City vs Rams Lawsuit

DogtownBnR · PostDec 10, 2015#33262015-12-10T17:27+00:00

^^ Roger, I've heard reports that Stan is not interested in London. I will try to find some links.

While I agree with you, that if denied, all options might still be on the table in Stan's mind, I also do not see a major financial windfall for Stan, in going to a market like Toronto, San Antonio or other smaller markets. LA would be a big gain for Stan, but if your talking about moving to the aforementioned markets, I just don't see, with all of the expense, the move be justifiable financially (standard cost/benefit doesn't seem to add up). I do not rule anything out, but I could see Goodell brokering a deal similar to the one he put together for Kraft and the Patriots.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 10, 2015#33272015-12-10T17:29+00:00

So reports are out that Rams will practice in the Bay area for the 49ers game... won't be coming back from Seattle.

Mound City · PostDec 10, 2015#33282015-12-10T17:31+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:So reports are out that Rams will practice in the Bay area for the 49ers game... won't be coming back from Seattle.

This is something NFL teams do sometimes just logistically, but of course much will be made of the Rams doing it here because of the speculation that they're be moving to L.A.

DogtownBnR · PostDec 10, 2015#33292015-12-10T17:35+00:00

^^ Possibly more posturing, just like the practices in Oxnard.

dmelsh · PostDec 10, 2015#33302015-12-10T17:37+00:00

Jason Rosenbaum ‏@jrosenbaum 3m3 minutes ago
Spike the football, stadium fans. Because this bill is passing out of Ways and Means. #STLNFL

roger wyoming II · PostDec 10, 2015#33312015-12-10T17:44+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:^^ Roger, I've heard reports that Stan is not interested in London. I will try to find some links.

While I agree with you, that if denied, all options might still be on the table in Stan's mind, I also do not see a major financial windfall for Stan, in going to a market like Toronto, San Antonio or other smaller markets. LA would be a big gain for Stan, but if your talking about moving to the aforementioned markets, I just don't see, with all of the expense, the move be justifiable financially (standard cost/benefit doesn't seem to add up). I do not rule anything out, but I could see Goodell brokering a deal similar to the one he put together for Kraft and the Patriots.

Possibly. I have no idea what his Plan B would be if he's denied LA, but I can't imagine he isn't looking at other cities as an alternative. I could see a Kraft-like Foxboro development out in the County, but then again I can just as easily see him having interest in doing the same in Oakland if that market opens up.

DogtownBnR · PostDec 10, 2015#33322015-12-10T17:51+00:00

^ Anything is possible, but the biggest threat to me is obviously LA and London. Those moves would create a major financial windfall through increase in franchise value etc. etc. I'm not sure where an owner would build in London or if they'd play in Wembley. ( I assume Wembley) That is a big question. If no new venue is built, could someone like Stan generate the revenues he desires?? I think not. That is more than likely the reason he does not covet London.

jstriebel · PostDec 10, 2015#33332015-12-10T18:08+00:00

London isn't happening. Not for an old guy like Stan. It won't be feasible to have an NFL team located there as a home team any time soon. Perhaps not at all in his life time.

dweebe · PostDec 10, 2015#33342015-12-10T18:10+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:
DogtownBnR wrote:^^ Roger, I've heard reports that Stan is not interested in London. I will try to find some links.

While I agree with you, that if denied, all options might still be on the table in Stan's mind, I also do not see a major financial windfall for Stan, in going to a market like Toronto, San Antonio or other smaller markets. LA would be a big gain for Stan, but if your talking about moving to the aforementioned markets, I just don't see, with all of the expense, the move be justifiable financially (standard cost/benefit doesn't seem to add up). I do not rule anything out, but I could see Goodell brokering a deal similar to the one he put together for Kraft and the Patriots.
Possibly. I have no idea what his Plan B would be if he's denied LA, but I can't imagine he isn't looking at other cities as an alternative. I could see a Kraft-like Foxboro development out in the County, but then again I can just as easily see him having interest in doing the same in Oakland if that market opens up.

The Golden State Warriors are moving to San Francisco.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2597 ... d-by-board

That will certainly open up money and land for the Raiders to build a new stadium and Ballpark Village.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 10, 2015#33352015-12-10T18:20+00:00

^ I heard there is some considerable neighborhood opposition to the SF plan but I assume it will go forward.

Anyway, the thing about Oakland as I understand it is that both the city and NFL are open to redeveloping that site as mixed-use with a stadium as an anchor, but NFL wants to make sure owner is steering the ship.... something Oakland rightfully doesn't seem willing to do with doubts about Davis. But if the Raiders indeed are gone I could see them cozying up to a wealthy owner who might be interested in relocating. A's would still have to be accommodated, though.

PostDec 10, 2015#33362015-12-10T18:25+00:00

dweebe wrote:

This pic and imaging a football and baseball stadium with mixed-use surrounding it reminds me about the potential to have some kind of modest Ballpark Village at the enormous Arrowhead/Kauffman site. I know Jackson County had come out recently with there being a commuter rail station there and I could see it potentially having capacity for mixed-use.

http://www.kshb.com/news/local-news/jac ... l-corridor

dweebe · PostDec 10, 2015#33372015-12-10T18:29+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I heard there is some considerable neighborhood opposition to the SF plan but I assume it will go forward.

Anyway, the thing about Oakland as I understand it is that both the city and NFL are open to redeveloping that site as mixed-use with a stadium as an anchor, but NFL wants to make sure owner is steering the ship.... something Oakland rightfully doesn't seem willing to do with doubts about Davis. But if the Raiders indeed are gone I could see them cozying up to a wealthy owner who might be interested in relocating. A's would still have to be accommodated, though.

There's more action of the A's going to downtown Oakland.
http://www.mercurynews.com/eat-drink-pl ... ew-stadium

Northside Neighbor · PostDec 10, 2015#33382015-12-10T18:36+00:00

Few problems heard today...

STL is creating a stadium plan that is not "attractive" to the Rams.

Current plan is not a top tier stadium.

Current lease requires STL to keep Rams in a top tier stadium; and per the arbitration a few years ago, the price tag for that is $700,000,000. So the current deal has way less in public money, not meeting lease terms.

STL can't compel NFL or Kroenke to invest in a STL stadium, especially one that doesn't even meet terms of current least (that we keep them in a top tier stadium).

Does that make today's vote a Pyrrhic victory?

downtown2007 · PostDec 10, 2015#33392015-12-10T18:42+00:00

NFL will never have a team in London

roger wyoming II · PostDec 10, 2015#33402015-12-10T18:58+00:00

dweebe wrote: There's more action of the A's going to downtown Oakland.
http://www.mercurynews.com/eat-drink-pl ... ew-stadium

that's interesting.... A's getting out of the Colosseum site would unlock a lot of potential. Anyway, if the Raiders move to LA it isn't necessarily the end of the line for the NFL in Oakland. (Especially if the 49ers continue to only engage in football-like activities!)

dweebe · PostDec 10, 2015#33412015-12-10T19:33+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:Anyway, if the Raiders move to LA it isn't necessarily the end of the line for the NFL in Oakland.

Same with the Chargers and San Diego.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 10, 2015#33422015-12-10T19:37+00:00

^ true; although I really don't know much about sites.

PostDec 10, 2015#33432015-12-10T20:10+00:00

Here was an LA take on Grubman's interview yesterday:

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/12/ ... dium-deal/

While NFL owners can block Rams owner Stan Kroenke from moving to L.A. they can’t force him to sign off on a stadium deal he isn’t satisfied.

Again, that is consistent with NFL sources who have told me if Kroenke is denied L.A., he might just return to the Edward Jones Dome on one-year leases and contemplate a different move. Among the cities sources have told me the Rams might consider in that scenario are Toronto, London and perhaps San Diego and the Bay Area, depending what happens with the Chargers and Raiders.

chaifetz10 · PostDec 10, 2015#33442015-12-10T20:12+00:00

I would imagine Buffalo would immediately block Toronto. And the Bay Area and San Diego are still cluster****s in terms of stadiums. Kroenke has the money and knows that he could sell the team for a LOT more if it were in California, so I still see him wanting to get out of St. Louis asap.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 10, 2015#33452015-12-10T20:19+00:00

I think Stan would go year to year and first explore the Broncos. (yes they've said they dont sell but that means nothing)

rbb · PostDec 11, 2015#33462015-12-11T17:01+00:00

Northside Neighbor wrote:Few problems heard today...

STL is creating a stadium plan that is not "attractive" to the Rams.

Current plan is not a top tier stadium.

Current lease requires STL to keep Rams in a top tier stadium; and per the arbitration a few years ago, the price tag for that is $700,000,000. So the current deal has way less in public money, not meeting lease terms.

STL can't compel NFL or Kroenke to invest in a STL stadium, especially one that doesn't even meet terms of current least (that we keep them in a top tier stadium).

Does that make today's vote a Pyrrhic victory?

The current plan is not a top tier stadium according to Mr. Grubman. Joe Buck spoke about that on the Twitters:

@Buck wrote:Not sure he gets a vote.
@MrTomCoates wrote:@Buck Did you hear @miklasz's interview with Brubman? Sounds like the STL stadium plan won't do & the rams are gone. 101sports.com/podcasts/

@Buck wrote:I don't think what he says on an interview in STL in Dec has bearing on what owners do when they vote on plans
@MrTomCoates wrote:@Buck Huh? Sounded like he was speaking on behalf of the NFL & owners. Bernie @miklasz, correct me if I misunderstood Grubman's statements.

@Buck wrote:I talk to owners too.
@MrTomCoates wrote:@Buck But Joe, if the owners have as negative a view toward the look of the STL stadium as Grubman suggest, then there's little hope.

He also said this:

@Buck wrote:Irrelevan especially since more has happened even since then. Ever evolving.
ThePolitik wrote:@Buck @kyleharrison Thoughts on Grubman comments?

.

He doesn't seem concerned.

Here's the deal. Is the STL plan as currently proposed the only option Mr. Kroenke has if he fails to get the needed 24 votes to move? No. He can sit on his essentially-free year-to-year lease at the Ed Jones dome for another nine years if he so desires. But the the league *can* go to Kroenke and say 'you haven't done enough yet to rule out St. Louis as a viable market for your team. You haven't negotiated for a new stadium at all. Go back and negotiate with the STL-NFL commission and if you can't come to an arrangement with them that suits your needs and satisfies the NFL then we can revisit relocation'. If the owners determine that he hasn't done enough by now to warrant relocation, then sitting on his thumbs for several more years probably isn't going to change the owners or the league's minds down the road.

Is the STL stadium deal as lucrative for the NFL as other plans (such as Minnesota's to which the STL plan has been negatively compared by some)? No. But it doesn't have to be; it just has to be one that both sides can live with. And to this point the proposal has been almost entirely one-sided. The NFL and the Rams have provided some input on the renderings of the proposed stadium, but not once has the team sat down with the commission to hammer out what it would take for the team to be satisfied with a new stadium in St. Louis. So of course the deal put forth by the commission is, while reasonably accommodating to the feedback provided by the league, favorable to the commission; aside from the mutual agreement post-arbitration that it wasn't feasible to remain in the Ed Jones dome, there's been no negotiation.

Personally I think the deal is close to being one that an NFL team could accept. Can things be adjusted to suit the needs and desires of an owner? Sure, it's in the initial planning stages currently. But, unless the league is just determined to make a shell game out of their own guidelines I think it makes sense - as some owners have previously said - for them to tell Mr. Kroenke that he's not yet proved that St. Louis is unwilling to build him a stadium that suits his needs; especially compared to the stadium situations in San Diego and Oakland that have each been festering for a decade or more.

-RBB

Aesir · PostDec 11, 2015#33472015-12-11T18:02+00:00

Gotta say, it's quite pathetic seeing all the countyy and St. Charles residents attacking Alderwoman Green on twitter. Not one sh*t given about the corruption that both her and Alderman Moore complained about yesterday. Epithets about how she is a horrible person, lost all support (yeah, about that, voters in her ward aren't the same as voters in St. Upchuck), irresponsible, and on and on and on.

Possible corruption that was brought up to the FBI? Who cares? Sweep anything you need to under the rug, we need to do anything to get this stadium approved.

Sad. It's the same mentality of panic and fear that has led to all the gargantuan white elephant projects that have bled our city dry of both its history and tax base.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 11, 2015#33482015-12-11T18:38+00:00

^ Im a city resident and she made a damn fool out of herself...FBI and SLMPD and US Attorney office said we aren't wasting our time with this nonsense.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt

St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department spokeswoman Schron Jackson said in an email, "Our officers along with the FBI interviewed Alderwoman Green relative to said allegations, and determined that there was nothing actionable."

U.S. Attorney Richard Callahan said in a message that his office has not received a complaint from Green.
"As a matter of course when allegations without substance are made through the media those are not the sort of allegations we would act on anyway," Callahan said.

Aesir · PostDec 11, 2015#33492015-12-11T18:47+00:00

^^I'm assuming she'll wear a wire from now on. I absolutely believe her.

I'm also glad we have Alderpeople like her and Olgilvie coming up. It's a huge breath of fresh air.

dweebe · PostDec 11, 2015#33502015-12-11T19:10+00:00

Aesir wrote:^^I'm assuming she'll wear a wire from now on. I absolutely believe her.

I'm also glad we have Alderpeople like her and Olgilvie coming up. It's a huge breath of fresh air.

Are you a resident of her ward?

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode