filled out my survey today
never thought I would read the words
in a story about NFL teams LOL
never thought I would read the words
in a story about NFL teams LOL
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
I don't even think we can even give an opinion on this anymore. As Goose reported Stan feels disrespected and this process would have been easier. Then you have reports like the above saying that perhaps Stan would have been more respected had anyone from the Rams shown any interest in a plan. All I know for sure from my perspective is that regardless of what the Raiders and Chargers have done in the past at least they have publicly stated a desire to stay in their towns. No fan is ever going to know what really went on behind the curtain but at least their fans have that. At least their fans can know that if they pony up, their teams want to stay. We St. Louisans don't get that respect. We have to post theories on bylaws in the absence of anything else. We have absolutely no idea whether the Rams value us as a fan base. We put up with their bad football for years and that doesn't warrant anything? That's why I'm real hesitant to blame St Louis and Missouri officials. I would have no problem holding their feet to the fire if we had some reassurance from the Rams.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/23/chargers-raiders-wouldnt-share-stadium-in-san-diego/
Chargers, Raiders wouldn’t share stadium in San Diego
Posted by Mike Florio on February 23, 2015
Getty Images
With the Chargers and Raiders planning to share a privately-financed stadium in Carson, California, here’s a crazy question: Why not share a stadium in San Diego?
Appearing on Monday’s edition of PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said that he’s been asked that question a lot in recent days, but that the Chargers and Raiders don’t regard that as a viable option. The problem, as Fabiani explained it, is that the market isn’t big enough to support the kind of revenue streams (via luxury suites and Personal Seat Licenses) for a pair of franchises.
That sounds reasonable, but the Chargers already have 25 percent of their fan base coming from Los Angeles County and Orange County. With a swanky new stadium in San Diego and both the Chargers and Raiders playing there, maybe more would make the drive south.
The bigger problem would be the lingering vacancy in Los Angeles, which possibly would be filled by the Rams. Which would put three teams in the L.A./San Diego area.
But if the Chargers get a new stadium in San Diego, there’s a good chance that the Rams (and maybe the Raiders) will relocate to Los Angeles. Which perhaps makes the Chargers far more interested in limiting the total number of franchise in the region to two, with the Chargers and another franchise sharing space in Los Angeles.
To hear Fabiani’s full interview, click here, select PFT Live, and pick hour two.
Chargers, Raiders wouldn’t share stadium in San Diego
Posted by Mike Florio on February 23, 2015
With the Chargers and Raiders planning to share a privately-financed stadium in Carson, California, here’s a crazy question: Why not share a stadium in San Diego?
Appearing on Monday’s edition of PFT Live on NBC Sports Radio, Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani said that he’s been asked that question a lot in recent days, but that the Chargers and Raiders don’t regard that as a viable option. The problem, as Fabiani explained it, is that the market isn’t big enough to support the kind of revenue streams (via luxury suites and Personal Seat Licenses) for a pair of franchises.
That sounds reasonable, but the Chargers already have 25 percent of their fan base coming from Los Angeles County and Orange County. With a swanky new stadium in San Diego and both the Chargers and Raiders playing there, maybe more would make the drive south.
The bigger problem would be the lingering vacancy in Los Angeles, which possibly would be filled by the Rams. Which would put three teams in the L.A./San Diego area.
But if the Chargers get a new stadium in San Diego, there’s a good chance that the Rams (and maybe the Raiders) will relocate to Los Angeles. Which perhaps makes the Chargers far more interested in limiting the total number of franchise in the region to two, with the Chargers and another franchise sharing space in Los Angeles.
To hear Fabiani’s full interview, click here, select PFT Live, and pick hour two.
How often do you want him to reassure you? Are Davis' and Spanos' words more respectful to their area than those of Stan's? With what I know of the carpet bagger's son and the slum lord, I'd take Stan's words any day over the other two. And disrespect St Louis? Without Stan, there might still be no NFL in St Louis.
In case you forgot. Here is what Stan had to say about the subject. Seems pretty clear to me.
"I'm going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis," Kroenke said in a phone interview Tuesday night. "Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves."
"There's a track record," Kroenke said. "I've always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I'm stepping up one more time."
"I'm born and raised in Missouri," Kroenke said. "I've been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy."
We post theories on bylaws and such because there really is no newly murdered horse to beat on. I assure you, they are discussing bylaws and funding et al in San Diego and Oakland right now.
Apparently I need a lot. Perhaps something more recent then 2010. I've ran some searches since your post thinking I've must have missed something. If I did it's eluded Google as well. Did find quite a few articles stating that Stan isn't taking calls from area reps.
So no a quote from 5 years ago doesn't really do it for me.
Rams coach Jeff Fisher not thinking about relocation
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16462/jeff-fisher-not-thinking-about-relocation
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- As rumors, speculation and everything in between continue to pile up on the possibility of the St. Louis Rams and/or the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers moving to Los Angeles, it can be difficult not to get caught up in any of it.
Barring a surprising (though not shocking) shift change in which Rams owner Stan Kroenke or one of the other owners attempts to go rogue and move to Los Angeles in 2015, nothing figures to be settled until next year. Which means it's best for all involved to focus on what they can control in the meantime.
That includes Rams coach Jeff Fisher. After reports surfaced Thursday night that the Chargers and Raiders are planning to team up for a new stadium in Carson, California, should efforts for new stadiums in their current markets fail in 2015, Fisher was asked about what he's been hearing on the possibility of the Rams relocating.
"If I don't know anything, then when someone asks me and I say I don't know anything, then I'm telling the truth," Fisher said. "So, my focus, and of course this is coach-speak, is on this year and our football team in St. Louis. And as things come up, nearly on a daily basis right now, they're going to continue to change and whatever happens, happens. But I love St. Louis, we've got a great fan base. We've got some work to do as we go through this process, however it ends up, but our focus is on 2015."
In theory, that's probably the best approach for everyone to take, but it's much harder in practice because, as Fisher said, there will be new developments and rumors popping up all the time. But Fisher has no reason to say anything but what he said given the situation he's entering in 2015.
This is the fourth year of the Fisher regime in St. Louis, and so far that hasn't yielded so much as a winning season. There needs to be progress on the field for the future of the team to even matter much to Fisher and Co. So taking the pragmatic approach while also offering praise for the fans of St. Louis is a logical response.
"Those that came out saw some really good football games," Fisher said. "The true fans that know what we're doing see improvement."
By Nick Wagoner
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/16462/jeff-fisher-not-thinking-about-relocation
EARTH CITY, Mo. -- As rumors, speculation and everything in between continue to pile up on the possibility of the St. Louis Rams and/or the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers moving to Los Angeles, it can be difficult not to get caught up in any of it.
Barring a surprising (though not shocking) shift change in which Rams owner Stan Kroenke or one of the other owners attempts to go rogue and move to Los Angeles in 2015, nothing figures to be settled until next year. Which means it's best for all involved to focus on what they can control in the meantime.
That includes Rams coach Jeff Fisher. After reports surfaced Thursday night that the Chargers and Raiders are planning to team up for a new stadium in Carson, California, should efforts for new stadiums in their current markets fail in 2015, Fisher was asked about what he's been hearing on the possibility of the Rams relocating.
"If I don't know anything, then when someone asks me and I say I don't know anything, then I'm telling the truth," Fisher said. "So, my focus, and of course this is coach-speak, is on this year and our football team in St. Louis. And as things come up, nearly on a daily basis right now, they're going to continue to change and whatever happens, happens. But I love St. Louis, we've got a great fan base. We've got some work to do as we go through this process, however it ends up, but our focus is on 2015."
In theory, that's probably the best approach for everyone to take, but it's much harder in practice because, as Fisher said, there will be new developments and rumors popping up all the time. But Fisher has no reason to say anything but what he said given the situation he's entering in 2015.
This is the fourth year of the Fisher regime in St. Louis, and so far that hasn't yielded so much as a winning season. There needs to be progress on the field for the future of the team to even matter much to Fisher and Co. So taking the pragmatic approach while also offering praise for the fans of St. Louis is a logical response.
"Those that came out saw some really good football games," Fisher said. "The true fans that know what we're doing see improvement."
bluecoconuts
Legend
Bernie: Guessing Kroenke's next move
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_a4be2571-bd82-595d-be04-ad406b573f40.html
When the Chargers and Raiders formed an alliance and announced plans to build a stadium together in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, it wasn’t the best news for Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
Kroenke had staked a claim to the Los Angeles market by making a move to develop a stadium-entertainment complex in Inglewood. Kroenke’s aggressive maneuver put him in the lead in the race for LA.
The Raiders and Chargers countered with their Carson strategy, and the shock waves could probably be felt 14 miles away in Inglewood. The Chargers and Raiders may not be able to block Kroenke from moving the Rams to Inglewood, but they’re certainly getting in the way.
What should Kroenke do in response?
What will he do?
With the inscrutable Kroenke, it’s difficult to get an accurate read. But I spoke with several people who know or have known Kroenke and asked for their opinion on his most likely course of action.
Here’s the consensus, which, by the way, is not a prediction: Kroenke should operate on multiple tracks, moving forward on each of the tracks to put himself in a position where a positive outcome is guaranteed.
Maybe it will be his most coveted result. Perhaps it won’t be the result that’s at the top of his list. But there will be a successful payoff at the end. But only if Kroenke leaves nothing to chance and plays all of the angles.
Let’s break it down:
1. Kroenke should continue to work on his LA quest and keep pushing for the Inglewood complex. Why? Many reasons: (A) The Carson venture could implode; (B) the Raiders and/or Chargers could get a new stadium in their respective markets, which would scuttle the Carson project; (C) the owners of the Raiders and Chargers could discover that they really don’t want to be sharing a home; that realization leads to a split. In any of these scenarios Kroenke’s Inglewood initiative would stand alone as the most appealing NFL option -- and perhaps the only option.
2. Should there be any weakness in the Carson plan, Kroenke should approach Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis and see if he can convince one to split from the other to come join him in Inglewood, which would give Kroenke the potential two-team, one-stadium advantage. And a Raider or Charger defection to Kroenke would obliterate the Carson proposal.
3. Kroenke should officially engage Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, and St. Louis stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz. Kroenke doesn’t have to make any promises or mislead anyone. But showing interest in the planned STL stadium would, among other things, score points with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and league executive VP Eric Grubman.
If Kroenke is still determined to move the Rams to Los Angeles and plans to follow the NFL relocation guidelines, he’ll need 24 votes and building goodwill would only help his cause. It wouldn’t be easy for an owner to make the case for moving from his current market when he hasn’t taken the time to seriously study, discuss and consider a new-stadium proposal there. And if Kroenke does stay, his willingness to make a deal here would be his first step toward a positive PR turnaround in St. Louis.
And if Kroenke decides it makes sense to stay in St. Louis, he could possibly benefit in other ways. Again, this is based on the premise of the St. Louis plan reaching fruition; without the new stadium STL is almost certainly finished as an NFL market. But if the new St. Louis stadium becomes a reality, then Kroenke could be rewarded by the league for being a good teammate instead of trying to run off to Los Angeles and creating a big-time mess for the league, with three franchises vying for the market, and one team getting squeezed out, with the threat of lawsuits hanging over the NFL.
If the NFL likes the Carson plan best, and tries to persuade Kroenke to keep the Rams in St. Louis, Kroenke could find any of several incentives on the table. The NFL could offer to cover his portion (an estimated $250 million) of the G4 stadium-funding program. The NFL could give Kroenke relief on the rules prohibiting cross ownership by granting him a long-term extension on the waiver.
And if Kroenke gets on the NFL’s good side by taking the stadium deal in St. Louis, another reward could come his way. Which brings us to …
4. Kroenke should lay the groundwork to purchase the Denver Broncos should the team be sold within the next two, three years. Kroenke owns the NBA Denver Nuggets and NHL Colorado Avalanche and spends much of his time in Denver.
If Kroenke owned the Broncos -- one of the league’s best and most financially valuable franchises -- he would no longer have to worry about being in violation of the NFL’s cross ownership rules. And he would be in control of every franchise in the lucrative Denver market including the town’s MLS soccer franchise.
If Kroenke agreed to keep the Rams in St. Louis, perhaps the NFL would make sure that he had the first right of refusal to purchase the Broncos. (And then sell the Rams to local, St. Louis-based ownership.) Some will insist that the Broncos aren’t for sale, even with team owner Pat Bowlen in decline as he deals with advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
This is what the Denver Post wrote (in part) last October:
“The Denver Broncos have as little as two years to determine which of Pat Bowlen's seven children will step into his shoes — or face having to sell the team.
“The NFL has made it clear that it will not allow the process of choosing a successor to go on indefinitely, giving the Pat Bowlen Trust just two years to make ‘significant progress,’ according to people familiar with the situation.
“Bowlen hoped to keep the team in his family and a decade ago mapped out a succession plan through the trust, ensuring one of his children would take the lead ownership role.
“But he didn't set a deadline, leaving it to three trustees — including team president and CEO Joe Ellis — to decide which of the children actually has the ability to do the job…
“If none of the children can prove to the trustees they have the ability to run the team — and some have shown an interest in trying — then the family must sell, John Bowlen said.
With so much happening on multiple fronts — Rams, St. Louis, Inglewood, Carson, Chargers, San Diego, Raiders, Oakland and possibly the Broncos at some point — it’s idiotic to rule out any possibility.
That’s why Kroenke would be wise to cover all of the bases and make sure that he emerges as a winner.
Thanks for reading ...
— Bernie
• By Bernie Miklasz
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_a4be2571-bd82-595d-be04-ad406b573f40.html
When the Chargers and Raiders formed an alliance and announced plans to build a stadium together in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, it wasn’t the best news for Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
Kroenke had staked a claim to the Los Angeles market by making a move to develop a stadium-entertainment complex in Inglewood. Kroenke’s aggressive maneuver put him in the lead in the race for LA.
The Raiders and Chargers countered with their Carson strategy, and the shock waves could probably be felt 14 miles away in Inglewood. The Chargers and Raiders may not be able to block Kroenke from moving the Rams to Inglewood, but they’re certainly getting in the way.
What should Kroenke do in response?
What will he do?
With the inscrutable Kroenke, it’s difficult to get an accurate read. But I spoke with several people who know or have known Kroenke and asked for their opinion on his most likely course of action.
Here’s the consensus, which, by the way, is not a prediction: Kroenke should operate on multiple tracks, moving forward on each of the tracks to put himself in a position where a positive outcome is guaranteed.
Maybe it will be his most coveted result. Perhaps it won’t be the result that’s at the top of his list. But there will be a successful payoff at the end. But only if Kroenke leaves nothing to chance and plays all of the angles.
Let’s break it down:
1. Kroenke should continue to work on his LA quest and keep pushing for the Inglewood complex. Why? Many reasons: (A) The Carson venture could implode; (B) the Raiders and/or Chargers could get a new stadium in their respective markets, which would scuttle the Carson project; (C) the owners of the Raiders and Chargers could discover that they really don’t want to be sharing a home; that realization leads to a split. In any of these scenarios Kroenke’s Inglewood initiative would stand alone as the most appealing NFL option -- and perhaps the only option.
2. Should there be any weakness in the Carson plan, Kroenke should approach Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Raiders owner Mark Davis and see if he can convince one to split from the other to come join him in Inglewood, which would give Kroenke the potential two-team, one-stadium advantage. And a Raider or Charger defection to Kroenke would obliterate the Carson proposal.
3. Kroenke should officially engage Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, and St. Louis stadium task-force leaders Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz. Kroenke doesn’t have to make any promises or mislead anyone. But showing interest in the planned STL stadium would, among other things, score points with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell and league executive VP Eric Grubman.
If Kroenke is still determined to move the Rams to Los Angeles and plans to follow the NFL relocation guidelines, he’ll need 24 votes and building goodwill would only help his cause. It wouldn’t be easy for an owner to make the case for moving from his current market when he hasn’t taken the time to seriously study, discuss and consider a new-stadium proposal there. And if Kroenke does stay, his willingness to make a deal here would be his first step toward a positive PR turnaround in St. Louis.
And if Kroenke decides it makes sense to stay in St. Louis, he could possibly benefit in other ways. Again, this is based on the premise of the St. Louis plan reaching fruition; without the new stadium STL is almost certainly finished as an NFL market. But if the new St. Louis stadium becomes a reality, then Kroenke could be rewarded by the league for being a good teammate instead of trying to run off to Los Angeles and creating a big-time mess for the league, with three franchises vying for the market, and one team getting squeezed out, with the threat of lawsuits hanging over the NFL.
If the NFL likes the Carson plan best, and tries to persuade Kroenke to keep the Rams in St. Louis, Kroenke could find any of several incentives on the table. The NFL could offer to cover his portion (an estimated $250 million) of the G4 stadium-funding program. The NFL could give Kroenke relief on the rules prohibiting cross ownership by granting him a long-term extension on the waiver.
And if Kroenke gets on the NFL’s good side by taking the stadium deal in St. Louis, another reward could come his way. Which brings us to …
4. Kroenke should lay the groundwork to purchase the Denver Broncos should the team be sold within the next two, three years. Kroenke owns the NBA Denver Nuggets and NHL Colorado Avalanche and spends much of his time in Denver.
If Kroenke owned the Broncos -- one of the league’s best and most financially valuable franchises -- he would no longer have to worry about being in violation of the NFL’s cross ownership rules. And he would be in control of every franchise in the lucrative Denver market including the town’s MLS soccer franchise.
If Kroenke agreed to keep the Rams in St. Louis, perhaps the NFL would make sure that he had the first right of refusal to purchase the Broncos. (And then sell the Rams to local, St. Louis-based ownership.) Some will insist that the Broncos aren’t for sale, even with team owner Pat Bowlen in decline as he deals with advanced Alzheimer’s disease.
This is what the Denver Post wrote (in part) last October:
“The Denver Broncos have as little as two years to determine which of Pat Bowlen's seven children will step into his shoes — or face having to sell the team.
“The NFL has made it clear that it will not allow the process of choosing a successor to go on indefinitely, giving the Pat Bowlen Trust just two years to make ‘significant progress,’ according to people familiar with the situation.
“Bowlen hoped to keep the team in his family and a decade ago mapped out a succession plan through the trust, ensuring one of his children would take the lead ownership role.
“But he didn't set a deadline, leaving it to three trustees — including team president and CEO Joe Ellis — to decide which of the children actually has the ability to do the job…
“If none of the children can prove to the trustees they have the ability to run the team — and some have shown an interest in trying — then the family must sell, John Bowlen said.
With so much happening on multiple fronts — Rams, St. Louis, Inglewood, Carson, Chargers, San Diego, Raiders, Oakland and possibly the Broncos at some point — it’s idiotic to rule out any possibility.
That’s why Kroenke would be wise to cover all of the bases and make sure that he emerges as a winner.
Thanks for reading ...
— Bernie
I agree with you that he's not going to work at keeping the Rams in STL! He's going to make them jump through hoops to get him to keep the team here!
I have little idea. The above article posted by rambill shows exactly what I was talking about. No one knows what the Rams want. My original point was not about the personal character of Spanos or Davis or anything else. It was simply that they've been vocal about wanting to stay in their markets and that makes it easier on the fans.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Yeah, I get that, honestly I think all three teams want to move, but will stay if the right thing comes along. I just heard that Kevin was going to meetings, that could be a positive sign that they're working together on a plan. Then again it could also be him just paying lip service. Kroenke could fart and both sides could present evidence that it means something one way or another.
I got the survey and have already completed it. Asked a lot of questions about the quality of the Dome, the quality of the game day experience, concessions, restaurants, tailgating, parking, sound system, wifi access, etc. I have always loved the Dome, and I answered accordingly.
They asked how often I attended games, how many tickets I usually bought, and why I went to the number of games that I did -- distance, family responsibilities, conflicts with other sports events, didn't like the Dome, etc.
The next section was describing the new outdoor stadium and its seating arrangements. We then were asked about various season ticket pricing, with PSLs that could be financed interest-free over 3 years prior to the stadium being opened OR with interest for 10 years. The tickets seem to be priced to sell and began, I think, at $65 per seat. The PSLs, as I recall, started at $650 and went upwards from that. Of course, it was the combinations that mattered -- $65 tickets ($650 for 10 games) + $1,000 PSL for a total outlay of $1,650 (with no interest) per seat and upwards to (I really can't remember the highest seat ticket, but I'm thinking $95 -- now these aren't club seats or preferred loge or mezzanine or lower level seating; these are upper sideline, upper corners, and upper endzone seats -- and PSLs that I believe had an upper limit of $2500? I tried to go back and check, but I now am locked out because I already used my email, which is the entry code.
The next section asked how likely it would be that we would buy tickets and PSLs at all the various prices and payment options.
Then they wanted to know what other events I would attend were they to be held in the new stadium.
They wanted to know which public financing methods I favored; I, of course, favored all of them because, realistically, even if taxpayers were to fund the new stadium it would wind up costing each citizen of MO, man, woman and child, just $5 per year.
They then wanted comments, and I gave them mine.
A very well-designed survey, in my opinion.
They asked how often I attended games, how many tickets I usually bought, and why I went to the number of games that I did -- distance, family responsibilities, conflicts with other sports events, didn't like the Dome, etc.
The next section was describing the new outdoor stadium and its seating arrangements. We then were asked about various season ticket pricing, with PSLs that could be financed interest-free over 3 years prior to the stadium being opened OR with interest for 10 years. The tickets seem to be priced to sell and began, I think, at $65 per seat. The PSLs, as I recall, started at $650 and went upwards from that. Of course, it was the combinations that mattered -- $65 tickets ($650 for 10 games) + $1,000 PSL for a total outlay of $1,650 (with no interest) per seat and upwards to (I really can't remember the highest seat ticket, but I'm thinking $95 -- now these aren't club seats or preferred loge or mezzanine or lower level seating; these are upper sideline, upper corners, and upper endzone seats -- and PSLs that I believe had an upper limit of $2500? I tried to go back and check, but I now am locked out because I already used my email, which is the entry code.
The next section asked how likely it would be that we would buy tickets and PSLs at all the various prices and payment options.
Then they wanted to know what other events I would attend were they to be held in the new stadium.
They wanted to know which public financing methods I favored; I, of course, favored all of them because, realistically, even if taxpayers were to fund the new stadium it would wind up costing each citizen of MO, man, woman and child, just $5 per year.
They then wanted comments, and I gave them mine.
A very well-designed survey, in my opinion.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...icials-ready-to-vote-on-stadium-plan-tonight/
Inglewood officials ready to vote on stadium plan tonight
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 24, 2015
AP
Carson’s not the only city in California standing on the gas.
According to the Associated Press, the Inglewood City Council could decide today to approve planswhich could fast-track a $2 billion stadium project headed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
The city council is scheduled to vote on a new redevelopment plan which includes Kroenke’s Hollywood Park site, a procedural move which would allow them to sidestep environmental reviews of noise, traffic and air pollution. Without calling for a public vote, it could hasten the time before a shovel hits the ground.
With Carson officials moving on a plan for a shared stadium in Carson for the Raiders and Chargers, Inglewood officials are apparently ready to start moving.
They could have called for a publc vote on the matter, but with the city council vote, stadium proponents say construction could start before year’s end with the possibility of having the new building ready by 2018.
Either way, it’s a sign the Los Angeles project the league has been working on for decades seems to be gaining steam at the government level.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/24/nfl-apparently-likes-current-l-a-chaos/
NFL apparently likes current L.A. chaos
Posted by Mike Florio on February 24, 2015
AP
The race is on to build a stadium in Los Angeles. Rams owner Stan Kroenke intends to construct a new venue in Inglewood, and the Chargers and Raiders plan to erect a shared facility in Carson. In the wake of last week’s announcement from the teams currently headquartered in San Diego and Oakland, the folks in Inglewood have put the pedal to the metal.
It’s chaos, with a trio of cities plunged into uncertainty regarding the future of their franchises. And the NFL seems to relish the chaos, since it apparently will lead to a solution to the 20-year-old L.A. problem.
“In my opinion, the most important thing represented by the recently announced club-driven initiatives, is that the options available to present a viable L.A. solution have increased,” executive V.P. of NFL ventures and business operations Eric Grubman recently told the media company the NFL owns. “No project is certain until all the issues have been worked out, and the owners have voted to move forward, but two potentially viable projects pushing ahead increases the probability that something could get done.”
For years, it’s been believed that the NFL would wait to return to Los Angeles until a pair of viable, competing projects emerged, since the two projects could then be leveraged against each other to secure the best terms for the NFL and its teams. While the well of taxpayer money and other public perks apparently has gone dry, the current atmosphere of competition between Inglewood and Carson at a time when the NFL now views L.A. as a necessity not a luxury means that something will likely get done without the NFL sacrificing too much to make it happen.
The real question is whether the league office is working behind the scenes with the three teams to engineer an eventual solution, or whether the Commissioner and his lieutenants have opted to allow the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams to battle it out via their competing projects to determine a winner.
Some believe that the Chargers and Raiders are better positioned to win the contest, given the perception/reality that San Diego owner Dean Spanos has superior political connections to Kroenke. Also, some concerns exist about the placement of the Inglewood venue in the landing path at LAX. While airplane traffic is a reality at facilities like MetLife Stadium, the FAA and the Department of Homeland Security surely would prefer not having a Super Bowl being played adjacent to the path on which international flights are arriving in Los Angeles.
Regardless, the NFL doesn’t seem to be inclined to clunk heads just yet, because the chaos arising from the L.A. chase could be the only thing that ultimately gets one or two franchises to the finish line.
Inglewood officials ready to vote on stadium plan tonight
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 24, 2015
Carson’s not the only city in California standing on the gas.
According to the Associated Press, the Inglewood City Council could decide today to approve planswhich could fast-track a $2 billion stadium project headed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
The city council is scheduled to vote on a new redevelopment plan which includes Kroenke’s Hollywood Park site, a procedural move which would allow them to sidestep environmental reviews of noise, traffic and air pollution. Without calling for a public vote, it could hasten the time before a shovel hits the ground.
With Carson officials moving on a plan for a shared stadium in Carson for the Raiders and Chargers, Inglewood officials are apparently ready to start moving.
They could have called for a publc vote on the matter, but with the city council vote, stadium proponents say construction could start before year’s end with the possibility of having the new building ready by 2018.
Either way, it’s a sign the Los Angeles project the league has been working on for decades seems to be gaining steam at the government level.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/24/nfl-apparently-likes-current-l-a-chaos/
NFL apparently likes current L.A. chaos
Posted by Mike Florio on February 24, 2015
The race is on to build a stadium in Los Angeles. Rams owner Stan Kroenke intends to construct a new venue in Inglewood, and the Chargers and Raiders plan to erect a shared facility in Carson. In the wake of last week’s announcement from the teams currently headquartered in San Diego and Oakland, the folks in Inglewood have put the pedal to the metal.
It’s chaos, with a trio of cities plunged into uncertainty regarding the future of their franchises. And the NFL seems to relish the chaos, since it apparently will lead to a solution to the 20-year-old L.A. problem.
“In my opinion, the most important thing represented by the recently announced club-driven initiatives, is that the options available to present a viable L.A. solution have increased,” executive V.P. of NFL ventures and business operations Eric Grubman recently told the media company the NFL owns. “No project is certain until all the issues have been worked out, and the owners have voted to move forward, but two potentially viable projects pushing ahead increases the probability that something could get done.”
For years, it’s been believed that the NFL would wait to return to Los Angeles until a pair of viable, competing projects emerged, since the two projects could then be leveraged against each other to secure the best terms for the NFL and its teams. While the well of taxpayer money and other public perks apparently has gone dry, the current atmosphere of competition between Inglewood and Carson at a time when the NFL now views L.A. as a necessity not a luxury means that something will likely get done without the NFL sacrificing too much to make it happen.
The real question is whether the league office is working behind the scenes with the three teams to engineer an eventual solution, or whether the Commissioner and his lieutenants have opted to allow the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams to battle it out via their competing projects to determine a winner.
Some believe that the Chargers and Raiders are better positioned to win the contest, given the perception/reality that San Diego owner Dean Spanos has superior political connections to Kroenke. Also, some concerns exist about the placement of the Inglewood venue in the landing path at LAX. While airplane traffic is a reality at facilities like MetLife Stadium, the FAA and the Department of Homeland Security surely would prefer not having a Super Bowl being played adjacent to the path on which international flights are arriving in Los Angeles.
Regardless, the NFL doesn’t seem to be inclined to clunk heads just yet, because the chaos arising from the L.A. chase could be the only thing that ultimately gets one or two franchises to the finish line.
A quote from five years ago is better than one that never existed (that he wants/intends to move).
Leigh Steinberg talked to Kevin Wheeler to talk about the Rams, Chargers, and Raiders in LA, why this is a dangerous game to play, why he is for teams staying in their current markets, why the NFL doesn’t want to expand again, and how athletics has changed from an agents standpoint.
Listen to Steinberg Interview
Listen to Steinberg Interview
Well then you are likely to be disappointed. Stan is known as silent Stan for a reason. And he was called that long before he bought the Rams.
Again - Stan has a far better history as being honest in his dealings than either Spanos or Davis so I'll take silence over what comes out of those pie holes.
Did Florio do ANY research for his article?http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...icials-ready-to-vote-on-stadium-plan-tonight/
Inglewood officials ready to vote on stadium plan tonight
Posted by Darin Gantt on February 24, 2015
AP
Carson’s not the only city in California standing on the gas.
According to the Associated Press, the Inglewood City Council could decide today to approve planswhich could fast-track a $2 billion stadium project headed by Rams owner Stan Kroenke.
The city council is scheduled to vote on a new redevelopment plan which includes Kroenke’s Hollywood Park site, a procedural move which would allow them to sidestep environmental reviews of noise, traffic and air pollution. Without calling for a public vote, it could hasten the time before a shovel hits the ground.
With Carson officials moving on a plan for a shared stadium in Carson for the Raiders and Chargers, Inglewood officials are apparently ready to start moving.
They could have called for a publc vote on the matter, but with the city council vote, stadium proponents say construction could start before year’s end with the possibility of having the new building ready by 2018.
Either way, it’s a sign the Los Angeles project the league has been working on for decades seems to be gaining steam at the government level.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/02/24/nfl-apparently-likes-current-l-a-chaos/
NFL apparently likes current L.A. chaos
Posted by Mike Florio on February 24, 2015
AP
The race is on to build a stadium in Los Angeles. Rams owner Stan Kroenke intends to construct a new venue in Inglewood, and the Chargers and Raiders plan to erect a shared facility in Carson. In the wake of last week’s announcement from the teams currently headquartered in San Diego and Oakland, the folks in Inglewood have put the pedal to the metal.
It’s chaos, with a trio of cities plunged into uncertainty regarding the future of their franchises. And the NFL seems to relish the chaos, since it apparently will lead to a solution to the 20-year-old L.A. problem.
“In my opinion, the most important thing represented by the recently announced club-driven initiatives, is that the options available to present a viable L.A. solution have increased,” executive V.P. of NFL ventures and business operations Eric Grubman recently told the media company the NFL owns. “No project is certain until all the issues have been worked out, and the owners have voted to move forward, but two potentially viable projects pushing ahead increases the probability that something could get done.”
For years, it’s been believed that the NFL would wait to return to Los Angeles until a pair of viable, competing projects emerged, since the two projects could then be leveraged against each other to secure the best terms for the NFL and its teams. While the well of taxpayer money and other public perks apparently has gone dry, the current atmosphere of competition between Inglewood and Carson at a time when the NFL now views L.A. as a necessity not a luxury means that something will likely get done without the NFL sacrificing too much to make it happen.
The real question is whether the league office is working behind the scenes with the three teams to engineer an eventual solution, or whether the Commissioner and his lieutenants have opted to allow the Chargers, Raiders, and Rams to battle it out via their competing projects to determine a winner.
Some believe that the Chargers and Raiders are better positioned to win the contest, given the perception/reality that San Diego owner Dean Spanos has superior political connections to Kroenke. Also, some concerns exist about the placement of the Inglewood venue in the landing path at LAX. While airplane traffic is a reality at facilities like MetLife Stadium, the FAA and the Department of Homeland Security surely would prefer not having a Super Bowl being played adjacent to the path on which international flights are arriving in Los Angeles.
Regardless, the NFL doesn’t seem to be inclined to clunk heads just yet, because the chaos arising from the L.A. chase could be the only thing that ultimately gets one or two franchises to the finish line.
No... Bernie and the rest of the media don't know what Stan wants. That means zero in regards to what the actual players in this thing know. Stan doesn't subscribe to discussing plans and negotiations through the media. That much we know. I would hazard to guess that the other parties in all this have been asked to use the same MO.
And Bernie telling Stan what he should be doing?
- Status