think, the first one. Kroenke doesn't play nice, and he may respond to this challenge by just straight-up going for it.
But there's no question what the NFL would prefer.
It's the best and most right outcome. The two owners who have been working for years to secure a stadium in their current cities who still have nothing realistic on the table their would get a new stadium in LA while fulfilling that big market for the league. In doing so, the league wouldn't be losing the Bay Area (San Francisco) or SoCal (LA still fulfills much of that).
The owner who's made little more than a token effort towards securing a new stadium in St. Louis would not get to his new stadium in LA, but they would still be happy to see him get the new stadium in St. Louis.
The NFL doesn't really lose any markets, and everyone gets their new stadium.
However, a few things could screw that up.
1. Kroenke could go rogue and stick a shovel in the ground in 3 weeks after the Inglewood City Council approves the plans.
2. San Diego and Oakland could get into gear and actually get a realistic stadium plan going (although this currently seems doubtful).
3. The funding for the St. Louis stadium plan could fall through.
Any of these are reasonable possibilities. Especially, I think, the first one. Kroenke doesn't play nice, and he may respond to this challenge by just straight-up going for it.
But there's no question what the NFL would prefer.
Kroenke building the stadium doesn't constitute going rogue. The way I understand it "rogue" is only applied if he moves the franchise without league support. This again goes back to the fact that he hasn't attributed his franchise as the tenant.
I suppose he could really pull a rabbit out of the hat and move the team after the draft to LA, however now with SD and Oakland making their intentions real, there's no way that goes down without litigation.
I suppose he could really pull a rabbit out of the hat and move the team after the draft to LA, however now with SD and Oakland making their intentions real, there's no way that goes down without litigation.
I'd consider it going rogue because it wouldn't have the NFL's support yet and would absolutely be built with the intention of moving the Rams there. The only other two teams that might move are the Chargers and the Raiders, and this clearly isn't the plan they want.blzhrpmd2 wrote:Kroenke building the stadium doesn't constitute going rogue. The way I understand it "rogue" is only applied if he moves the franchise without league support. This again goes back to the fact that he hasn't attributed his franchise as the tenant.
I suppose he could really pull a rabbit out of the hat and move the team after the draft to LA, however now with SD and Oakland making their intentions real, there's no way that goes down without litigation.
It'd be more than a billion dollar gamble, but if he does it, there's a very strong chance the Rams wind up playing there. Doesn't mean St. Louis wouldn't end up with a team, but the Rams would almost certainly be gone if Stan puts a shovel in the ground.
- 109
The Raiders and Chargers have removed their current cities names from their websites and domain name.
http://www.chargers.com/
http://www.raiders.com/
The Rams still have St. Louis on theirs.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/
http://www.chargers.com/
http://www.raiders.com/
The Rams still have St. Louis on theirs.
http://www.stlouisrams.com/
^Nice find regarding the domains, those guys are going all in here.
JS, you are probably right in broadening the definition of rogue in this scenario as the NFL would like to think it has control of all facets of it. I still have a hard time understanding the logistics of Raiders or Chargers here. Just because there is a stadium to play in, is that enough incentive to go to a virgin (to the Raiders or Chargers) fan base in a smaller metropolitan area than either team plays in now. Both teams are bred in California with large fan bases in LA/Southern California and a Midwest move just doesn't make sense to me. Especially given that the owners have no Midwest or STL predilection as Georgia did. I don't see how you throw together a massive billion+ LA stadium effort as bait to get something done in your home market, then if it doesn't happen settle for STL. I don't buy it.
On the flip side, I don't see how you walk from your current market to return to the one you personally assisted in leading the exodus from while a new stadium built for you sits in the on deck circle.
The biggest conundrum remains the guy with the most clout has the city with most progress. Good luck, NFL.
JS, you are probably right in broadening the definition of rogue in this scenario as the NFL would like to think it has control of all facets of it. I still have a hard time understanding the logistics of Raiders or Chargers here. Just because there is a stadium to play in, is that enough incentive to go to a virgin (to the Raiders or Chargers) fan base in a smaller metropolitan area than either team plays in now. Both teams are bred in California with large fan bases in LA/Southern California and a Midwest move just doesn't make sense to me. Especially given that the owners have no Midwest or STL predilection as Georgia did. I don't see how you throw together a massive billion+ LA stadium effort as bait to get something done in your home market, then if it doesn't happen settle for STL. I don't buy it.
On the flip side, I don't see how you walk from your current market to return to the one you personally assisted in leading the exodus from while a new stadium built for you sits in the on deck circle.
The biggest conundrum remains the guy with the most clout has the city with most progress. Good luck, NFL.
How sure are you those domains actually changed? Lots of pro teams don't use the city in their domain, if they were able to acquire the shorter version. Our baseball Cardinals switched from promoting their URL as STLCardinals.com to just Cardinals.com a few years back.
The Rams don't own Rams.com, it's not really an option for them.
The Rams don't own Rams.com, it's not really an option for them.
- 109
jstriebel wrote:How sure are you those domains actually changed? Lots of pro teams don't use the city in their domain, if they were able to acquire the shorter version. Our baseball Cardinals switched from promoting their URL as STLCardinals.com to just Cardinals.com a few years back.
The Rams don't own Rams.com, it's not really an option for them.
Photo of the change on the Chargers website.