urbanSTL

As I predicted, the Raiders/Chargers stadium deal announcement, lit a fire under San Diego politicians. Whether it is more smoke than fire, remains to be seen.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... um-spanos/

DogtownBnR wrote:As I predicted, the Raiders/Chargers stadium deal announcement, lit a fire under San Diego politicians. Whether it is more smoke than fire, remains to be seen.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... um-spanos/

A couple things here...
The Chargers are just tryingto keep the San Diego Market if they move; they will be a regional team in LA. They want 50% taxpayer money in San Diego they won't get that without 2/3 votes.

I think the Raiders will be in LA first, they don't have a lease and they have just given Oakland only 30 days....which ends at the owners meetings.

John Clayton a veteran NFL reporter said that during the Superbowl the idea was two teams would move to LA this season but the league though it was to bloody. Clayton believes the teams will be playing in LA this year still. I don't think the NFL would let three lame duck seasons go on either.

It is crazy how Chargers/Raiders shifted the momentum.

Also the Rams new stadium has a pretty good chance getting the funding because the Kansas City Royals want to move to downtown Kansas City they'll be needing money for new facilities soon too, that should sway voters from KC to approve the money for the Rams.

Is that realistic for the Royals to be looking to move Downtown? They just renovated Kaufmann Stadium. Not to mention, they seem to be proud of their little sports complex out there in the burbs. I don't see that happening. Also, I've seen a ton of concern and promise to fight, from western Missouri politicians. Especially that schmuck from St. Joe Mo. I posted an article from the KC Star on here a few days ago. They are already watching their tax dollars in KC. They will not support our stadium, I wouldn't think. The State is already chipping in on KC's 'sports complex'..

http://www.kmbc.com/news/nixon-restore- ... x/31312310

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-c ... 95704.html

A recent poll in KC showed little interest in this move Downtown.

Strongly agree — 26 percent

▪ Agree — 9 percent

▪ Disagree — 14 percent

▪ Absolutely not — 51 percent

That’s a pretty strong vote of 65 percent opposition to the idea

I hope you are right about KC supporting the Rams so we'll support them later, but I"m not sure they think that far ahead. The state provides $5M per year currently to pay off the recent upgrades to their stadiums. KC economy makes up 20% of Missouri's GDP, whereas St. Louis makes up 40%. And St. Louis population in Missouri is a little less than twice the KC population in Missouri. So it would certainly be fair for the state to provide at least $10M per year in funding, to match what KC gets now.

I truly believe it is more than just money, with regards to KC's motives for not supporting us Missourahians on the east side of the state. A lot of KC people see St. Louis as the competition and the City that gets all the attention in Missourah. They would be more than happy to see us fail. That would include us not getting a new stadium and losing the Rams. Just my opinion. . . . Not necessarily based on any hard evidence. . . .

DogtownBnR wrote:Is that realistic for the Royals to be looking to move Downtown? They just renovated Kaufmann Stadium. Not to mention, they seem to be proud of their little sports complex out there in the burbs. I don't see that happening. Also, I've seen a ton of concern and promise to fight, from western Missouri politicians. Especially that schmuck from St. Joe Mo. I posted an article from the KC Star on here a few days ago. They are already watching their tax dollars in KC. They will not support our stadium, I wouldn't think. The State is already chipping in on KC's 'sports complex'..

http://www.kmbc.com/news/nixon-restore- ... x/31312310

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/opn-c ... 95704.html

A recent poll in KC showed little interest in this move Downtown.

Strongly agree — 26 percent

▪ Agree — 9 percent

▪ Disagree — 14 percent

▪ Absolutely not — 51 percent

That’s a pretty strong vote of 65 percent opposition to the idea

Yes they would...

Kansas City-area voters approved a sales tax increase to fund $212.5 million of the renovations, while rejecting plans for the expensive new roof. Meanwhile the Hunt family, which owns the team, contributed $125 million and the state of Missouri chipped in the rest.


http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bills ... k-20140824

They also get $3 million from state every year....
http://www.kmbc.com/news/nixon-restore- ... x/31312310

^ To counter that, I work for a major local construction company. (we WILL likely be involved if this gets built)
An upper-level executive here said at a recent company meeting, that we've been contacted by several firms wanting to team up on this project. I was getting very excited to hear this. Then, at the end of the 'speech' he prefaced it by saying he does not think it will ever get built, due to the political climate here in STL and mainly Missouri. He is NO DOUBT, in the know, with the climate here in STL. He said he is basing that opinion on what he knows today.
I hope he is wrong!

DogtownBnR wrote:^ To counter that, I work for a major local construction company. (we WILL likely be involved if this gets built)
An upper-level executive here said at a recent company meeting, that we've been contacted by several firms wanting to team up on this project. I was getting very excited to hear this. Then, at the end of the 'speech' he prefaced it by saying he does not think it will ever get built, due to the political climate here in STL. He is NO DOUBT, in the know, with the climate here in STL. He said he is basing that opinion on what he knows today.
I hope he is wrong!

He could be right...I'm sure a lot of people have not forgot the Bidwell situation.

I'm not going to even start about the Stallions debacle.

^^ I would agree with you that Kroenke has the upper hand and is in the pole position. He has BIG BIG money, has a legit partner, owns the land in a cooperative city, has an out in his current market and wants out, bad. I feel like the San Diego/ Oakland deal was thrown together at the last minute, drawn up since Kroenke announced his stadium deal in Inglewood. Many in San Diego admitted they were planning on hanging tight and waiting it out (possibly for the long haul) until Stan made his power play to LA. I still think this is way more smoke and mirrors than Stan's deal. I think his is legit and he is going to do whatever it takes to get to LA, in whatever form the NFL will allow. That could mean selling the Rams (unlikely) or just moving them. My thought is that since Stan has said they will follow NFL guidelines, he must think he has enough proof that he made a good faith effort in STL. Goodell's comments at the SB press conference worried me. When he said Stan has been trying to get a stadium here for years and went through the arbitration process. That concerns me. Could that be considered a good faith effort.

My prediction as of 2/23/15. The Rams and Raiders end up in LA. San Diego somehow, some way, gets a new stadium deal done. STL is left out in the cold, at best until 2020 and beyond. At worst a lot longer and we become the new leverage city for the NFL.

roger wyoming II wrote:Anyone have insight into whether Los Angelenos feel the Chargers/Raiders plan has real oomph behind it? Seemed to me that neutral folks out there were saying that the Kroenke plan by far had the most legitimacy behind anything they had seen before.

I really don't know the mechanics of things, but it seems to me that the Chargers/Raiders plan has more hurdles in front of it, including the very basic one of securing the tremendous amount of private financing needed to build the $1.7 billion sucker. I could be wrong, but if it becomes a race to see who can build first in LA, I think Kroenke clearly is in the pole position.

I don't think its a race....The owners are going to vote who gets to LA. The NFL has not approved Kroenke's plan; Butts said he has not talked to the NFL. You would think if Grubman keeps coming here to meet with Peacock that Grubman would also meet with the Mayor a potential NFL city right?

According to Jason Cole the other owners don't trust Kroenke.

The Carson site is actually ready. The state California says it is clean. League tried to buy the site three times according to the LA times.

Technically, the Rams have never said they were moving the team -- just building a stadium. And that announcement looked like a hurry-up thing to beat the St. Louis and possibly Charger/Raider stadium announcements. Stan's sketch doesn't even show a football field. I wonder if other pictures showed an MLS stadium, since he is into soccer, and a smaller venue.

The Chargers and Raiders said they would move their teams. So, from the NFLs standpoint, they beat Stan on a move announcement and should get some priority.

I do not put much stock in the owners following guidelines. They have proven, but letting Kroenke bend and break the cross-ownership rules for so long, that they will do what they can to help someone they want to help. If this LA option is best for the owners, the guidelines will be as good as Steve Spags infamous pillars (useless).

^ Stan does not speak, so the fact he has not said he is moving, is moot. His silence is that of legend. Regarding the stadium, it is an 80K seat venue. If he was building a soccer venue, it would be around 20-30K I'd guess, not 80K.
Also, I do not think for one second, he'd ever keep the Rams in STL and build that venue. If he for some crazy reason is forced to stay here, he will likely build a giant Walmart or a soccer facility for the LA Gunners. He may even sell the Rams and try to get another team. I don't buy the Butts 'build it and they will come' statement. This thing is only getting built if Stan can own the main tenant. He is not going to be a landlord in LA and own the STL Rams, IMO.

If the San Diego stadium plan works out, St. Louis will likely be without an NFL team for the foreseeable future.

The Raiders preference (assuming a miracle doesn't happen in Oakland) is certainly to move to LA. I assume the league prefers two teams in LA as well.So if the Chargers aren't going to LA, and the Rams are, the Raiders will likely just be Stan's tenant.

And that leaves St. Louis without a seat.

It's hard to know if the San Diego plan has any real chance, but I wouldn't right it off. We only have to look in the mirror to see what silly things politicians and citizens will support when held hostage by her majesty, the shield, the NFL.

^ I think Nixon passes the bonds before leaving office and construction commences on the St. Louis riverfront. I know California is a huge market, but I really don't see 4 teams there, especially if 3 would be in SoCal. The Chargers owner has already said that if Kroenke moves the Rams to LA, that is basically a death kneel to the San Diego market. Over half of the San Diego Chargers fans come from greater Los Angeles, could you imagine the devastation if both the Raiders and Rams moved to Los Angeles? The Chargers would have to leave. I just honestly don't think Peacock and Nixon would be working this hard if they didn't get some kind of nod from the NFL. Also many members of Oakland's city hall have came out and basically said that they do not support the Raiders using public funds for a stadium and that they would rather see them in San Antonio than use public funds. The 49ers are without a doubt the Bay Area's number one team. With Jay Nixon moving forward, Peacock behind the scenes, now the unions on board, I think the Rams stadium is moving forward. I also think if the Rams leave town we could get an NBA or MLS team.

^ I think that outcome is a possibility, but less likely than the Rams leaving.

I would pose this question to Dean Spanos. How did the Chargers survive in the past when 2 teams played in LA? I think they did just fine. I believe they went to their only Super Bowl in 1994 and also had the Air Coryell and Dan Fouts eras. They also are housed in a metro area slightly bigger than St. Louis. I'm not convinced that San Diego goes belly up if there are 1 or 2 teams in LA. They did fine pre-1995. I think that is Spanos talking his way out of SD with the claim that 30% of his fanbase is in LA. He is probably posturing in case he needs that out with the other owners.

Lastly, I'd take MLS over NBA any day of the week! (That is assuming we have a venue similar to KC's)

Here is a good breakdown of the San Diego deal. There is also this disturbing, but very real possibility.

Without question, the partnership faces risks. For openers, Kroenke remains poised to beat them both. It seems likely he will try to convince one of the teams to share his stadium and break up the Carson deal.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... ticle-copy

I believe most or all of city and county funding would just be a continuation of taxes on visitors via rental cars and hotel rooms at current levels. I have to pay those taxes to help most other NFL cities to pay off their stadiums, so I would hope St Louis voters will return the favor.