Inglewood stadium construction begins, sort of

Getty Images

While the football stadium Stan Kroenke owns continues to reside in St. Louis, the football stadium he intends to own in Los Angeles has begun to be built.  Sort of.

Per David Hunn of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, earth is being moved at the site of the now-closed Hollywood Park in Inglewood, California.  City officials have a simple philosophy.

“This is ‘Field of Dreams’ stuff,” Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts told Hunn.   “Build it and they will come.”

So who’s they?  The most obvious candidate at this point is the Rams.

“If you have the most modern, the most beautiful NFL stadium in the world, you’re not going to have any problem populating it,” Butts said.  “If the NFL wants to migrate here, we would welcome it.”

Kroenke obviously wants to migrate the Rams to the new stadium, a relocation that could happen as soon as 2016.  Even without 23 other owners approving the move, Kroenke could move the team and force his partners to try to stop him.

Relocating the Rams or another NFL isn’t the only hurdle.  Rezoning is needed to permit a football stadium to be constructed, through vote of the City Council or a public ballot.  But for a town that already has lost the Lakers and Kings to downtown L.A., that should be the easiest part of the project.

25 responses to “Inglewood stadium construction begins, sort of

  1. Wait a second, hasn’t St. Louis set up a shiny new last minute stadium “task force” to save the day?

  2. In a related story, the Mayor’s better known brother Seymour was hosting tryouts for “Cheerleaders: Up and Cumming” in downtown Inglewood.

  3. It ain’t happening.

    It’s a ruse to drain tax payers wallets.

    1/3 of the NFL teams were going to move to LA since a team left LA.

    It’s the same threat … An empty LA market has built stadiums all over the US.

  4. The Colts’ future home was being built in Indy while the team was in talks with Baltimore and Maryland over a new stadium or improvements to the old stadium….. Of course Irsay had no idea that he would be moving his team there.

  5. They’ve been moving dirt there for a few months now, preparing for retail shops and such. They have started building any stadium. Started building a Wal Mart is what this article should be about.

  6. Ridiculous. The fact that tax payers are strong armed into paying for these money factories is nothing short of criminal. At least this slug seems willing to finance his extortion business himself.

  7. Hey aljack, I hate to break it to you, but Maryland and Baltimore are one in the same.. Baltimore is a city in MD, naming one would have been sufficient. No need to say “they were in talks with Baltimore AND Maryland”. Just sounds redundant.

  8. “While the football stadium Stan Kroenke owns continues to reside in St. Louis”,

    ***********************************

    Umm, Stan Kroenke doesn’t own a stadium that resides in St. Louis.

  9. re:
    “Hey aljack, I hate to break it to you, but Maryland and Baltimore are one in the same.. Baltimore is a city in MD, naming one would have been sufficient. No need to say “they were in talks with Baltimore AND Maryland”. Just sounds redundant.”

    ========================================

    Mitch:

    You don’t understand that there are three Marylands: (1) Baltimore City, (2) DC suburbs (i.e. Redskins territory), and (3) all the rest of us who have to subsidize (1) and (2).

    FYI: Talks with the City of Baltimore were fruitless, because the City was broke (and still is, without considering State bailout $$). The Redskins supporting portion of the State could care less — Jack Kent Crook actually coveted taking the entire State for himself, including planning a 3rd ring of suites at his bogus Laurel stadium for Baltimore businesses. The remainder of the State of Maryland wasn’t about to support paying for a stadium in Baltimore suburb, i.e. yet another example of income redistribution which is so prevalent here.

    btw: good for Inglewood. It takes balls to move out on a billion dollar project like the new Rams stadium. It will be interesting to see how it plays out with San Diego reparations and seeing the Raiders either recapture their former LA market as an Inglewood tenant, or move to Santa Clara or San Antonio. Or even London.

  10. babygaga19 says:
    Feb 8, 2015 4:46 PM
    The Raiders will be there. They are always looking for a new gig. Their city and fans wont support them because they are so irreprehensibly bad1

    9 37
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Folks don’t like the truth. The Raiders have the worst record in the NFL for the past 11 seasons.

    Oh, as for attendance, here is how the Raiders have done in those past 11 seasons…

    2014 31st out of 32
    2013 LAST
    2012 LAST
    2011 29th
    2010 LAST
    2009 LAST (how bout some perspective – The Cowboys drew over 718K fans to the Raiders 354K fans – OUCH)
    2008 31st
    2007 30th
    2006 30th

    Uh, you get the picture. So whether one likes it or not, it is a FACT that they are bad and their fans do NOT support them.

    The Jags outdraw the Raiders. And that’s even with the tarp over the upper sections of the Jags stadium…

    So Raiders fans… Why aren’t you going to the games?

    Guess folks don’t like having the MOST losses over the past decade plus in the league…

  11. Raiders will be in a position of moving into 49ers stadium or moving in the Rams. What a joke of a franchise, they should just be dissolved.

  12. I wouldn’t know what to do if my team relocated I would be so mad. I’m pulling for ya St. Louis!

  13. I’d like the Raiders to stay in Oakland but if they must move then they’d be better off in San Antonio, Portland or ANYWHERE ELSE besides La-La land. There’s a reason why no team has wanted to touch that market in 20+ years and if the Raiders go back to L.A. then it would be a classic case of repeating the same mistake and expecting a different result (ie. insanity).

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!