The NFL has said they want no more than 2 teams in SoCal, including San Diego. I'm sure the Chargers do not want 2 more teams in addition to theirs all in Southern California. So why wouldn't Spanos try to block either Oakland or the Rams?dbInSouthCity wrote:I think SD will work something out with the Chargers and chargers will dump the raiders The NFL is wants NFL in LA bad and at the point Stan will be the only game in town. He will get there next year, Oakland will be given another year to make the raiders happy (Stan wants to go in first alone) and if Oakland can't get anything done the raiders join Rams in 2017roger wyoming II wrote:^ what's changed for you? seems like that is a big sea change in your thinking.
- 3,433
- 337
Well, he wouldn't very likely try to block the Raiders, considering he's currently partnering with the Raiders for their new stadium in Los Angeles.gary kreie wrote:The NFL has said they want no more than 2 teams in SoCal, including San Diego. I'm sure the Chargers do not want 2 more teams in addition to theirs all in Southern California. So why wouldn't Spanos try to block either Oakland or the Rams?dbInSouthCity wrote:I think SD will work something out with the Chargers and chargers will dump the raiders The NFL is wants NFL in LA bad and at the point Stan will be the only game in town. He will get there next year, Oakland will be given another year to make the raiders happy (Stan wants to go in first alone) and if Oakland can't get anything done the raiders join Rams in 2017roger wyoming II wrote:^ what's changed for you? seems like that is a big sea change in your thinking.
The Charges must be confident that financing is doable for the Carson Stadium and things have been awfully quiet on my end in the East Bay as far as the Raiders (then again the Bay area is going crazy over the Warriors so even Giants the 9 home game losing streak was on the back burner - A's is second fiddle in the bay area sports news).
That is my read between the lines comment. Essentially, As Chargers we will talk to you next year if Carson City plan falls apart. The other item that is intriguing is it sounds like NFL studios is on board with the Carson City plan which is a big plus for Chargers/Raiders and a big strike against Inglewoood.
That is my read between the lines comment. Essentially, As Chargers we will talk to you next year if Carson City plan falls apart. The other item that is intriguing is it sounds like NFL studios is on board with the Carson City plan which is a big plus for Chargers/Raiders and a big strike against Inglewoood.
In all of this, I can only think of one thing. Why the hell would the NFL want to have 4 teams in California, much less 3 in Southern California? That's why I'm confident that the Rams will be in St. Louis for the foreseeable future. I think Kroenke will try to bolt to LA, but when he gets shut down he will just sell the Rams to a new owner. Even at the 32nd most valuable team (mostly of Kroenke's doing), there will be no shortage of people that would like to buy the team. I'm really furious that Khan wasn't able to buy the team. He has invested a lot of money into Jacksonville and has openly committed to the city, I'm sure he would have done the same here.
Isn't it about time we heard something about the market surveys?
- 1,792
Population of California ~38.8 millionIn all of this, I can only think of one thing. Why the hell would the NFL want to have 4 teams in California, much less 3 in Southern California?
Population of Missouri ~6 million
By a purely number driven analyisis California can support 6 teams for every 1 team in Missouri. The Chiefs are already in Missouri
Population of Southern California ~22.7 million
Population of St. Louis MSA ~4 million
Similarly for every 1 team supported by St. Louis MSA , Southern California can support 5 1/2 without even accounting for the support a team could garner outside the SoCal region.
Its not hard to see how outsized the market is in SoCal so St. Louis has to make up for it by quality of support. The shocking thing is they've allowed the LA market to be unrepresented for this long.
- 1,868
That's oversimplifying things a bit. SoCal has a large population of immigrants and transplants who aren't keen to support local NFL teams, for example. But beyond that, what's the utility of having more teams in the same media markets? It's not as though television channels have limited seating.
^It also doesn't factor in the presence of Kansas fans in KC and Illinois fans in STL.
Although until recently the Rams have done a truly awful job at trying to market themselves beyond say a 75 mile radius from the city of St. Louis, so that doesn't help with that argument.
It's bad enough that the outlying areas of the St. Louis region already had allegiances to the Chiefs, Bears, and Packers. The fact that the Rams never tried made it even worse.
And of course now they're not exactly trying that much again. It almost makes you think that Stan's motives in expanding their foot print after buying the team was all about showing "effort" rather than actually accomplishing anything.
Although until recently the Rams have done a truly awful job at trying to market themselves beyond say a 75 mile radius from the city of St. Louis, so that doesn't help with that argument.
It's bad enough that the outlying areas of the St. Louis region already had allegiances to the Chiefs, Bears, and Packers. The fact that the Rams never tried made it even worse.
And of course now they're not exactly trying that much again. It almost makes you think that Stan's motives in expanding their foot print after buying the team was all about showing "effort" rather than actually accomplishing anything.
Sounds like a Raiders stadium plan being presented to Oakland/Alameda Co. today.
https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny
https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny
^ Some details on the latest and greatest coming from the Oakland developer/proposal Raider's stadium as well as A's comments/opinion in regards to the situation in San Fran Biz Journals.
Developer seeking a land sale from Oakland and Alameda county in addition to $140 million for infrastructure improvements. Some big hurdles. Actually, I think this make more sense for the A's - smaller footprint, more foot traffic for dense development, etc. but the NFL is the pressing issue at the moment.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... ff-as.html
Developer seeking a land sale from Oakland and Alameda county in addition to $140 million for infrastructure improvements. Some big hurdles. Actually, I think this make more sense for the A's - smaller footprint, more foot traffic for dense development, etc. but the NFL is the pressing issue at the moment.
http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... ff-as.html
- 3,433
- 9,566
A's have already bulked at the plan from yesterday...they dont want to Raiders anywhere close to them...actually they would prefer the raiders in LA so that they arent fighting for PSL money
^ Oakland in some respect really shows the difference in business plans between the MLB and NFL teams respectively, A's have been trying to get to San Jose for years to follow the money because majority of revenues are so local but MLB/Giants have been blocking that move. Where as Raiders are perfectly content being in either Oakland and or LA as long as they get their new stadium that doesn't significantly impact their NFL revenue sharing (I believe the number is at $190 million per team).
I'm still holding out for a future Jack London square waterfront baseball stadium within a short distance from a new BART station.
I'm still holding out for a future Jack London square waterfront baseball stadium within a short distance from a new BART station.
If I'm the City of Oakland I'm picking a baseball stadium with 81 games a year instead of a football stadium that hosts a poorly run team that plays 8 home games a year.dredger wrote:^ Oakland in some respect really shows the difference in business plans between the MLB and NFL teams respectively, A's have been trying to get to San Jose for years to follow the money because majority of revenues are so local but MLB/Giants have been blocking that move. Where as Raiders are perfectly content being in either Oakland and or LA as long as they get their new stadium that doesn't significantly impact their NFL revenue sharing (I believe the number is at $190 million per team).
I'm still holding out for a future Jack London square waterfront baseball stadium within a short distance from a new BART station.
- 3,433
I read somewhere that Kroenke is paying for everything up front in Inglewood, and then is getting reimbursed via some kind of TIF for some of his costs. Presumably, Inglewood would be paying back no more money than the project generates on its own outside of the other Inglewood funds.
I was wondering if St. Louis could work something similar with a very rich guy (Taylor?) as a backup plan to the current plan to launder money generated by the Rams through public channels. Would the public be supportive of a deal where the very rich guy fronts all the money, and then is paid back only with public dollars generated solely as a result of keeping the Rams in St. Louis?
Also,
Here is the latest from Vincent Bonsignore, who now seems to be keeping the door open for the possibility the Rams will stay in St. Louis.
"If St. Louis comes through with a viable stadium plan, and the Rams hopes to relocate to Los Angeles are stalled as a result, it could change the dynamics moving forward. For instance, what if the NFL then tells the Chargers and Raiders that, with the Rams no longer a threat to move to Los Angeles, we urge you to take another year to try to work things out in your home markets?"
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/06/ ... hats-next/
I was wondering if St. Louis could work something similar with a very rich guy (Taylor?) as a backup plan to the current plan to launder money generated by the Rams through public channels. Would the public be supportive of a deal where the very rich guy fronts all the money, and then is paid back only with public dollars generated solely as a result of keeping the Rams in St. Louis?
Also,
Here is the latest from Vincent Bonsignore, who now seems to be keeping the door open for the possibility the Rams will stay in St. Louis.
"If St. Louis comes through with a viable stadium plan, and the Rams hopes to relocate to Los Angeles are stalled as a result, it could change the dynamics moving forward. For instance, what if the NFL then tells the Chargers and Raiders that, with the Rams no longer a threat to move to Los Angeles, we urge you to take another year to try to work things out in your home markets?"
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/06/ ... hats-next/
I remember reading an article that i think the post ran online from Sam Farmer a few months ago where he outlined about 9 outcomes. He gave credence to the possibility that no team ends up in LA in 2016. Not that one wouldn't land there later on, but despite all of the momentum, it still ends up being a leverage chip for awhile longer. While I realize the divisions align perfectly and the NFL doesn't like to talk about it, I think expansion is closer to the surface of this mess than meets the eye.
<Obligatory Shane Gray-ish disclaimer: > But of course the Rams leaving in 2016 is a very real possibility.
<Obligatory Shane Gray-ish disclaimer: > But of course the Rams leaving in 2016 is a very real possibility.
As I understand it the Taylor family have no real interest in sports and/or owning a sports team. They are very minority owners of the Blues and that's probably about as far as they want to go.gary kreie wrote:I read somewhere that Kroenke is paying for everything up front in Inglewood, and then is getting reimbursed via some kind of TIF for some of his costs. Presumably, Inglewood would be paying back no more money than the project generates on its own outside of the other Inglewood funds.
I was wondering if St. Louis could work something similar with a very rich guy (Taylor?) as a backup plan to the current plan to launder money generated by the Rams through public channels. Would the public be supportive of a deal where the very rich guy fronts all the money, and then is paid back only with public dollars generated solely as a result of keeping the Rams in St. Louis?
Also,
Here is the latest from Vincent Bonsignore, who now seems to be keeping the door open for the possibility the Rams will stay in St. Louis.
"If St. Louis comes through with a viable stadium plan, and the Rams hopes to relocate to Los Angeles are stalled as a result, it could change the dynamics moving forward. For instance, what if the NFL then tells the Chargers and Raiders that, with the Rams no longer a threat to move to Los Angeles, we urge you to take another year to try to work things out in your home markets?"
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/06/ ... hats-next/
It would be nice if they relented on a car rental tax to pay for part of the new riverfront stadium.
For those with any desire for this evening's nightcap reading material to adopt some legal flavor, here's the play by play of today's hearing.
https://twitter.com/davidhunn
https://twitter.com/davidhunn
- 337
With all the rumors starting to fly, over the weekend, that the NFL is now weighing the possibility of punting on relocation to L.A. for another year, I can't help but get the feeling that their original assumption was that St. Louis would fail in mobilizing any meaningful response to their stadium lease situation with the Rams, and that they'd let Kroenke pick either the Chargers or Raiders to join him in Inglewood, then they'd deal with the situation in whichever team he didn't pick's market. Unfortunately for them, St. Louis is the only market of the three facing this issue that has mounted a legitimate proposal to retain their NFL franchise. David Peacock and the rest of the Governor's task force have essentially jammed a big monkey wrench in the NFL's plans, and now they need more time to let things play out.
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
- 9,566
NFL has denied the rumor of possible delay. I think thats coming out of SD as a last ditch effort.
- 337
I hadn't seen that. Frankly, good. Let's get this overwith as quickly as possible. And, the idea that the NFL would delay matters a year to appease the San Diego and Oakland markets was making me frustrated because I'm all-but-certain that St. Louis would never be granted a similar courtesy.dbInSouthCity wrote:NFL has denied the rumor of possible delay. I think thats coming out of SD as a last ditch effort.
It was just one paragraph in a piece written by the UT San Diego Editorial Board.dbInSouthCity wrote:NFL has denied the rumor of possible delay. I think thats coming out of SD as a last ditch effort.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/jun ... next-year/
There is speculation that the owners at that August meeting may delay the entire process for a year to let everything percolate in the three cities to see what develops.
- 3,433
I believe Stan thought he could get so much momentum before anyone caught on that he was serious that he could get approval to play there in 2015 originally. And he thought he knew St. Louis well enough that we would fail to mount any resistance. He did not anticipate Dave Peacock and friends stepping up for the city. So Stan is 0 for 2 on his assumptions about NFL and St. Louis actions.Mound City wrote:With all the rumors starting to fly, over the weekend, that the NFL is now weighing the possibility of punting on relocation to L.A. for another year, I can't help but get the feeling that their original assumption was that St. Louis would fail in mobilizing any meaningful response to their stadium lease situation with the Rams, and that they'd let Kroenke pick either the Chargers or Raiders to join him in Inglewood, then they'd deal with the situation in whichever team he didn't pick's market. Unfortunately for them, St. Louis is the only market of the three facing this issue that has mounted a legitimate proposal to retain their NFL franchise. David Peacock and the rest of the Governor's task force have essentially jammed a big monkey wrench in the NFL's plans, and now they need more time to let things play out.
What do you guys think?
The old Football Cardinals were Bidwill's only business, and he moved to generate the revenue he thought he needed to stay in business. But Kroenke is already uber rich. He is moving primarily to transition to filthy uber rich, I guess.