urbanSTL

Some really interesting stuff here from Sam Farmer (the LA Times reporter most plugged into the LA/NFL situation) on with Frank Cusamano this morning on 920 AM.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... 20514.aspx

Here's some of my takeaways:

• Farmer is skeptical of expansion for three major reasons. 1. Despite high expansion fees (he wonders if they'd be unfeasibly high, too), splitting the TV pie 2 extra ways makes the financial aspects less enticing. 2. The simple logistics of whether there's markets for two more teams with some current ones already struggling (he mentions by name each of the three Florida franchises) and how they'd be evenly aligned. 3. The removal of leverage from teams like the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams if those cities caught wind that the NFL was actually planning on expanding.

• Farmer wouldn't reveal the LA Times source for the land deal, but perhaps implies that it was leaked by someone close to the NFL or Kroenke because of what they have to gain from them. (This possibility was brought up by Tim McKernan a day or two ago since both the LA Times and P-D broke this story almost simultaneously despite the sale being public record for about 2 weeks prior.)

• Farmer believes this location is more than okay for a stadium, but would require a lot of additional money spent to have enough nearby parking to make it an ideal situation.

• Farmer outright states (as opposed to presenting it as his opinion) that the Chargers have done what they've needed to do to meet the league's requirements for moving as far as exhausting options in their home market, but that the Rams "haven't done that... at least to the league's satisfaction."

• Additionally, Farmer notes that the Chargers (and maybe the Raiders) in part due to their lease and in part due to the above, are in a position to beat any team to LA if they caught wind of one preparing a move. This is on the premise that no team wants to be the second one into the market.

• Farmer also notes that the Rams already have public money on the table (presumably from the CVC's arbitration proposal) and that the league does not want a team walking away from potential public money without extensive negotiations first because of the precedent that sets.

• Last note is that Farmer's does not believe there will be a team in LA in the next 3-4 years, and his response didn't imply he thought one was coming in 5 or 6 either. He seems to believe there are just too many hurdles for it to happen in that term.

I'm 75% confident the Rams are staying put . Am i a bit worried yes but i believe the region will do it's best to keep the team here. The Rams are important to St.Louis. Are they as important as the Cardinals? NO but they do have a super bowl title here and once this team begins to mature i think its going to be a very good team for some time .. I'll say next season 9-7 record narrowly missing the playoffs ..

dweebe wrote:

BrickCity4470 wrote: I'll say next season 9-7 record narrowly missing the playoffs ..

The NFC West will be brutal next year.

Yeah, but no more than it was this year. The Rams will be improved and hopefully healthier. If they can go 3-3 in the division, they can make the playoffs.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:I too am baffled by Bernie's confidence, though, it is comforting for him to be on that side of the argument. He seems to call a spade a spade and at the first sign of threats on the horizon I think he wouldn't hold it in.

More and more Bernie tends to overreact to the minority of his readers who overreact to sports news. I'm sure he's talking to the folks who believe this purchase automatically means the Rams are already gone and there's nothing St. Louis can do to keep the team here. These are the 'chicken littles' that he seems to equate to popular opinion, and then sets into a polar-opposite argument.

I like Bernie, but he likes tilting at windmills from time-to-time.

-RBB

I do not think there is a such thing as worrying too much, in this situation. I think the 'chicken littles' are well aware, of the fact that the Rams could stay. However, I do not think this situation should be taken lightly and by NO means would I feel comfortable making a prediction, in one way or the other. I do know, that if you look at the facts of the case, the odds are stacked against St. Louis. We have very little bargaining power, like an ironclad lease or a bigger/comparable market size. LA is a big time city. Its not like Stan bought property in Des Moines (no offense to people from there). He bought a 60 acre plot, on a site long rumored to used for an NFL stadium. I do not see anything on the burner in St. Louis. Unless some grand plan is underway, behind the scenes, nothing much seems to be happening here. From all indications, Stan won't even return Nixon's calls. The Rams may be doing some good things in the community, but also some confrontational things, like accepting an award of legal fees from the CVC arbitration process. Why would a billionaire take that from a regional organization he plans on working with for decades to come!? Stan is a man that is clearly motivated by money and power. He does not have loyalty to St. Louis. Yes, he is from Missouri, is named for Stan the Man, but that is not enough for me, to assume he will do what is right for his home state.

In a nutshell, nobody can say what Stan will do or what the outcome will inevitably be. I can say this. Many of his moves lately, have increased the odds, that He will likely find a way to move the Rams back to LA.

Some conspiracy theorists feel like he and John Shaw had this scheme in the back of their heads, when Stan was brought into the mix, in the ownership group. If not at the start, later on in the Rams tenure here in St. Louis. Shaw had to know that this favorable lease provision (top tier status) would play in the favor of any owner, that does not feel like the venue is up to his/her standards. I personally, do not think this conspiracy theory is that far-fetched.

Me personally, knowing ONLY what I know today, put the odds at 49% Rams stay, 51% the Rams move to LA. I used to put it at 70-30 in favor of staying. With each move or piece of information that surfaces, the situation gets more bleak, IMO.

I would put the Rams staying at 75%. With a relocation fee and building a new stadium Stan would have to put up $2-2.5billion+ of his own money.

Benefit of being in a bigger TV market? None (well a little but not enough to justify spending $2b+ up front) NFL teams share tv revenue 32 ways

Staying he has to spend tops around $400m and with a winning team he would be in a same spot as the team in LA. LA is mostly made up of non LA people who has their own home town NFL teams that they support.

^^ I hope your right. I hope that odds are stacked against LA. However, there are so many other factors that could play into how much Stan can make. The corporate sponsorship opportunities are much greater in LA. The possibility of adding an AFC tenant, assuming the Rams are the NFC tenant, would be appealing. I could easily see the Raiders or Chargers joining the Rams in one venue. Also, the value of the franchise will go up significantly, if moved to LA, which would come into play if he ever wants to sell. There are other considerations, like putting the LA Gunners and Rams in the same venue, helping offset the figure you projected for cost of this endeavor. Also, he will get ALL concessions, ALL parking and ALL of every other allowed source of revenue, at his own venue. There are probably a ton of other ways Kroenke can earn extra 'JACK" (as he put it) in LA.

That's what Kroenke wants. Fear. There's no need to play his game.

DogtownBnR wrote:^^ I hope your right. I hope that odds are stacked against LA. However, there are so many other factors that could play into how much Stan can make. The corporate sponsorship opportunities are much greater in LA. The possibility of adding an AFC tenant, assuming the Rams are the NFC tenant, would be appealing. I could easily see the Raiders or Chargers joining the Rams in one venue. Also, the value of the franchise will go up significantly, if moved to LA, which would come into play if he ever wants to sell. There are other considerations, like putting the LA Gunners and Rams in the same venue, helping offset the figure you projected for cost of this endeavor. Also, he will get ALL concessions, ALL parking and ALL of every other allowed source of revenue, at his own venue. There are probably a ton of other ways Kroenke can earn extra 'JACK" (as he put it) in LA.

Worth noting that any new stadium in St. Louis, despite being partially funded by the public, will probably be owned by Kroenke as well. So the money from concessions and at least some of the parking would be his in that scenario as well.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Yes, many many reasons to be fearful. What sucks the most is to be here again through no real fault of the fanbase. As I've said pages and pages ago, if they go, it won't be Stan or local politicians who are villified nationally; the message will be that STL is a crap town.

Another thing that mystifies is that if this is such the cash cow that it appears to be, why wasn't it done a long time ago? Why did expansion go to Houston instead of LA? Why hasn't someone else bought land and moved? Stan can't be the only cold blooded billionaire NFL owner looking to make more money. All of the sudden everyone acts like the financial opportunity in LA is a recent phenomenon, yet multiple teams have come and gone with owners thinking they would be better off elsewhere.

The NFL and team owners have been glad to take advantage of having the LA market open as a sort of soft leverage tool to ensure that all or most teams would get favorable public financing deals to build new stadiums in their home markets. The threat of moving to LA is not unique to the Rams. But (as far as I know) only the Rams have had the ridiculous top-tier opt out clause and only the Rams (and Raiders) have the historical ties to LA, so in our case the threat seems so much more plausible.

And while I won't deny it'd look bad if the Rams left, I don't think it'd necessarily be a disaster for St. Louis as long as the mayor and governor do their PR right. If the mayor and governor were to publicly say that citizens of St. Louis and Missouri chose to use their tax dollars to support the growth and future of their community rather than a football team, I think they'd receive good reviews from a lot of progressives around the country. And many conservatives as well.

DannyJ wrote:The NFL and team owners have been glad to take advantage of having the LA market open as a sort of soft leverage tool to ensure that all or most teams would get favorable public financing deals to build new stadiums in their home markets. The threat of moving to LA is not unique to the Rams. But (as far as I know) only the Rams have had the ridiculous top-tier opt out clause and only the Rams (and Raiders) have the historical ties to LA, so in our case the threat seems so much more plausible.

Actually, all three teams that people consider possible fall into a similar boat.

The Chargers ALSO were in LA before moving to San Diego (not to mention they currently market to LA as a secondary market).

The Chargers can opt out of their lease every single year and have been able to for a while. Their focus remains on getting a stadium done in San Diego, but things haven't looked good on that front for a while. At some point they may have to call a spade a spade. They've tried extensively, so if they had a stadium plan in LA, the league likely wouldn't stand in their way.

The Raiders, like the Rams, can opt out of their lease after next year. They've tried a good bit to come up with a new stadium plan, and there just isn't the money in Oakland to support one. And their current stadium is a REAL dump. I've heard it suggested the league doesn't want the Raiders fan base back in LA, but I don't know if that will ultimately matter.

And then we've discussed the Rams ad nauseam, of course. They can opt out after next year, and Kroenke has land to build his own stadium on. But unless the league totally waves their policy (and I wouldn't put it past them—they have very little integrity), Stan HAS to work with St. Louis first before he qualifies.

I'm posting this in response to anyone saying the latest developments are nothing more than another NFL team using LA as a ploy, to get what they want. I know I’ve made many of these points before and most are nothing new. I just thought I’d list the MANY reasons (I’m sure I’m leaving some out) why this LA endeavor may be VERY different from some of the other NFL-to-LA efforts.

I understand that there have been many past efforts to put a franchise in LA. There are several factors that make Kroenke and the Rams situation, different.
-Kroenke purchased and now owns 60 acres in LA
-Kroenke has a house in Malibu and loves LA
-Kroenke is an international sports mogul, looking to own teams in every major sport
-Kroenke is a mega-billionaire. He calls his own shots
-Kroenke is going to start a soccer team in LA
-He is on the NFL stadium committee for LA
-He is known to be connected to AEG in LA, as well as other billionaires in LA like Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is also rumored to be interested in bringing the NFL to LA. He has been seen at Lakers games with Kroenke
-He has an out with the Lease at the EJD.
-The fanbase has been jaded and lessened by 10 years of losing
-No obvious stadium proposals exist in St. Louis
-As far as we know, there has been no movement from the local government
-St. Louis has NO desire to bankroll a stadium, especially after the Dome debacle
-The Rams are in the bottom of the NFL in attendance
-The St. Louis Rams are near the bottom in franchise value
-Kroenke has showed no desire to work with local officials or even return calls, according to reports
-The Rams won arbitration and even took the award for legal fees after winning, from the CVC

All of these factors, make this threat much more serious, than Al Davis barking at Oakland about moving the Raiders, for example. Stan has land, owns a franchise and has more money than ANY of these owners.

Ok how many cities have used L.A. as a scape goat for a possible move???
Buffalo
Minneapolis
Jacksonville
New Orleans
Miami
St.Louis
San Diego
Oakland
Out of all those cities i think likely Oakland will make the move and possibly San Diego but i feel like San Diego and L.A. already share that team since they aren't far apart in distance.
It's very sad that St.Louis has to deal with this all year.. I feel like they've been talking about this since the team moved here back in 95
Worse case scenario is Missouri and St.Louis decide to just let the team leave...
This would definitely be a black eye on St.Louis..
The ? is how serious is St.Louis about keeping this team here.
They say they want the team to stay but they don't seem to be putting much effort into..
I think we all know this isn't going to be cheap however what's cheap now a days?
And i know Stan doesn't want a domed stadium but he doesn't want a cheapo depo stadium either..

DogtownBnR wrote:I'm posting this in response to anyone saying the latest developments are nothing more than another NFL team using LA as a ploy, to get what they want. I know I’ve made many of these points before and most are nothing new. I just thought I’d list the MANY reasons (I’m sure I’m leaving some out) why this LA endeavor may be VERY different from some of the other NFL-to-LA efforts.

I understand that there have been many past efforts to put a franchise in LA. There are several factors that make Kroenke and the Rams situation, different.
-Kroenke purchased and now owns 60 acres in LA
-Kroenke has a house in Malibu and loves LA
-Kroenke is an international sports mogul, looking to own teams in every major sport
-Kroenke is a mega-billionaire. He calls his own shots
-Kroenke is going to start a soccer team in LA
-He is on the NFL stadium committee for LA
-He is known to be connected to AEG in LA, as well as other billionaires in LA like Patrick Soon-Shiong, who is also rumored to be interested in bringing the NFL to LA. He has been seen at Lakers games with Kroenke
-He has an out with the Lease at the EJD.
-The fanbase has been jaded and lessened by 10 years of losing
-No obvious stadium proposals exist in St. Louis
-As far as we know, there has been no movement from the local government
-St. Louis has NO desire to bankroll a stadium, especially after the Dome debacle
-The Rams are in the bottom of the NFL in attendance
-The St. Louis Rams are near the bottom in franchise value
-Kroenke has showed no desire to work with local officials or even return calls, according to reports
-The Rams won arbitration and even took the award for legal fees after winning, from the CVC

All of these factors, make this threat much more serious, than Al Davis barking at Oakland about moving the Raiders, for example. Stan has land, owns a franchise and has more money than ANY of these owners.

Some of these are inaccurate.

• The notion that Kroenke is starting a soccer team in LA remains unsubstantiated by any legitimate news source. It's been sadly picked up by a few, but they all cite the same originating source.

• Kroenke is NOT on the stadium committee for LA and hasn't been for a couple of years.

• The desire of St. Louis to help pay for a stadium isn't currently determinable. Based on other taxes we've approved because local leaders support them and give us a beautiful spin, I tend to believe there would ultimately be support for funding to a reasonable degree.

^ I think it is safe to say, the LA Gunners rumor is a VERY real possibility, as reported across the globe. True, nothing official, but very strong indication, that this is happening. I know that a story being reported across the globe, by every possible news organization, does not make a story 100%, but it sure seems likely, that the Gunners will come to fruition, if Stan wants them to. He has all the 'jack' he needs, to make things happen, if he chooses. One other note.. Kroenke and the rest of the soccer world know how messed up Chivas is. Kroenke could see that the future of this franchise is not in LA. He may want to jump into that spot and run with it. Just 'Google' Chivas + problems/trouble and you will see, that franchise is a mess and needs to be dealt with, if not sold. He could buy it if sold. No telling!

-Whether Kroenke IS or WAS on the committee, is a bad thing either way. It might be worse that he is not any longer. Did he leave because he is no longer an objective member, without his own agenda?

-I respectfully disagree with you, that ANY (or MUCH OF ANY) public funding would be approved by the voters, considering the fact we owe over $200 million on the Dome's note.
I think some minor infrastucture improvements could be approved, but nothing more. Look at the Cardinals, if you need an example of how much public support sports teams get in this town. After the Dome debacle and the BP Village promise, voters will have a very sour stomach, for public assistance to a billionaire.

Describing them as inaccurate is inaccurate. Stating that nothing is final with the LA Gunners or a vote on public financing, therefore making these points speculative, is more accurate.