urbanSTL

^ I think it is all of the above. Stan K is working the deal via backrooms in MO while penciling out what the cost will be to move to LA.

I think you can get some realistic hard numbers to work off if it comes down to strictly a business deal for Stan K. If that is the case, I think NFL sharing TV revenues is a plus for St. Louis as it equalizes the playing field somewhat. Another way to put it, Dodgers sold for what they sold for in part to the local cable TV deals a MLB team can make and why Yankees, Dodgers, etc. will also be valued more then the Cardinals strictly on a TV basis alone. That will not be the case for moving a NFL team to LA. Their is steep costs involved.

The unknown is his ego IMO, considering Stan K doesn't express loyalty to anything as far as I can tell. Obviously he wanted to be an NFL owner. However, I can't figure out if he wants to be the owner who is more concerned who is in the crowd or if is more concerned how they are playing on the field or someone who simply wants to make a buck off the deal. In that regards, I think Jaguar Fans might have been the lucky ones to get the owner they got if RAMS head west.

If the Rams do move, I'd encourage St. Louisans to simply let them go. Don't start begging to find a way back into a despicable league by subsidizing another bad stadium deal.

This would be the second time in 30 years that the NFL would have bolted from St. Louis because they didn't get a stadium gift from us. And in between we gave them one and a sweetheart deal anyways. Let's not make that mistake again.

I love my St. Louis Rams, even as I've begun putting myself into exile. But I can't do football or the NFL anymore. St. Louis will be just fine without them. And I say this as a diehard fan that puts way too much emotion into sports.

Maybe we can get Stan's brother in law Bill Laurie back to St. Louis to pursue what was always his real dream of owning an NBA team. (The desire is genuine, but the reality is I'm joking. That's not happening.)

I disagree. There is plenty of evidence of a poor business climate in St. Louis, but I don't think retaining the Rams has anything to do with it.

Most businesses aren't asking for a $500 million subsidy, though. NFL teams are highly overrated as local businesses. They have a profile higher than just about any other, but their economic impact just doesn't match their billing.

In 1995, St Louis fans made a 30 year commitment to Stan and the Rams by buying 70,000 PSLs. We thought the Rams had made the same commitment to St Louis for 30 years. I guess you have to always read the fine print. We were suckered. Khan would have stayed. At Stan's wealth level, everything is a toy to play with until it breaks. Then you just get a new one. Stan had made teams successful in Denver on the field and off. Is this his first big management failure?

I dont think there are people in the know, the way Stan operates the only people in the know are Stan, his #2 and maybe #3 guy and his lawyer...and i doubt any of those 3 would leak anything....

now could Stan and his 3 be bluffing a bit to get something here going? Does Stan see AEG beating him to LA and he isnt really interested in spending $1b of his own money for a relocation fee + $1.5B for new stadium there, when here he can the land for free and probably 40-50% paid by public and save $1b relocation fee.

While I agree, who is really 'in the know'. How does anybody really know who is 'in the know', who is not and 'the way Stan operates? We can assume we know, but nobody knows how he operates his NFL team, since he rarely speaks. Nobody really knows anything. I will say this. I trust guys like Randy and Bernie, since they are WAY MORE 'in the know' than me. Stan has much to gain in LA and that is a fact. The relocation fee pays for itself with the franchise increasing in value, significantly.

Regarding Demoff and his comments. He is Stan's PR guy. I'm sure he is told what to say. He may not even know. If the Rams do move, Demoff has been more deceiving than Joseph Goebbels, assuming he knew they were moving. I've heard him say the Rams want to stay, they want to bring the Lombardi Trophy down Market... etc...etc.... He could always say, at that time, the team was trying to stay. I think if they do leave, they will go back to the CVC rejecting their $700 Million demand for a Dome redo. I've often wondered had the CVC accepted that demand, would that deal have included a new 30 year lease and a removal of the 'top tier' clause. That would have been a MUST.

Anyone know, is the G4 Fund only for "new" stadiums or would a Dome redo be eligible for those funds? I think the goal is the NFL, Stan and the region, split the billion dollar price tag evenly. If G4 eligible, the $700 million redo, would have been the cheaper option.

With a new stadium and back to back winning seasons, the value of the team here would skyrocket too.... and does value of the team mean much to Stan? he isnt selling.

^Agree, that 'could' happen, but as things sit now, the value is only $900 million. He may not be selling, but who knows what his intentions are and he isn't getting any older. I'm not sure if he cares about building the team up to give to his son or family. For all we know, he could sell at some point. I doubt he will, but you never know. I think LA provides a lot more advantages than STL. That is a fact. There are many, well beyond franchise value. COULD St. Louis be a great NFL market. Yes, of course, but we here as a fanbase, have been down for some time, by no fault of our own.

Isn't Stan on the Civic Progress board?

Civic Progress is an organization of CEOs and top executives from the St. Louis region’s largest private sector employers who are working to improve the quality of community and business life for all the residents of the bi-state metropolitan area. We believe St. Louis is a great place to live and work – and it offers wonderful educational and recreational opportunities. At the same time, we recognize there are a variety of challenges facing our region that deserve our collective attention as business leaders

Do you have any links or evidence of him being on the board? I have no clue on that. Never heard that.

DogtownBnR wrote:Do you have any links or evidence of him being on the board? I have no clue on that. Never heard that.

I would imagine if he has decided to bolt, he would quietly ask for his name to be removed...
http://www.civicprogressstl.org/our-org ... embership/

^Very interesting! Not sure why I didn't know that. I'm sure he is not the most popular guy in the group, unless they know he is posturing to get a local venue built. Then again, these rich guys are probably very empathetic and understand business is business.

DogtownBnR wrote:Then again, Bill Bidwell, to this day, claims to have loved St. Louis and to have never wanted to leave. Business is business!

I think the NFL of the 1980's is a bit different then today....everyone is making money today and i would venture a guess that most owners view their teams as a toy and not a business investment

Maybe so, but if the Rams bolt, it will be for the same reason as the Big Red. New stadium and perceived greener pastures.

DogtownBnR wrote:^^PS- There are some owners that probably look at their franchise as an investment. I can't imagine some of the fringe billionaires in the ownership fraternity, can afford to look at it as a toy. The Mark Cuban's of the world, of course, own their teams as toys. Not every owner though.

This is why Mark Davis may have to sell the Raiders...which would be good for St.louis if a LA group buys the Raiders....Stan will NOT go into LA as a 2nd team.

^That's my hope... As you said, why would Stan want to be the second team or one of two teams in a city, when he can own a market. STL may not be even half of the LA metro, but as you know, the NFL owns the TV package, so gate and other gameday revenues are most important. That also comes with putting a quality product on the field and Stan has to know that his product has been terrible for a decade. If he can fill a 75K or so sized venue, he can be successful in any market, as evidenced by the success of Green Bay and other smaller markets.

DogtownBnR wrote:

I think if they do leave, they will go back to the CVC rejecting their $700 Million demand for a Dome redo. I've often wondered had the CVC accepted that demand, would that deal have included a new 30 year lease and a removal of the 'top tier' clause. That would have been a MUST.

Anyone know, is the G4 Fund only for "new" stadiums or would a Dome redo be eligible for those funds? I think the goal is the NFL, Stan and the region, split the billion dollar price tag evenly. If G4 eligible, the $700 million redo, would have been the cheaper option.

I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, but I have read quite a bit about the lease and the NFL G4 situation, so the following may not be fact, but it is as I understand it.

Any renovations to satisfy the "first tier" clause of the lease—which after arbitration would have had to be the $700m plan you mention—simply kept the original lease in tact. Meaning the CVC would have been accountable for $700m in renovations to bring the Dome into the "first tier" of NFL stadiums, and the Rams would be committed to finishing out the remaining 10 years of the lease through 2024. No extension would have been triggered had the plan been accepted.

And that's why, in practicality, it was never an option to accept that ruling. If the CVC was going to pay 70-80% of the cost of a new stadium, it absolutely had to come with a long-term lease, and that wouldn't have been the case. So regardless of what happens going forward, everyone was telling the truth when they were saying "there's a process that we have to let play out." Both sides essentially knew the only acceptable outcome to keep the Rams in St. Louis would be a new building and a new lease, but they had to play by the rules of the original lease. (In theory, they could have agreed to tear it up and start fresh sooner, but the CVC probably held out a minuscule amount of hope that the arbitrator might choose their plan or that the Rams might accept their plan and "punt" the issue for 10 years).

As far as the G4 program goes, yes, the renovations COULD have qualified for up to $200m from the program. But in order to qualify for that amount, the team has to privately fund at least $200m itself. (Which would have left $300m to the CVC.) But it's also important to remember that the G4 program isn't the league outright contributing, but rather a loan program. Essentially, the team has to repay the loan, but is able to do so through club seat sales money, which would have otherwise been shared among all 32 teams. At the risk of using a term that has another meaning, I suppose it's something of a subsidized loan. But it's not completely free.

In any case, I don't think the Rams really wanted a renovated Dome, so they probably wouldn't have put up the private funding necessary to get the G4 funding. So while the renovations could have qualified, that was probably never a real possibility.

Thinking about it for a new stadium, that will cost around $1 billion. The G4 program can cover up to $200 million of that, assuming Kroenke is paying at least $200 million himself. That leaves $600 million to be divided between Kroenke and the public.

I'm to the point where my max offer to the Rams would be free land (but NOT tax-free land), and $200 million. So if he'll pay $600 million of his own money (and another $200 million with G4 funds), maybe something can happen. I'm no longer optimistic.

I think the cost of land is in that $1.2b price tag or in all these other numbers you hear about new stadiums....I think public would probably need $300M plus land and the rest is on Stan and NFL.

Here are a few more articles latching on to Randy Karraker's comments:

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/994905- ... done-deal/

http://www.inquisitr.com/1512175/st-lou ... uper-bowl/

I'm not that familiar with these sites, but they area clearly jumping on Randy's info. I wonder how far the Rams are going to let this go, before making SOME comment, a comment that actually gives us SOME idea of where this is heading. If this is not part of the negotiation process and the team is moving, I can understand why they'd keep tight-lipped. If they keep losing, they may not have anyone in the seats regardless. I'd like someone to get Demoff on the radio and drill him on this stuff. I would love to interview him myself!

DogtownBnR wrote:I'd like someone to get Demoff on the radio and drill him on this stuff. I would love to interview him myself!

Tim McKernan tweeted that he'll be on The Morning After sometime next week.