duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

Speaking of Demoff, here's the latest bit of not really info, but kinda. I'd be curious to hear the actual questions he's responding to. Based on the little context that exists, it seems that he's (vaguely) allowed for the first time that the Rams are at least keeping aware of their options in LA. (Given that they cite a radio interview, I can probably find the context, just need to track it down.)

That by no means seems to be his takeaway, but it's an interesting nugget. I think the main take away is let's see what the stadium task force presents in 3 weeks.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/12/14/rams-c-o-o-says-bigger-picture-will-develop-soon/#.VI4Lrr3EdkI.facebook

Obviously, we have a deadline that’s been reported of January 28th, where we have to notify the city of going year-to-year on the (Edward Jones Dome) lease. I think it’s pretty much a given that we’ll go year-to-year on the lease,” Kevin Demoff told KMOX’s Mike Kelly on his “Sports on a Sunday Morning” show.

Demoff said the Rams front office wants to see what type of new St. Louis stadium plan Governor Nixon’s appointed task force announces next month, “Dave Peacock (task force co-chair) and his group have been hard at work. We’re obviously curious to see what they’ve been up to and get a sense of how that project’s viewed locally. We’ll have to know our options elsewhere. But, I think over the next month or two months you’ll start to see a bigger picture develop.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't it be said that the city and/or Kroenke would be more willing to put their money into a stadium, as well as signing a new long-term lease, if they knew fans coming to games weren't an issue?

Yeah it could be said. And I'm sure it will be said. But it's probably not reality is all.

And just to reiterate something I've shared in the past. The Rams have PUBLICLY absolved fans from blame for the attendance woes. They've repeatedly stated that they know it's their fault that the building isn't full because they've put forth a bad product for many years.

So if the Rams admit it's not the fans fault, what's left to be said?

Well, we can't say "the Rams haven't made any overtures to St. Louis", that's for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting read from the NY Times on the unlikelihood of an LA team in 2015. I've quoted just the part most pertaining to the Rams, but there's more there.

It may be nothing, but it does sound a little weird that the St. Louis stadium task force met with the NFL LA point person to discuss the proposal(s). One way to read that could be that Kroenke really isn't being very receptive but St. Louis is trying to make sure the league knows it's trying.

Or maybe Kroenke has been/will be seeing more as well and this isn't that abnormal during NFL stadium negotiations. No clue.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/15/sports/football/with-no-stadium-on-horizon-chances-dim-for-a-move-to-los-angeles-in-2015-.html?ref=sports&_r=0

At various points, the Rams have been considered front-runners to move to Southern California, in part because the team’s owner, Stan Kroenke, bought a large plot of land in Inglewood where, in theory, he could build his own stadium.

The Rams were unable to reach an agreement with the regional sports authority in St. Louis to refurbish the Edward Jones Dome, the team’s current home.

But before Thanksgiving, Dave Peacock, the chairman of the St. Louis Sports Commission and a former chief executive of Anheuser-Busch, met at the N.F.L.’s headquarters with Eric Grubman, the league’s point man on Los Angeles.

Peacock shared with Grubman preliminary plans for a stadium near the Mississippi River and north of the Gateway Arch in St. Louis, as well as ideas for other potential sites, according to several people with knowledge of their meeting.

Peacock and other business leaders were appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon of Missouri to come up with plans for a new Rams stadium in St. Louis by the end of January.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It will be interesting. The timeline is so very short - just days between that plan being presented and the window to approve a relocation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically, all St. Louis has to do is make a minimal good-faith effort and that's enough to deny a relocation? They're probably not moving yet, then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. I think the league just wants to see the stadium plan they're working on first before letting the Rams commit to leave. Whether or not they'd ever make Kroenke stay. Bad PR not even to listen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement from the Chargers:

On February 1st of every year since 2007, the Chargers have been eligible to terminate the team’s lease for Qualcomm Stadium. And each year since 2007, the Chargers have announced that the team will not exercise the termination clause and instead continue to work toward a permanent stadium solution in San Diego.

Today, the Chargers are making the same announcement that the team has made each year since 2007: The team will not be exercising the lease termination clause and will keep working to find a publicly acceptable way to build a Super-Bowl quality stadium in San Diego. Calendar year 2015 will constitute the team’s fourteenth year of work on a San Diego stadium solution.

So no LA Chargers just yet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Chargers have announced that they are NOT terminating their lease. So they will be in San Diego in 2015 for sure.

Some media are suggesting this means LA will likely not have any team in 2015.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to put too fine a point on it but you seemed a lot more laissez-faire about the NFL leaving before the Rams won back-to-back shutouts.

Also, I can't use that figure of speech without singing "say I'm the only bee in your bonnet." Thanks, They Might Be Giants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to put too fine a point on it but you seemed a lot more laissez-faire about the NFL leaving before the Rams won back-to-back shutouts.

I think you'll also find it tracks with the rumors and developments. There was a lot suggesting the Rams were gone, and nothing emerging to suggest there was anything in the works to keep them.

But I've also slowly tracked back towards the Rams in general. It's not just that they're a relatively formidable team now, it's just that it's hard to give the boot to something you attached yourself to for so long. I was done with the NFL, but I couldn't resist sneaking the Rams games in (even when they stunk), and eventually I stopped sneaking and just accepted that I'm still a Rams fan.

The NFL can still shove it, though. And while I will admit again that I'd prefer the Rams stay, I'd easily rationalize it as a good thing as I could finally kick a bad league to the curb.

And the other reason I want the Rams to say is so that I'm right. ;) (I'm not even kidding, lol. Just being playfully honest.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not directly related to any one city in this discussion, but notable none the less.

League Approves Record Debt for Falcons

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/12/16/league-approves-record-debt-for-falcons/

Basically, the cost of the Falcons stadium has gone up from $1 billion to $1.2b now to $1.4b, and the Falcons are having to go deep into debt to finance it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement from the Chargers:

On February 1st of every year since 2007, the Chargers have been eligible to terminate the team’s lease for Qualcomm Stadium. And each year since 2007, the Chargers have announced that the team will not exercise the termination clause and instead continue to work toward a permanent stadium solution in San Diego.

Today, the Chargers are making the same announcement that the team has made each year since 2007: The team will not be exercising the lease termination clause and will keep working to find a publicly acceptable way to build a Super-Bowl quality stadium in San Diego. Calendar year 2015 will constitute the team’s fourteenth year of work on a San Diego stadium solution.

So no LA Chargers just yet

Seems like no LA Chargers ever. If Spanos wanted that to happen he's had ample opportunity. He genuinely seems to want to stay in San Diego. Never threatens to leave for LA, and never makes a move in that direction, arguably to his own detriment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while you're at it, leave a nightlight on inside the birdhouse in your soul.

I'm your only friend, I'm not your only friend, but I'm a little glowing friend, but really I'm not actually your friend, but I am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Christ's sake, would a mod please step in and address this?

Getting back on track, there's something everyone needs to keep in mind here. The NFL's purpose in having relocation guidelines, no matter how construed, is not to restrict relocation. It's to give the NFL legal cover in its effort to avoid another anti-trust lawsuit. There's no team which, under the right circumstances, couldn't move to LA. None. It'd just be a matter of making a deal satisfactory to avoid litigation out the wazoo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statement from the Chargers:

On February 1st of every year since 2007, the Chargers have been eligible to terminate the teams lease for Qualcomm Stadium. And each year since 2007, the Chargers have announced that the team will not exercise the termination clause and instead continue to work toward a permanent stadium solution in San Diego.

Today, the Chargers are making the same announcement that the team has made each year since 2007: The team will not be exercising the lease termination clause and will keep working to find a publicly acceptable way to build a Super-Bowl quality stadium in San Diego. Calendar year 2015 will constitute the teams fourteenth year of work on a San Diego stadium solution.

So no LA Chargers just yet

Meh. Unless Spanos and the city government get their collective :censored: together and hammer out a deal, it's just going to be another year of uncertainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spano does seem to genuinely want to stay in San Diego. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll never move them. Right now it appears no other teams move is imminent, and so he's not going to rush out of SD, that's for sure.

Bernie Miklasz provides some more details on the stadium situation in St. Louis: http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-rams-move-unlikely-for/article_90b910cd-bebd-5069-804c-1c845cd7109d.html

Here's the basic points, but it's worth reading the whole things.

• Miklasz confirms the NYT report that the Rams met with NFL EVP Eric Grubman in New York last week and presented a preliminary stadium plan along with additional stadium site possibilities.

• Dave Peacock also met with high-level Rams execs (but not Kroenke who was later briefed) and discussed the progress, stadium sites, and stadium funding possibilities.

• Grubman was also in St. Louis for last Thursday's game and talked with Peacock and the Rams.

• Governor Nixon may address the situation in the coming days to suggest progress, and then again after the season to present the actual proposal.

• While in NY, Peacock also met with MLS Commissioner Don Garber to discuss the possibility of the new football stadium doubling as an MLS Stadium.

Share this post


Link to post
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.