New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Username]

Her taking a dig at my cities fan base is basically "an attack" on me btw. I don't really care if she wants to do that. It's a free country, and I'm a big boy, but if she wants to do that allow me to respond to her.

 

[Goose]

And AB stood in the way of all that? Craft breweries, sure, although one could make a good case that 2000 plus people making a minimum of around $30 an hour with paid health care was much more valuable to the city then some craft breweries. Have you seen what they pay and employ? Not much. The others really don't do anything but benefit beer sales so why would they be against those?
And, more on topic, why on earth would they be against a new stadium?

Blue I am talking about general city development. St. Louis has been stuck in neutral for years due to old money. The Busch family played a big role in why Walt Disney never built a theme park downtown, why the Browns left St. Louis of Baltimore, and why the AZ Cardinals couldn't get a football only stadium built downtown. AB was a safety blank for too many people. When AB was sold it loosed the grip some of those with influence have had and others realized that we need more the just AB for this City to survive. We are finally starting to see change and the City is starting to evolve. Young professionals are starting to move back towards the City. This Stadium is going to be a nice part of this change. Some of the conversations that I have had about the city and it's politics make me sick because people who shouldn't care make a big deal to stop change. Over the past couple of years the scales are tipping and we are see advancement.

 

[Username]

....and once name-calling is aloud..., well we've all seen what happens to those forums....

What name did I exactly call her?

 

[blue4]

Blue I am talking about general city development. St. Louis has been stuck in neutral for years due to old money. The Busch family played a big role in why Walt Disney never built a theme park downtown, why the Browns left St. Louis of Baltimore, and why the AZ Cardinals couldn't get a football only stadium built downtown. AB was a safety blank for too many people. When AB was sold it loosed the grip some of those with influence have had and others realized that we need more the just AB for this City to survive. We are finally starting to see change and the City is starting to evolve. Young professionals are starting to move back towards the City. This Stadium is going to be a nice part of this change. Some of the conversations that I have had about the city and it's politics make me sick because people who shouldn't care make a big deal to stop change. Over the past couple of years the scales are tipping and we are see advancement.

We'll just have to disagree completely.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I doubt that - especially since Peacock has been saying Kroenke was initially unresponsive and turned to the NFL for guidance - it was only after that we started hearing about Rams input

Unresponsive is better than "This plan sucks, it's not even close, try again." Sometimes no answer can be better than answer. It's actually a good thing he didn't respond, because it didn't kill the project.

m not saying they're not trying - just to the level of effort. I don't think anyone would deny out of the 3 St.Louis is the most aggressive in getting a deal done - and by far in the shortest time span compared to the others.. That's what i'm talking about

ask yourself - out of the 3 cities who seems the most aggressive in building a stadium? and yes timeline/history is important...

kroenke - about to enter first year to year lease

chargers and oakland - much longer on year to year lease

I don't disagree that St Louis hasn't been the most aggressive, what I'm saying is that that all three owners have more or less done the same thing in terms of working for a new home, and the lack of progress isn't simply because San Diego or Oakland don't care or anything like that. None of the three have made any "real" proposals that had a good chance to get done. The length of time, while seemingly significant to you or I, likely wont mean much to them, because nobody has done any real negotiating. All three cities have talked about issues and new there were going to be issues for years, and all three decided recently to start actually doing something about it. There have been times where all three teams have done something to make it easier for the city to get things done, and nothing really came of it. I'm hesitant to say than any of the three cities are in the "lead" because they all need to figure out their financing, and ultimately they all require final say from the owner. If the owners don't say "Yes" then there's nothing they can do, unless they privately fund the entire thing.

 

[8to12]

It is true, but the ball is firmly in STL's court right now, but Stan's asking price is still high

"Stan's asking price is still high" ?? Can you tell me what this means? As far as I know Stan hasn't had any communication with anyone in St Louis about a new Stadium.

St Louis has has no financing for a new stadium yet they are in the drivers seat? Sorry, not getting it......

 

[mr.stlouis]

"Stan's asking price is still high" ?? Can you tell me what this means? As far as I know Stan hasn't had any communication with anyone in St Louis about a new Stadium.

St Louis has has no financing for a new stadium yet they are in the drivers seat? Sorry, not getting it......

He wants a free ride or better than when he first came. That's what he got when he first came. But so far that's not the case. They will both compromise in the end and all will be good. That's how these things work but typically toward the end of the deadline.

I can tell you this, though. He sure didn't file for relocation like several thought he would this year. And the ends and outs will be finished before March 2016 next year, too. That's how it's going to play out.

And to say Kroneke has not had input on the new stadium is false. The Rams have had input and adjustments have been made accordingly. Kroneke does not have to be in direct contact if he doesn't have to be in these early stages. He pays people around him to do the tedious detailing and they relay back to him. He's a very busy guy with many projects. It's not that he doesn't care, it's just how he wants to handle it. He doesn't want his golden phone going off every time Peacock needs something. That's what Demoff is for.

 

[tonyl711]

Missouri Native.... who when bought the team pledged he would do everything he could to keep the Rams in St.Louis, noted his part in bringing the team to St.Louis, and suggested that "my actions should speak for themselves"

don't confuse it with actual quotes, lol

 

[BuiltRamTough]

ESPN The Magazine’s David Fleming, who just wrote an in-depth piece on Rams Owner Stan Kroenke and his relationship with St. Louis, joined The Wendy’s Big Show on Friday. Fleming discussed what he learned during the reporting process, the story behind Kroenke and how he got to where he is today.

Listen to Fleming Talk Kroenke

At the end of the Fleming interview the guy said if he has to pick what will happen he said the Rams will be in LA. That's the bottom line. The rest of him talking is just radio time

 

[brokeu91]

Her taking a dig at my cities fan base is basically "an attack" on me btw. I don't really care if she wants to do that. It's a free country, and I'm a big boy, but if she wants to do that allow me to respond to her.

I totally agree here. I don't live in St. Louis but I grew up there. Anyone who says that they don't care about the Rams has no idea what they're talking about. The few seasons that they happened to be good, the city was totally stoked over them. TOTALLY. Only the Cardinals could come close to touching that, and even then during those years the Rams were more popular.

Trust me when I say if any team is more popular in St. Louis than the Cardinals then that's saying something. The Cardinals are to St. Louis what the Packers are to Green Bay, what the Redwings are to Detroit and what the Cubs are to drunk, privileged, North Side of Chicago frat boys. And the Rams were more popular than the Cardinals for a few years there. Think about that for a second when you trash the Rams fans in St. Louis.

 

[8to12]

He wants a free ride or better than when he first came. That's what he got when he first came. But so far that's not the case. They will both compromise in the end and all will be good. That's how these things work but typically toward the end of the deadline.

I can tell you this, though. He sure didn't file for relocation like several thought he would this year. And the ends and outs will be finished before March 2016 next year, too. That's how it's going to play out.

And to say Kroneke has not had input on the new stadium is false. The Rams have had input and adjustments have been made accordingly. Kroneke does not have to be in direct contact if he doesn't have to be in these early stages. He pays people around him to do the tedious detailing and they relay back to him. He's a very busy guy with many projects. It's not that he doesn't care, it's just how he wants to handle it. He doesn't want his golden phone going off every time Peacock needs something. That's what Demoff is for.

" He wants a free ride or better" .... and you know this how? There is nothing on record of him ever saying that he wants anything in particular out of St Louis.

"Deadline" ??? A deadline for what?

Maybe Stan didn't file for relocation because he plans to play by the leagues guidelines? And, if the Rams are playing per the leagues wishes, Demoff's inclusion on the meetings regarding a potential new St Louis Stadium could be just a PR stunt to at least make them appear to be interested. Do I Know this for sure? no. But then again I'm not the one posting that "I know" that the Inglewood project is not going to happen and is only being used as leverage.

 

[mr.stlouis]

" He wants a free ride or better" .... and you know this how? There is nothing on record of him ever saying that he wants anything in particular out of St Louis.

"Deadline" ??? A deadline for what?

Maybe Stan didn't file for relocation because he plans to play by the leagues guidelines? And, if the Rams are playing per the leagues wishes, Demoff's inclusion on the meetings regarding a potential new St Louis Stadium could be just a PR stunt to at least make them appear to be interested. Do I Know this for sure? no. But then again I'm not the one posting that "I know" that the Inglewood project is not going to happen and is only being used as leverage.

Look dude, I already knew you were gonna mock my take with a "where's the facts??" bogus argument. If we just went off straight facts then we wouldn't get further than pretty pictures on either side. Why is this? Because we are on the outside looking in. Yes, this is my opinion. But I'll give you a nibble if you are looking to bite....

First of all, the track record for using LA for leverage is very telling. All three teams are currently doing it.

Stan's intentions are on record. He's an honorable, MO, guy. There is no doubt he is "looking" into LA, but he never linked the Rams there. That's speculation that will not have any consequence for being wrong when everybody shows their cards. Pitty...

Facts are Peacock has said that he has been told by other owners that STL controls its own destiny if they keep checking the appropriate boxes. So far they have but there's a long road ahead. It's a process. And it's safe to say Kroneke is looking for the best deal but within the league rules. Fact is the league controls the LA market and Stan will play ball accordingly. (See SEA when it tried to go to LA.)

Facts are the NFL is on record stating it doesn't want any team to move and relocating is an absolute last step. Why? Because it's preference of on the situation is to get expansion teams and pull in all kinds of new money in the other market.

And if the MLS agrees to the joint Riverfront stadium, that will be a big player in the Riverfront negotiations. The city of STL and the state of MO would be blatantly foolish to let this opportunity pass them up.

So you sewing little seeds of doubt is very telling on what you hope plays out. And the word is Stan wants the DEN Broncos so your hand will fold on the spot if he buys that team.

And was there anything overly positive for the LA argument ever since that picture of the pretty pool was released? And was it linked to the Rams?

NFL wants in LA, Stan is a developer of property. It's a great situation for Stan to make money in STL and LA. How's that for connecting the dots?

 

[bluecoconuts]

First of all, the track record for using LA for leverage is very telling. All three teams are currently doing it.

One of the issues is that if this deal falls through, that essentially destroys LA's potential to be used as leverage. How can people take other deals seriously if this can't get done? It's a slam dunk.

Fact is the league controls the LA market and Stan will play ball accordingly. (See SEA when it tried to go to LA.)

The Seahawks trying to move is apples to oranges, the situation was remarkably different on almost every level, it really shouldn't be used for any basis of comparison.

Facts are the NFL is on record stating it doesn't want any team to move and relocating is an absolute last step. Why? Because it's preference of on the situation is to get expansion teams and pull in all kinds of new money in the other market.

NFL is on record saying that they're not looking to expand as well. One has to give, and relocation is more likely than expansion at this point.

And if the MLS agrees to the joint Riverfront stadium, that will be a big player in the Riverfront negotiations. The city of STL and the state of MO would be blatantly foolish to let this opportunity pass them up.

True, but I don't know how that means anything to the NFL? It may help with getting financing in order, but Kroenke wont give a shit about an MLS team, and I don't think the NFL will either.

And the word is Stan wants the DEN Broncos so your hand will fold on the spot if he buys that team.

What? Word from who? Bernie? What does he know? Why would Stan drop any development plan for the potential to maybe buy a team in the future if the owner decides not to keep it in the family as he wants to. I get the Denver connection, but there's nothing that indicates that Kroenke is looking to buy the Broncos.

And was there anything overly positive for the LA argument ever since that picture of the pretty pool was released? And was it linked to the Rams?

Most things that come out of Inglewood get linked to the Rams because Kroenke is bankrolling the stadium, but Kroenke hasn't said he's planning on moving yet. He wont until at minimum next season ends, he's smarter than that.

NFL wants in LA, Stan is a developer of property. It's a great situation for Stan to make money in STL and LA. How's that for connecting the dots?

I don't think the owners would want Kroenke owning a stadium in LA that other teams have to rent from him, while he's in a different market. Similar to the cross town ownership stuff. Plus I don't think other owners would want that either.

 

[mr.stlouis]

One of the issues is that if this deal falls through, that essentially destroys LA's potential to be used as leverage. How can people take other deals seriously if this can't get done? It's a slam dunk.



The Seahawks trying to move is apples to oranges, the situation was remarkably different on almost every level, it really shouldn't be used for any basis of comparison.



NFL is on record saying that they're not looking to expand as well. One has to give, and relocation is more likely than expansion at this point.



True, but I don't know how that means anything to the NFL? It may help with getting financing in order, but Kroenke wont give a crap about an MLS team, and I don't think the NFL will either.



What? Word from who? Bernie? What does he know? Why would Stan drop any development plan for the potential to maybe buy a team in the future if the owner decides not to keep it in the family as he wants to. I get the Denver connection, but there's nothing that indicates that Kroenke is looking to buy the Broncos.



Most things that come out of Inglewood get linked to the Rams because Kroenke is bankrolling the stadium, but Kroenke hasn't said he's planning on moving yet. He wont until at minimum next season ends, he's smarter than that.



I don't think the owners would want Kroenke owning a stadium in LA that other teams have to rent from him, while he's in a different market. Similar to the cross town ownership stuff. Plus I don't think other owners would want that either.

This is an excrutatingly desperate attempt to chalk one up for LA. In my opinion, you lose an incredible amount of credibility by saying SEA and this situation is apples and oranges. That is beyond absurd.

Stan teamed up with a group to potentially build a stadium in LA, I get that. You can bet your last dollar that won't happen without the committment from a team. It's leverage. And it has a better shot of housing two current CA teams if it it beats the odds and is anything more than a means to bleed the MO tax payer.

NFL is not looking to expand until it gets the current teams situated.

NFL is always looking to expand.

Why? Because he wants options. He has put very little money into the LA situation and the leverage it's bringing could bring huge rewards later. He can pull the plug on LA as soon a STL approaches the fisnish line. The same cannot be said for STL. And yes he wants DEN and Peacock stated teams have a higher chance of changing owners than changing cities. Pretty telling, Isn't it?

He wouldn't have to own it, but he can build it and work out the finances in a number of ways. Of course a team would have to be commited, of which there is not. That's why Inglewood is leverage at its finest, a glorified pipe dream.

 

[bluecoconuts]

This is an excrutatingly desperate attempt to chalk one up for LA. In my opinion, you lose an incredible amount of credibility by saying SEA and this situation is apples and oranges. That is beyond absurd.

How are they similar? Seattle had a broke owner who was in the middle of a lease, and up and moved saying that he was worried about earthquakes. The key issue is they were in the middle of a lease with their stadium, he just upped and moved. Rams are free to move, the Seahawks were not. Apples to oranges, trying to compare them is frankly incorrect. So you tell me how it is beyond absurd, tell me where the similarities lie other than Los Angeles.

Stan teamed up with a group to potentially build a stadium in LA, I get that. You can bet your last dollar that won't happen without the committment from a team. It's leverage. And it has a better shot of housing two current CA teams if it it beats the odds and is anything more than a means to bleed the MO tax payer.

They have already said they are going to start building without a team committing to the site. Unlike Carson who said they wont start building until a team signs a 20 year lease. I agree though, building without at least some sort of verbal commitment from a team, even in private, would be crazy. So you can do the math there.

NFL is not looking to expand until it gets the current teams situated.

NFL is always looking to expand.

Where did they say they wanted to expand after all current stadiums were figured out. Thus far the NFL is in no rush to expand, because they currently have a nice even model with teams. Expanding further would mean more than just one new franchise, they need to expand probably 4 more. Is there a market for four more teams? Where do you put them? Does the NFL want to dilute the talent pool that much? I don't know, but they don't seem to be in a major rush to try.

Why? Because he wants options. He has put very little money into the LA situation and the leverage it's bringing could bring huge rewards later. He can pull the plug on LA as soon a STL approaches the fisnish line. The same cannot be said for STL. And yes he wants DEN and Peacock stated teams have a higher chance of changing owners than changing cities. Pretty telling, Isn't it?

I have no doubt that Kroenke wants options, and he has them. He can afford to move anywhere he wants. He has put more money into Los Angeles than he has into St Louis during this current situation (I'm not talking about moving them to St Louis, I'm talking about since he took over as an owner). I agree that he can pull the plug, but that doesn't mean he is going to. I don't know what you mean by the same cannot be said for St Louis. Are you saying that he can't pull the plug on St Louis? He doesn't need to pull the plug on St Louis, because he's the one who needs to plug it in, in the first place and he hasn't done so yet.

Where has he indicated he wants Denver? What does Peacock know about that? Peacock was the president of Anheuser-Busch for two years, but how does that put him in tune for sports ownership. Teams changing owners and teams relocating doesn't mean anything either, there's not even any correlation there. I'm going to say that was a random blip for fan safe and Peacock has no information.

He wouldn't have to own it, but he can build it and work out the finances in a number of ways. Of course a team would have to be commited, of which there is not. That's why Inglewood is leverage at its finest, a glorified pipe dream.

So you want him to build a stadium that he doesn't own for what? Out of the kindness of his heart? I don't see the finances telling him building and let someone else play in it will make him the most money. Especially if he will build it but not own it. Inglewood is being built without a team committing, as I said before.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Every tweet,article or any bit of news that comes out and the people that compose it say that Stan wants to move the Rams to LA or the Rams are the front runners to return to LA or Stan might even go rouge. Jerry Jones says it Art Rooney mentions it about Stan and the Rams. Legit people that have legit NFL sources. But when it comes to Mark Davis and Dean Spanos they don't mention them going rogue. They say they want to stay in their current city. That's telling. Just the idea of Stan going rogue and the threat of him to do so in NFL league circles tells you that's Stans endgame. He REALLY wants to go. Now will he be able to make it happen? I don't know. But just the idea that Stan wants to ultimately stay in STL is false. Only a few people in STL might think that. But if you take the pulse of the entire nation it's clear what they think. So much to even say stan might go rouge if the league says no.

 

[blue4]

Every tweet,article or any bit of news that comes out and the people that compose it say that Stan wants to move the Rams to LA or the Rams are the front runners to return to LA or Stan might even go rouge. Jerry Jones says it Art Rooney mentions it about Stan and the Rams. Legit people that have legit NFL sources. But when it comes to Mark Davis and Dean Spanos they don't mention them going rogue. They say they want to stay in their current city. That's telling. Just the idea of Stan going rogue and the threat of him to do so in NFL league circles tells you that's Stans endgame. He REALLY wants to go. Now will he be able to make it happen? I don't know. But just the idea that Stan wants to ultimately stay in STL is false. Only a few people in STL might think that. But if you take the pulse of the entire nation it's clear what they think. So much to even say stan might go rouge if the league says no.

The pulse of the nation? Bit of a stretch there. I thought we didn't trust the media on this website because they get everything Rams related wrong. They assume that's his end game. That's it.

 

[blue4]

How are they similar? Seattle had a broke owner who was in the middle of a lease, and up and moved saying that he was worried about earthquakes. The key issue is they were in the middle of a lease with their stadium, he just upped and moved. Rams are free to move, the Seahawks were not. Apples to oranges, trying to compare them is frankly incorrect. So you tell me how it is beyond absurd, tell me where the similarities lie other than Los Angeles.



They have already said they are going to start building without a team committing to the site. Unlike Carson who said they wont start building until a team signs a 20 year lease. I agree though, building without at least some sort of verbal commitment from a team, even in private, would be crazy. So you can do the math there.



Where did they say they wanted to expand after all current stadiums were figured out. Thus far the NFL is in no rush to expand, because they currently have a nice even model with teams. Expanding further would mean more than just one new franchise, they need to expand probably 4 more. Is there a market for four more teams? Where do you put them? Does the NFL want to dilute the talent pool that much? I don't know, but they don't seem to be in a major rush to try.



I have no doubt that Kroenke wants options, and he has them. He can afford to move anywhere he wants. He has put more money into Los Angeles than he has into St Louis during this current situation (I'm not talking about moving them to St Louis, I'm talking about since he took over as an owner). I agree that he can pull the plug, but that doesn't mean he is going to. I don't know what you mean by the same cannot be said for St Louis. Are you saying that he can't pull the plug on St Louis? He doesn't need to pull the plug on St Louis, because he's the one who needs to plug it in, in the first place and he hasn't done so yet.

Where has he indicated he wants Denver? What does Peacock know about that? Peacock was the president of Anheuser-Busch for two years, but how does that put him in tune for sports ownership. Teams changing owners and teams relocating doesn't mean anything either, there's not even any correlation there. I'm going to say that was a random blip for fan safe and Peacock has no information.



So you want him to build a stadium that he doesn't own for what? Out of the kindness of his heart? I don't see the finances telling him building and let someone else play in it will make him the most money. Especially if he will build it but not own it. Inglewood is being built without a team committing, as I said before.

Inglewood is being built? When did they start? Seems like it was just a few pages ago we established all that's happened so far is prep work for any kind of building project. When the foundation gets poured then we can assume it's being built.

As for Denver, it's a media theory. So is Stan's "end game." Yet you disbelieve one and totally believe the other? Stan has never once indicated anything. Not one thing.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Inglewood is being built? When did they start? Seems like it was just a few pages ago we established all that's happened so far is prep work for any kind of building project. When the foundation gets poured then we can assume it's being built.

As for Denver, it's a media theory. So is Stan's "end game." Yet you disbelieve one and totally believe the other? Stan has never once indicated anything. Not one thing.

Stan does want to buy the Broncos, that's true. But why is that so bad to you? Can't you just drum up another pipe on how another owner would want to go to LA? It would hold the same merit as your other agenda.


alm: I cleeearly said Inglewood was a glorified pipe dream. I don't know what part of my argument you got confused on. I think that was the end game of me having any desire to talk to you. Please go bother somebody else. I don't enjoy arguing with somebody of whom is not at least of the same depth.

 

[blue4]

Stan does want to buy the Broncos, that's true. But why is that so bad to you? Can't you just drum up another pipe on how another owner would want to go to LA? It would hold the same merit as your other agenda.


alm: I cleeearly said Inglewood was a glorified pipe dream. I don't know what part of my argument you got confused on. I think that was the end game of me having any desire to talk to you. Please go bother somebody else. I don't enjoy arguing with somebody of whom is not at least of the same depth.

I didn't quote you, in fact I wasn't talking to you at all. Perhaps you should get that straight before calling someone out of their depth.