Jump to content

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay


duma

Recommended Posts

Yeah, as I said - no downside. :P

Maybe it's too late now - the story is already written. But back then? When the CVC rejected the Rams' proposal? When the Rams won in arbitration? That was the time to step up and tell their story, and Rams fans chose not to.

As I've been saying for years, fair enough. It's absolutely a legitimate choice. But it was a choice they made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nah. It wasn't a choice made. It was a natural response to the events that created the context of the situation.

And the Rams lies along the way only contributed to it as they (not Kroenke, of course) repeatedly stated that they took blame for the status of the fan base and understood they needed to put forth a better product, and that they only desired to find a great stadium solution in St. Louis.

In retrospect, they were just playing the city. It was important to them that the fans indeed never mustered a big visible show of support. And by saying they understood why and took blame, they only further ensured it would never happen.

By the time their motives were too clear, it was too late. Too late to matter and too late to happen because the fan base was already too demoralize by and skeptical of this franchise to do it.

It's a totally legitimate reaction. But it was never a conscious choice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Dave Kaplan was on San Diego radio this afternoon talking about how there's a growing swell right now "among members of the committee" to only bring 1 team, rather than two - with a number of motives expressed (not wanting to have two clubs simultaneously competing to rouse PSL monies, corporate partnerships, etc. from the same pool; television scheduling and not being able to air the "national broadcast" late game in one of the largest markets because with two LA teams you're guaranteed for one to have a home game weekly and that will likely be a 1:30PST/4:30EST kickoff; not wanting to have two G4 loans out at simultaneously). And if it's only one team moving then Carson ain't happening as they need two teams to even make that remotely work financially.

yeah, duh, NFL owners, DUH

Make sure one team works before you drop a second one in. Do you even business, bro?

If all this is true, then we've solved the riddle, but we've had people report every possible scenario, so who even knows anymore. Watch it be the Jaguars moving outta nowhere.

That guy's mistaken on one thing. There wouldn't be two sets of G4 loans out simultaneously because there will only be one stadium, barring the NFL awarding the Chargers and trying to keep the Rams out, and Kroenke giving them the finger and building his stadium against their wishes. And if Kroenke goes rogue, he's certainly not getting G4 loans to do so.

What you says makes sense. However, everybody in LA is going to jump on the bandwagon of whatever team ends up there first. A second team coming three years later or so would be at a big disadvantage in the market. As I've said previously, I think the only team which could survive being the second entrant would be the Rams, since they have a built-in fanbase of people who rooted for them before they left previously.

Even setting aside that I think the Rams might have a lot early of success in LA, I think they would capture the market well. Try moving the constantly-middling Chargers in a few years later and watch a collective yawn from the Angelinos.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because Dave Kaplan was on San Diego radio this afternoon talking about how there's a growing swell right now "among members of the committee" to only bring 1 team, rather than two - with a number of motives expressed (not wanting to have two clubs simultaneously competing to rouse PSL monies, corporate partnerships, etc. from the same pool; television scheduling and not being able to air the "national broadcast" late game in one of the largest markets because with two LA teams you're guaranteed for one to have a home game weekly and that will likely be a 1:30PST/4:30EST kickoff; not wanting to have two G4 loans out at simultaneously). And if it's only one team moving then Carson ain't happening as they need two teams to even make that remotely work financially.

yeah, duh, NFL owners, DUH

Make sure one team works before you drop a second one in. Do you even business, bro?

If all this is true, then we've solved the riddle, but we've had people report every possible scenario, so who even knows anymore. Watch it be the Jaguars moving outta nowhere.

That guy's mistaken on one thing. There wouldn't be two sets of G4 loans out simultaneously because there will only be one stadium, barring the NFL awarding the Chargers and trying to keep the Rams out, and Kroenke giving them the finger and building his stadium against their wishes. And if Kroenke goes rogue, he's certainly not getting G4 loans to do so.

Is the Carson stadium asking for G4 funding? Kroenke's isn't anyways, right?

If Carson's is and that was the one chosen, then you would have two sets of G4 funding happening because the stadium in St. Louis would be utilizing it. I'm not sure if that's the path the writer was going down or not, though.

I know this is a "the NFL will do whatever it wants to thing," but G4 funding isn't technically available for LA under the current league rules is it? I'm sure they'll do it if they want to, but isn't the whole purpose of the G4 fund to help teams remain in their markets?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the Carson stadium asking for G4 funding? Kroenke's isn't anyways, right?

If Carson's is and that was the one chosen, then you would have two sets of G4 funding happening because the stadium in St. Louis would be utilizing it. I'm not sure if that's the path the writer was going down or not, though.

I know this is a "the NFL will do whatever it wants to thing," but G4 funding isn't technically available for LA under the current league rules is it? I'm sure they'll do it if they want to, but isn't the whole purpose of the G4 fund to help teams remain in their markets?

Sure, the Rams would need G4 loans if they decided to stay in STL. I'm guessing this Kaplan guy didn't think things through in regards to the loans. The only way the league doesn't give out two loans is if the Rams move to LA. If they give the Chargers a loan for a new stadium in LA for either their exclusive use or use with the Raiders, they'd still give the Rams loans for a STL stadium.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the rumor of Kroenke kicking in a few bucks toward a new San Diego stadium to make the Spanos family stfu about their bogus claim to L.A. and stay put.

What's the maximum amount of G4 money that could go toward San Diego?

♫ oh yeah, board goes on, long after the thrill of postin' is gone ♫

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked the rumor of Kroenke kicking in a few bucks toward a new San Diego stadium to make the Spanos family stfu about their bogus claim to L.A. and stay put.

What's the maximum amount of G4 money that could go toward San Diego?

I've never been totally clear on this, but I've always been under the impression the limit to one project is $200-$250 million.

And the program itself appears to be capped based on league revenues. Other factors that come into play are whether there is a public contribution (one is supposedly required), and then there are specific private contributions from the team owner that must be involved to trigger eligibility for G4.

Here's one article. I'm sure there's others out there. And ultimately, I'm sure the NFL will do whatever it chooses.

http://newballpark.org/2013/10/17/the-limits-of-the-nfls-g-4-stadium-loan-program/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too much either way.

This quote from the article is more significant: "Shrewsbury admits there’s still no commitment from any NFL owner – Stan Kroenke or anyone else – to invest $250 million in the plan."

"I did absolutely nothing and it was everything I thought it could be." -Peter Gibbons

RIP Demitra #38

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too much either way.

This quote from the article is more significant: "Shrewsbury admits there’s still no commitment from any NFL owner – Stan Kroenke or anyone else – to invest $250 million in the plan."

Yeah, I was gonna say it was like me clearing out a space in my garage and filling out all the paperwork to buy a BMW without the money to actually buy the car.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help matters that a 50,000 people rally under the Arch would be in the middle of a construction zone.

As much as I'd be happy to nitpick Goth over this stuff, I was going to let that one slide. ;)

Guilty - I haven't been in St. Louis for a while. ;)

But was it a construction zone two years ago? Because that's when it should have started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that's more ruckus than anything. This is all part of the same (the democratic) Governor Nixon vs. (primarily republican) senators issue that's been going on here for a while. And it's not really about the funding of the stadium, it's about not doing something Nixon wants to, not doing something Nixon intends to do on his own (without legislative approval), and as a tertiary reason, not doing something for St. Louis.

(I'm not saying their end goal is entirely wrong, I'm just saying those are their motives, it's not about fiscally responsibility or anything.)

And so basically what you have above is their game of chicken. First these senators tried to pass a law that would have eliminated Nixon's right to extend these bonds on his own, and they were unsuccessful. Then they tried filing a lawsuit. Technically that's still pending, I believe, but some rulings have already been made, and it's largely seen as a lost effort on their part. And so now they're engaging in chicken.

Nixon says he's going to extend bonds, and these senators say that they're not going to allocate the funding to pay them. This would in turn hurt the state's credit rating, and then they'd just point fingers at each other over who's fault that really is. Ultimately, I see Nixon with the upper hand here as I don't think the senate would actually let it get to that point.

I think even they know that's the case, which may be why their approach now is to try to scare any bond purchasers away. But ultimately, I think Nixon does extend the bonds, someone buys them, and the senate begrudgingly pays them off.

Who knows for sure, though. This legislature is capable of doing some pretty stupid things in the name of politics. (And again, just to be clear, I'm not saying that not supporting this stadium is dumb, I'm saying not paying off bond commitments would be dumb.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't help matters that a 50,000 people rally under the Arch would be in the middle of a construction zone.

As much as I'd be happy to nitpick Goth over this stuff, I was going to let that one slide. ;)

Guilty - I haven't been in St. Louis for a while. ;)

But was it a construction zone two years ago? Because that's when it should have started.

Actually, I think it was lol. Maybe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, you got me there. :)

As I said, it's been a while since I've been in your lovely city, but surely there is a park, public square, piazza, common, town green, parking lot or other open space somewhere in the general area which may have proved suitable for a public show of support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of big stuff going on, this should cover some of the bases:

Roggin is saying the NFL has chosen Inglewood, BUT...

AUDIO: Chargers’ Spanos “rolling the dice” on Carson Stadium


According to independent sources, it appears San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos is ready to “roll the dice” on the proposed Carson stadium project. Spanos doesn’t want to be a tenant of Stan Kroenke’s in the St. Louis Rams owner’s proposed Inglewood Hollywoood Park stadium project


NFL writer for the L.A. Daily News, Vincent Bonsignore, joined The Dean on Friday to discuss what this all means for the #NFL2LA and which team(s) will call Los Angeles home.


http://thebeast980.com/2015/09/18/audio-chargers-spanos-rolling-the-dice-on-carson-stadium/

Good listen, I suggest everyone check it out, 13 minutes long.

Armour: Unhappy with prospect of being jilted, NFL fans protest in seats

It's going to be a long, ugly season in Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis. And that's even before they play out the schedule.

While NFL owners study two Los Angeles stadium proposals and try to decide which team, or teams, will get to move into that lucrative market, fans of the Raiders, Chargers and Rams already have given their opinions.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/09/18/oakland-san-diego-st-louis-move-los-angeles/72358584/

Kephart strikes out on Oakland Raiders stadium deal

OAKLAND -- Floyd Kephart is being dropped as Coliseum City developer in a move local leaders hope will speed up and simplify stadium negotiations with both the Oakland A's and Raiders that often seemed to take a back seat to the $4 billion mega-project Kephart championed.


The joint decision by Oakland council members and Alameda County supervisors not to renew Kephart's negotiating rights to the project sets the stage for a flurry of direct stadium talks with the Raiders,


http://www.contracostatimes.com/breaking-news/ci_28840032/kephart-strikes-out-oakland-raiders-stadium-deal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.