St. Louis submits stadium proposal to keep the Rams

Getty Images

At a time when Oakland won’t be submitting one at all, St. Louis has submitted one a day early.

Via Sam Farmer of the Los Angeles Times, St. Louis has filed its final offer with the NFL’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities. The deadline for the three cities who are faced with losing their NFL teams arrives on December 30.

The proposal likely will reflect the terms approved earlier this month by the St. Louis Board of Alderman, a package that includes $150 million in money from the city, more from the state, and an extra $100 million from the league that was wink-nod promised by two members of the league’s L.A. Committee.

The league has bristled at the presumption that another $100 million will come from private contributions, but if the owners are going to keep the Rams in St. Louis, someone will have to come up with the extra cash. Unless 24 owners vote to allow owner Stan Kroenke to move the team, that’s what will have to happen, if a new stadium is going to be built in St. Louis.

A vote (or, more likely, a series of them) on potential relocation is expected on January 13. No one knows what will happen, but future efforts to build stadiums with public money will be undermined if the NFL refuses to move forward with the proposal St. Louis has provided, since St. Louis is willing to make a major contribution of taxpayer funds at a time when few communities are inclined to do it.

Other communities will be even less inclined to do it if the NFL tells St. Louis politicians, “Thanks for trying. It’s not good enough. See ya.”

112 responses to “St. Louis submits stadium proposal to keep the Rams

  1. As long as cities keep caving like this then the ridiculous pan-handling by billionaire owners will continue.

  2. 100 million won’t even pay for the concrete. No way they are going to block a guy who will take a team from flyover St. Louis to la and pay for a new stadium entirely on his dime

  3. Don’t forget that the Aldermen specified that Kroenke will be on the hook for cost overruns on a project that he doesn’t even control.

    The stadium plan is lacking, the financing is lacking, the market is lacking and the team wants to use their OWN money to build elsewhere. Other than that it sounds wonderful

  4. Gotta love how most people in this country vilanize poor people for receiving “handouts” but say nothing about welfare for billionaires.

  5. At least I hope there is a provision that no home games are played outside the states. I don’t think though that the politicians running the show are smart enough to figure that one out.

  6. It appears to be a numbers game at this point. You have 3 teams going for a maximum of 2 spots in LA. 2 of those three teams have no stadium proposals to give to the NFL per their deadline and one team does. Stan Kroenke was rebuked by Dean Spanos when offered to team up with him and Mark Davis made it clear he was partnered with the Chargers. If they don’t choose Saint Louis to stay in its market than that sends a terrible message to other teams and cities…especially when the LA market is taken and the NFL has no leverage to ask for public money of other cities needing stadiums.

  7. I live in california and would much rather help with my tax dollars to keep the raiders in oakland than to help finance an able bodied person collecting a check for having babies. I enjoy… no LOVE football. I agree owners should pony up more money for their stadiums. But the fact of the matter is my tax dollars as it stands now are not generating any revenue at least if it goes to a football stadium revenue will be earned and put back into the community like with jobs hotels people coming from all over spending in resturants vacation type money.

  8. No, the message is you (i.e., St. Louis) should have carried out the upgrade of the EJ Dome per the Arbitrator’s decision and in keeping with the lease agreement. Instead, you thumbed your nose at a native son (i.e., Kroenke) at the time, which put in motion his plans to move.

    Kroenke has come too far with his LA proposal to turn back now. Dirt has been moving at the Inglewood site for a year now. The head engineer is ready to go full steam ahead in less than three weeks. Kroenke isn’t doing all this for just another strip mall in L.A. The stadium is the necessary centerpiece to the Inglewood plan. Kroenke has the money, will, and quite frankly, the facts on his side to get it done.

    So, the key takeaway from this is: if you have a contractual obligation (i.e., St. Louis), then carry it out or lose your team.

  9. Good for St. Louis. Kroenke has no mid or long term interest in St. Louis anyway. And it’s pretty clear he’d flip the LA deal as soon as the Broncos come up for sale anyway. Same would be true if he stayed in St. Louis. So if the city is going to have to work with a new owner in a few years, no need to sweeten the deal now.

  10. It took me years to stop saying “L.A. Rams” and get used to “St. Louis Rams.” Now I’ve got to do the reverse? Keep them in St. Louis!

  11. STL has stepped up and did what the NFL asked them to do to keep a team. SD and OAK have not. How can the NFL turn their back on STL now ? I know the NFL will do what they want. I know its all about money but there is no way that STL should lose their team. Seems very easy to me …………..SD and OAK to LA …………Rams stay in STL.

  12. I’m submitting a proposal for the League to give me $700 million. It was unanimously approved by me, so there should be no problem with the NFL pencil-whipping it on through…

  13. Master Stan never indicated he was going to move the Rams to Inglewood, he just bought land.

    A good real estate move.

    The Rams will stay. They can’t move by NFL rule, because they do have a proposal in place.

    Unless SK pulls a RI, the Rams are in St Louie for good, and with a great new venue.

    Raiders and Chargers have zero proposals.

    The Chargers will move to L.A.

    The Raiders will get a proposal from another city in Northern Ca.

  14. villa41…… I think what you can take away from this is , if cities want to keep their teams , they better work with the NFL and come up with a stadium plan . If SD and OAK had a plan in place there would be no doubt they would stay and the Rams would be going to LA. There is no guarantee that having a plan will keep the Rams in STL but without one , there would be no chance of the Rams staying .

  15. Actually, Kroenke can do whatever he wants with his team, regardless of the results of the vote. It’s not like some magical fence descends on St Louis which keeps him from moving the team.

  16. Lol. Stan is moving the Rams whether he has “votes” or not, and there’s nothing the nfl can do about it. I think it’s actually nice that he is indulging their little charade, but this outcome has already been decided the moment Stan decided to pony up his own cash.

  17. The Rams want to leave. I don’t see them signing a new deal to stay in St. Louis no matter how much money the city and state put up, although $150 million is next to nothing when it comes to building stadiums. The Rams would be more than glad to give the City of St. Louis $150 million dollars if they would just let them leave.

  18. $150,000,000 to keep an entertainment troupe?

    How about spending that amount of money on city streets, parks, sewers to benefit ALL the people, as opposed to a billionaire owner and his millionaire player-puppets?

  19. This is a no-brainer. Only one of the three cities has crossed the goal line. In less than a year since Stan Kroenke announced he is opting out of his 30 year lease to go year to year, his current home market — St. Louis — put together a complete financing package for a whole new stadium, just as the NFL said we must in order to keep our team.

  20. If Kroenke really has a solid 12 vote block he really could do whatever he wanted. Without a successful vote to withhold TV revenue there would be zero disincentive to calling in the moving trucks Sunday night.

  21. LA has been a baseball town for 20 years now. Period. St. Louis is a sports town. Normal owners make a killing in St. Louis financially.

  22. The NFL has ben trying to blow up the STL stadium plan since it began. They wanted a clear path for Stan to move to LA giving OAK and SD more time to get their stadium issues resolved.

  23. Why aren’t any of our politicians in Washington doing anything about this?
    ——
    The Economy
    Terrorism
    Poverty
    Education
    Balancing the budget
    Crime
    1000 other important issues…
    .
    .
    .
    .
    Public flatulence
    (last) The St Louis stadium situation

  24. Al Davis moved his team twice without league approval. The Cardinals moved to Phoenix without league approval. Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore without league approval. So Kroenke will do whatever he wants.

    The league, in the end, will do whatever is best for them; i.e. costs them the least. If the league is going to have to come up with a lot of money to make things work in St. Louis, its not going to happen. Lets remember if they move the Chargers and Raiders to the same stadium, they have to move one of them to the NFC West. And who would they get to move to the AFC West to replace them? Seattle? No. San Francisco (Santa Clara)? No. Arizona? I think not. How easy is it going to be to work with the Rams if they thwart them on moving?

  25. LA has been a baseball town for 20 years now. Period.
    ————
    That’s crazy talk. I’m a Dodger fan, but the Lakers own LA. Last survey they did the Lakers blew the Dodgers and Angels out of the water.

  26. Are there any other cities that want an NFL team? San Antonio seems to want the Raiders from what I remember.

    What you have is 2 cities that don’t want to use part of their budgets to keep a team there (San Diego, Oakland), and a city who is trying to keep a team in St. Louis (or at least making it look like they made a gallant effort). Then you have markets like Los Angeles, without a team. the next largest media markets are: Orlando at 18 (already 3 teams in Florida), Sacramento at 20(dead sports town already), Raleigh-Durham at 25(Panthers are Carolina, not Charlotte), Columbus, OH (2 teams in Ohio), San Antonio at 33, and Salt Lake City at 34.

    Saint Louis is ranked 21st, San Diego 28th, and Oakland gets lumped with San Fran and San Jose at #6.

    Surely, they can get 2 cities off that list that want an NFL team. Saint Louis is a baseball town, but they can sustain a football team. Oakland obviously cannot, and San Diego doesn’t seem like they want to.

    The NFL should move Oakland back to LA, and find a new home for the Chargers, like Salt Lake City. I like San Antonio, but there would be 3 teams in Texas, and I think 3 in one state, even as big as Texas, is pushing it. I feel the same way about Florida.

  27. stlouisfan says:
    Dec 29, 2015 1:35 PM

    STL has stepped up and did what the NFL asked them to do to keep a team. SD and OAK have not.
    *********************************
    SD has given the Chargers TWO separate proposals, both of which seemed pretty reasonable. Spanos just doesn’t want them.

  28. Stan has ALL the leverage here. He has the money, he has the land – he can and WILL move the team to LA, if that’s what he wants. The NFL can vote against it, but they know they can’t stop him, as this has already been tried and Al Davis set the precedent – the NFL can’t stop a team from moving.
    So the question is – what exactly does Stan want? The NFL will probably try to strike some bargain with him to get an outcome that everyone is OK with. They don’t want egg on their face when Stan moves against their will, so they will do everything they can to prevent that outcome. This should be interesting to watch.

  29. Poor St. Louis. You don’t need to show the owners how supportive of the team you can be. It’s more impactful if you show them how UNsupportive of the NFL you’ll be if they leave. Oakland’s non-proposal was much more effective.

  30. No way Stan gets the votes to move. First of all he has the money to build his own stadium in St Louis (as demonstrated by the moving to LA idea). Plus, the City of St Louis has a solid plan in place to build him a stadium with minimal out of pocket expense to Stan. You cant let a franchise leave after the City has come thru big time. Sets a really bad precedent going forward.

    Second,
    Raiders/Chargers by uniting together on their shared stadium issue ensures the project to succeed. Solves the two worst stadium issues in the league, Keeps two California teams in California and keeps St Louis from losing their team after providing a solid proposal to build a new stadium and keep the team.

    Lastly, I don’t think the raiders or the Chargers can build a stadium on their own in their current markets or in LA. Rams/Raiders need each other to make this happen.

    The only wild card I see is if Mark Davis gets cold feet about leaving a strong fan base in Oakland and deciding to stay and wait however long it takes to get the stadium done in Oakland. (they have been selling out every game for the last 4-5 years even with the team playing like crap on the field.)

  31. LOL.. you kidding? None of the SD proposals are any good and the numbers come out of nowhere. St Louis has the only legit proposal aside from the extra $100M committed/non committed by the league.

  32. So sick of fans being slapped around by the owners / league. No appreciation from either for staying loyal despite the awful product they’ve given us for 15 years. I’m an east coast fan so I will keep going to 2 away games a year no matter what they call themselves but I feel for you Oakland based fans and wish you luck.

  33. ddefran87

    You are incorrect, SD does have a detailed proposal and presented it to the NFL and the Chargers with significantly more public investment than STL proposal. The issue is that Spanos has decided he wants LA and has simply said the proposal isn’t good enough and has walked away from the table.

    The biggest issue (outside Spanos simply wanting to move no matter what), is that our Mayor has demanded that any public money used be voted on by the people of SD and Spanos has used that as his chip to tell the NFL that he can’t get anything done in SD. However IF he really wanted to stay, a combined effort between the Chargers and the City could get it through the vote, but the Chargers have decided to simply poison the well, thus making a vote less likely to succeed.

  34. davew128………… Im not saying anything negative about SD or OAK . I feel for the fans . They shouldn’t be losing their teams either. All Im saying is STL has a plan and the other two cities do not. I would think it would make sense for the Rams to stay. The NFL and the owners of these teams have held these cities hostage long enough. I would bet a lot of money that if the owners had to build their own stadiums ,the ones they have now would be just fine. The greed of Stan started this mess. I guess the $ 12 billion he and his wife have are not enough .

  35. stlouisfan

    Again, SD has a detailed plan (and has completed it’s envoronmental impact study and has gotten the Governor to comit to expedite any legal challenges), it’s simply the Chargers who are telling you they don’t because they are trying to convince the NFL that they have no other option than to go LA which is what they really want.

    To say SD does not have a plan is simply not true.

  36. The St Louis proposal and the NFL relocation vote is all pointless theater for the gullible fans. The bottomline is that the Rams is the property of one Stan Kroenke and he can move them anywhere in the continental United States and Canada he wants without anyone else’s permission. The legal precedent has been created by past owner with Al Davis beating the NFL in court.

    What is interesting to note the NFL in 1995 had a deal with Al Davis to build a new stadium in guess where…. Inglewood. A deal that Davis reneged on for some oddball reason and moved his team back to Oakland instead against NFL wishes. So say hello to a new stadium in LA and the new LA Rams and a court date with the lawyers which the NFL will lose once again.

  37. If anyone actually bothered to look it up, the City + County of SD would contribute $350 million as per their August 2015 proposal.

    Unfortunately the Chargers want LA and keep saying SD is unworkable simply to try and convince the NFL. Looks like if you say it enough times people simply believe it.

  38. Al backed out ( at the last minute ) when the League said he would be required to share Inglewood ’95 with an NFC team.

  39. No city or state should give these disgusting billionaires one stinking dime.

    Just say no !

  40. I don’t think Spanos has the $ to pay the relocation fee to LA, so it makes sense for Spanos and Kroenke to swap franchises. The Rams stay in StL with a new (to them) owner and the Chargers and Raiders move to LA.

  41. I am so tired of this narrative that St. Louis isn’t a worthy NFL market. Is L.A. a more attractive market due to its size? Of course! But that doesn’t mean STL shouldn’t continue to have its own team.

    If the Rams were to move to LA, STL would become the largest metro area in population in the US without an NFL team. It would also be the 3rd-biggest TV market – just barely behind Orlando and Sacramento – without a team and by far the biggest market in the country without another NFL team within 200 miles. STL is larger than 12 other NFL markets… That’s over a third of the league! (And by the way, San Diego is only the #27 TV market in the US, compared to STL at #21. Not I want to see SD lose its team either, but keep that in mind the next time you think of STL as being “too small” to support an NFL team.)

    The STL metro may not be growing as fast as other markets, but it’s not exactly losing population either. If you’re going to argue that STL should lose its team because you think it’s a “dying Rust Belt city”, then I suppose you also think Green Bay, Cleveland, Buffalo, Detroit and Pittsburgh should all eventually lose their teams too.

    And as for this business of STL only being a “baseball town”, if you think it deserves an NFL team because of that, I guess that means the 49ers and Browns should move too, since they play in “basketball towns”. And maybe the Bears should move because they play in a “hockey” town. The unfortunate fact is that STL is one of only a few NFL markets where one of its other pro teams is consistently better than its NFL team. Maybe if it had a multi-billionaire owner who would make a commitment to fielding a winning team instead of threatening to move the team just to make a few extra bucks, STL would actually become a football town!

  42. villa41 says:
    Dec 29, 2015 1:33 PM
    No, the message is you (i.e., St. Louis) should have carried out the upgrade of the EJ Dome per the Arbitrator’s decision and in keeping with the lease agreement. Instead, you thumbed your nose at a native son (i.e., Kroenke) at the time, which put in motion his plans to move.

    Kroenke has come too far with his LA proposal to turn back now. Dirt has been moving at the Inglewood site for a year now. The head engineer is ready to go full steam ahead in less than three weeks. Kroenke isn’t doing all this for just another strip mall in L.A. The stadium is the necessary centerpiece to the Inglewood plan. Kroenke has the money, will, and quite frankly, the facts on his side to get it done.

    So, the key takeaway from this is: if you have a contractual obligation (i.e., St. Louis), then carry it out or lose your team.
    __________________________________________________________________________
    Per league byrules a team is obligated to engage in “good faith” negotiations with the city in which it resides. If a city is willing to provide an upgraded facility, an owner – by the NFL byrules – is not simply allowed to pick up and move. Stan Kroenke has in no way engaged in a good faith negotiation with the city of StL – in fact, he has not engaged the city at all. StL would be the first city in history to provide 2 new stadiums to an NFL team within a period of 20 years. StL has met their obligation to Stan and the league. It is now up to the NFL as to whether their bylaws actually are worth the paper they are printed on and if the league is willing to create a horrible precedent for cities in the future who are willing to allocate public funds to build a stadium for a billionaire owner yet still allow the team to move.

  43. jimmyt

    Probably the same amount it will take when the Chargers leave and San Diego State University takes over the site to build their West campus with a stadium.

    I guess the bigger question is whether SDSU will “contribute” any local tax the same way commercial properties would have with a new pro-stadium complex and surrounding commercial park. Perhaps someone can tell me if California universities are tax exempt for this type of construction and use.

  44. pftmaniac

    I know this suggestion continues to roll around the web, but it just makes no sense.

    The reason Spanos wants LA is the $$ as his franchise doubles in value and the sales of PSLs. So IF he trades with STL, he is simply making a lateral move to another market (smaller in population) which still is facing a stadium challenges.

    Simply makes no sense.

  45. Here’s something this is missing in all this. The stadium in Minny is like 850 million when all is said and done.
    In St Loius there talking 150 mil from the state and 100 from the league (no way the owners kick in another 100 mil of there own money) so Kronke must come up with the rest.

    Many of the owners have to be thinking, we have to approve this move or it does set precedence that any proposal will be accepted no matter how small and we ourselves may get stuck with the big bill when its our turn. By saying no they are saving their own wallets and telling St Loius, screw you.

  46. deacon85 says: Dec 29, 2015 1:34 PM

    It took me years to stop saying “L.A. Rams” and get used to “St. Louis Rams.” Now I’ve got to do the reverse? Keep them in St. Louis!

    ______________________________
    I still haven’t stopped calling them “Los Angeles.” Heck, I still call the Colts “Baltimore”

  47. Stan Kroenke is not investing one cent into the St Louis stadium project. IF he is blocked on the vote he will lease the Edward jones dome until he does what he wants to do, whatever that is. The dome costs Kroenke $250,000 to lease for an entire season. Why in hell would he invest millions in a stadium he does not own and in a city he wants to be out of.

    City may have a stadium plan but no team owned by Stan Kroenke is going to move into it.

  48. immafuared………..There is more money from the league. So what you are saying is by turning down any public money and paying for everything , the owner is saving money ? If Stan builds in LA , it will costs more than $ 2billion to build the stadium. There will be a hefty relocation fee. ( $ 500 million ? ) . So you are saying $ 2.5 billion is less than $ 400 million ?

  49. STL has stepped up and did what the NFL asked them to do to keep a team. SD and OAK have not. How can the NFL turn their back on STL now ? I know the NFL will do what they want. I know its all about money but there is no way that STL should lose their team. Seems very easy to me …………..SD and OAK to LA …………Rams stay in STL.
    ==============================
    I’m not saying the Rams should or shouldn’t move, but what about Kroenke? After all that has happened and been said, how does he just stay in St. Louis? Something is going to have to be done to satisfy him or I could see him going rogue and moving anyway. To me, the best scenario is as follows:

    1. Get the Bohlen family in Denver to sell the Broncos to Kroenke, with league approval.
    2. Let the Rams stay in St. Louis in a new stadium, and find a new owner. If St. Louis is smart, they will do what Baltimore did and get a LOCAL new owner.
    3. Let the Raiders and Chargers buy the Inglewood land from Kroenke and build their new stadium there. Move the Raiders to the NFC, and the Rams to the AFC.

  50. Anytime San Antonio is mentioned as a market you really need to add in Austin as well. They are only an hour apart and a stadium between the 2 cities would be a no brainier. You would play home games in the Alamodome and DKR while the stadium is built. Fastest growing market in the country with already 4 million people and tech dollars in Austin and defense in San Antonio. Not to mention the other businesses of the state also having presence in the 2 cities. A team will be in central Texas by 2019

  51. If Stan doesn’t want to take the deal , sell the team to someone that wants to be in STL. He can go to LA and build his stadium. Maybe Mark Davis will sell. Stan get your check book out.

  52. Why aren’t any of our politicians in Washington doing anything about this?
    ===============================
    Ummm, because they kind of have more important things to do, like fighting terrorism and creating jobs. Judging by their results in doing that, maybe they need to concentrate a little harder on that.

  53. I understand that NFL fans in LA are excited by the prospect of getting a new team. I have long supported LA getting their own team again. But what I find absolutely despicable is the number of (presumably) LA-based fans on this and other message boards I’ve seen lately who are disparaging St. Louis and, even worse, the people of St. Louis. It’s one thing to want the Rams to move to your hometown. It’s another to say that the Rams should move out of STL and no other team should ever be located there, because it isn’t a “deserving” NFL market.

    Look, LA’s got a lot going for it and STL has struggled in recent decades, but why rub salt in the wound? I don’t hear people saying other smaller market teams should move. Some people seem to be willfully ignorant when it comes to how big of a market STL actually is. Worse still, they act as if St. Louisans are to blame for not supporting their team, even though the Edward Jones Dome has consistently been filled to at least 90% capacity up until this past season, and that’s for a team that hasn’t had a winning record or been to the playoffs in over a decade AND with an owner who has made it very clear for the past several seasons that he wants to move the team! And yet STL has now agreed to build its SECOND new stadium in less than 25 years in order to attract/keep an NFL team. If that doesn’t show local commitment to NFL football, I don’t know what does!

    So, LA fans, how about instead of getting excited about taking the Rams away from STL, be appreciative that you might instead be getting not just one, but TWO new NFL teams.

  54. Move the Rams to L.A, the Cardinals back to St. Louis, Change Houston’s name to the Oilers, and dump the Titans, Jaguars, and give the Seahawks non-college uniforms. All will be good again…

  55. 1) Raiders belong in Oakland but LA is home part 2 and makes all the sense in the world should Oakland not happen (still believe after all the hype, the Raiders play in Oakland in 2016)

    2) Spanos is the worst owner in the NFL and he is insane to think there is any demand for the Chargers in LA. Insane. Unsane. Loony.

  56. Al Davis moved his team twice without league approval. The Cardinals moved to Phoenix without league approval. Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore without league approval. So Kroenke will do whatever he wants.

    ==============================
    Actually, the only two teams who have moved without league approval were the Raiders (when they moved from Oakland to L.A. and back) and the Colts (when they moved from Baltimore to Indy). All the others had approval. Look it up.

  57. I continually to be amazed how all these articles talk as if the NFL can somehow keep Kroenke from moving. When it’s convenient you get league approval. When it isn’t you move any way and then whip the NFL in court like Al Davis did. But if Kroenke can truly double the value of the Rams by moving you don’t seriously believe he’ll stick around St. Louis just to keep Roger Goodell happy, do you?

  58. stl45fan says:
    Dec 29, 2015 3:09 PM

    Congratulations goes out to the Carson City Chargers & Carson City Raiders !!!

    —————————————————————
    How about Carson City Chargers and Reno Raiders???

  59. don’t you think it is strange that a football owner can use city tax money to build a stadium and yet the owners don’t have to pay taxes and earn billions of dollars from it? the tax people never see a dime from it. some store owners might make some good money from it and some people might get to work for a while but lets face it, there are only 8 home games a year plus maybe playoffs. i say let the owners build there stadiums and leave the tax payers alone.

  60. To all of the LA fans crying about precedent being set and Stan being able to move the Rams… The NFL created the bylaws to prevent that from happening again without league approval. How do you not comprehend that? The bylaws were created after the fact to PREVENT an unapproved move from happening again in the FUTURE. Past moves took place BEFORE the bylaws.

  61. The rest of the NFC West is in favor of the Rams moving to LA, as long as the deal has clause requiring Jeff Fisher to remain coach of the Rams for a minimum of 10 years.

  62. I live in california and would much rather help with my tax dollars to keep the raiders in oakland than to help finance an able bodied person collecting a check for having babies.
    __________

    No welfare for the poor! Only welfare for billionaires!

    Sooner or later building stadiums for billionaires, while the country’s infrastructure continues to crumble, has to end.

  63. I continually to be amazed how all these articles talk as if the NFL can somehow keep Kroenke from moving. When it’s convenient you get league approval. When it isn’t you move any way and then whip the NFL in court like Al Davis did. But if Kroenke can truly double the value of the Rams by moving you don’t seriously believe he’ll stick around St. Louis just to keep Roger Goodell happy, do you?
    _______________________________________________________________________
    The NFL is a League and Kroenke is a franchise owner within the league. The NFL is not governed by the laws of free enterprise. The NFL absolutely has the right to dictate to franchise owners how they conduct their business in the best interest of the league. The city of StL has met every standard set forth by NFL relocation bylaws – neither SD or Oakland are even close to satisfying these rules.

  64. In regard to new league bylaws…. A legal precedent has already been set. Regardless of league rules it is anti trust to keep a owner from being able to move his team

  65. Send the Chargers to St Louis, there is no room for them in Cali. Sorry to be so blunt but there are too many Raider, Niner, and Rams fans already, especially in So Cal. St. Louis is the best option for them.

  66. scoocha

    Please move the Ferguson Rams to LA.

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

    Gotta love whenever pro-LA trolls mention Ferguson.

    Um, anyone remember hearing about a place called South Central? Compton? Watts?

    The fact is, every major metro area in the US has a “Ferguson”.

    But since this and other Ferguson-related insults are nothing more than thinly-veiled racism, let’s go ahead and go there… Ferguson and communities with similar demographics are only a small part of the STL area. The STL metro is a highly segregated region with a population that’s about 80% white non-Hispanic.

    Do you still want to use Ferguson as a reason why STL shouldn’t have an NFL team?

  67. To all of the LA fans crying about precedent being set and Stan being able to move the Rams… The NFL created the bylaws to prevent that from happening again without league approval. How do you not comprehend that? The bylaws were created after the fact to PREVENT an unapproved move from happening again in the FUTURE. Past moves took place BEFORE the bylaws.

    ————————————————————-

    The bylaws are useless when Kroenke take the NFL to court and challenges it’s anti trust exemption and wins his case again.

  68. NFL commissioner Paul Tagliabue, fearing costly legal action if team owners try to stop the Cleveland Browns’ move to Baltimore, pleaded with members of Congress yesterday to pass a law allowing the league to control franchise relocation.

    A federal court battle such as one with Browns owner Art Modell, Mr. Tagliabue said, could cost the NFL billions of dollars in damages, especially if the case were tried before an unsympathetic judge and jury.

    Ever since the NFL lost the only major court fight so far over a franchise move a decade ago, costing the league $50 million in damages, owners have dreaded the possibility of another such fight. Mr. Tagliabue yesterday pursued a congressional solution to allow the NFL to control future franchise moves.

    The proposal would give the league immunity to antitrust lawsuits anytime it vetoed a team’s relocation. The league then could use that immunity to protect a vote to prevent Mr. Modell from moving the Browns out of Cleveland.

    “I think it’s possible” that the Browns will stay in Cleveland, said Mr. Tagliabue, who testified at a Senate subcommittee hearing yesterday on franchise relocation. “I think it depends on whether the courts get their heads screwed on straight or if Congress straightens it out. Right now, antitrust laws are tearing the league apart.”

  69. Villa41, you’re stupid. The arbitration would have forced St. Louis to spend $700 million but would have kept the lease as is at 10 years.

    Why spend $700 million for 10 years when you could spend $300 million more for 30 years?

  70. No welfare for the poor! Only welfare for billionaires!

    Sooner or later building stadiums for billionaires, while the country’s infrastructure continues to crumble, has to end.
    ===============================
    Have you guys ever taken an economics course? Ever?

    Here’s the deal: It’s called the law of supply and demand.

    The supply of NFL teams is very limited (32, to be exact), and the demand for them to play in American cities that don’t have them is high. That drives the price of these teams (and by extension, their stadiums) up.

    The owners of all three of these teams are within their legal rights to move, pending league approval. San Diego has been saying they would “eventually” build a new stadium for the Chargers for 20 years, while Oakland promised Al Davis that talks on a new stadium would take place “a few years” after the Raiders moved back. St. Louis signed a lease that said that if the Edward Jones Dome wasn’t in the top 25% of revenue-producing stadiums in its 20th year, then the Rams were free to leave. Well, it wasn’t.

    I have no problem if you want to take a principled stand and say “no tax money should go to billionaires.” Just don’t whine about how your city has been “wronged” when your team moves. I live in Baltimore, and we learned a long time ago that its all about the Stadium and the money. Each community needs to decide what is more important to their situation.

  71. dcapettini says:
    Dec 29, 2015 2:04 PM
    Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore without league approval.
    ______________

    The team’s relocation and the N.F.L.’s promise to provide Cleveland with a new team was approved by 25 owners, 2 more than the then required three-quarters majority of the 30 teams. Pittsburgh and Buffalo voted against it while Oakland, St. Louis and Arizona abstained.

  72. Repeating what Villa41 posted, because it is deadly accurate and anyone who says otherwise is simply wrong:
    No, the message is you (i.e., St. Louis) should have carried out the upgrade of the EJ Dome per the Arbitrator’s decision and in keeping with the lease agreement. Instead, you thumbed your nose at a native son (i.e., Kroenke) at the time, which put in motion his plans to move.

    Kroenke has come too far with his LA proposal to turn back now. Dirt has been moving at the Inglewood site for a year now. The head engineer is ready to go full steam ahead in less than three weeks. Kroenke isn’t doing all this for just another strip mall in L.A. The stadium is the necessary centerpiece to the Inglewood plan. Kroenke has the money, will, and quite frankly, the facts on his side to get it done.

    So, the key takeaway from this is: if you have a contractual obligation (i.e., St. Louis), then carry it out or lose your team.
    __________________________________________________________________________

  73. St. Louis failed to upgrade the dome PER THE TERMS OF THEIR OWN LEASE.
    THAT gave Kroenke the exit visa he needed to leave St. Louis. If the Rams move, St. Louis needs to blame the person they see in the mirror.
    It’s funny how NOW the St. Louis politicians are scrambling,me hen in fact all they needed to do was upgrade the current stadium two years ago (cost of 700M) and none of this would be happening.

  74. Gotta love how most people in this country vilanize poor people for receiving “handouts” but say nothing about welfare for billionaires.
    ***************************************
    Average welfare recipient is a child tell that to Fox News now back to football program

  75. 6250claimer says:
    Dec 29, 2015 2:25 PM

    Stan has ALL the leverage here. He has the money, he has the land – he can and WILL move the team to LA, if that’s what he wants. The NFL can vote against it, but they know they can’t stop him, as this has already been tried and Al Davis set the precedent – the NFL can’t stop a team from moving.

    So the question is – what exactly does Stan want? The NFL will probably try to strike some bargain with him to get an outcome that everyone is OK with. They don’t want egg on their face when Stan moves against their will, so they will do everything they can to prevent that outcome. This should be interesting to watch.
    ————————————————–

    This is why what I think happens is:

    The NFL “strongly suggests” to Dean Spanos that he and Kronke swap franchises, with Kronke getting the Chargers for his new stadium and Spanos getting the Rams, who remain in St. Louis. If Kronke is admant about keeping the Rams name, what is done is the Rams name goes with Kronke to LA (with the current Chargers becoming the LA Rams) and Spanos keeping the Charger name (with the current Rams staying in St. Louis, but becoming the St. Louis Chargers). The team histories would move with the team names in this (in other words, the current Rams inherit the Chargers history as they become the Chargers while the current Chargers inherit the Rams history as they become the Rams).

    That to me is the one compromise on that front I see working.

    As for the Raiders, I suspect what winds up happening is the NFL perhaps works with San Jose State on building a new stadium for both San Jose State’s football team and the Raiders. That would keep the Raiders in the Bay Area (albeit an hour or so south of Oakland in the Silicon Valley) and more viable.

  76. r8rgreat says:
    Dec 29, 2015 1:28 PM
    I live in california and would much rather help with my tax dollars to keep the raiders in oakland than to help finance an able bodied person collecting a check for having babies. I enjoy… no LOVE football. I agree owners should pony up more money for their stadiums. But the fact of the matter is my tax dollars as it stands now are not generating any revenue at least if it goes to a football stadium revenue will be earned and put back into the community like with jobs hotels people coming from all over spending in resturants vacation type money.

    ——————————————————————–
    So, are you saying that if there were NO football and you spent your money, the money you spend would not be going back into the community in the form of wages, etc.?

  77. Cheating Inc, Boston Mass says:
    Dec 29, 2015 2:09 PM
    The truth is they belong in LA.

    They haven’t even been gone that long.

    _______________________________________________________________

    With that reasoning, move the Rams back to Cleveland. LA can have the “new” Browns.

    Cleveland football fans know what St. Louis fans are going through. Cardinals did it to St. Louis, Colts did it to Baltimore, Raiders made an art out of it, and Browns did it to Cleveland. But, they are privately owned teams so, you can’t do much about it.

  78. “The NFL is a League and Kroenke is a franchise owner within the league. The NFL is not governed by the laws of free enterprise. The NFL absolutely has the right to dictate to franchise owners how they conduct their business in the best interest of the league.”
    ___________

    Thanks for this example of exactly what I’m talking about. Reading this you’d think that the Raiders never played in LA and that Baltimore’s team has always been the Ravens. If there are specific legal points that make this different please share them but it’s absurd to just pretend teams haven’t moved on multiple occasions without league approval.

  79. alonestartexan says:
    Dec 29, 2015 5:41 PM
    Villa41, you’re stupid. The arbitration would have forced St. Louis to spend $700 million but would have kept the lease as is at 10 years.

    Why spend $700 million for 10 years when you could spend $300 million more for 30 years?
    __________________________________

    No, you’re stupid, pal. The point is St. Louis had its chance two years ago to honor a lease agreement that called for the EJ Dome to be upgraded into the top 25% in the league.

    St. Louis chose to do nothing until recently and now expects Kroneke to take a stadium deal he doesn’t like. Kroenke has poured millions up to this point into his Inglewood plan, and the St. Louis proposal is for all intents and purposes competing with Kroenke’s proposal in L.A. No owner is going to get a stadium deal that isn’t satisfactory shoved down his throat, and the St. Louis proposal isn’t satisfactory when compared to what Kroenke now has lined up in Inglewood.

    The NFL better tread lightly here. A negotiated settlement with the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood is the only way out. Otherwise, I can see Kroenke going legal and he would have a VERY compelling case based on legal precedent, anti-trust laws, and the conflict of interest some of the other owners have exhibited.

  80. helicopterpilot13 says:
    Dec 29, 2015 6:16 PM

    St. Louis failed to upgrade the dome PER THE TERMS OF THEIR OWN LEASE.
    THAT gave Kroenke the exit visa he needed to leave St. Louis. If the Rams move, St. Louis needs to blame the person they see in the mirror.
    It’s funny how NOW the St. Louis politicians are scrambling,me hen in fact all they needed to do was upgrade the current stadium two years ago (cost of 700M) and none of this would be happening.
    —————————————————————-Sure we would have done a 700M renovation if Kroenke would have agreed to a 30 year lease. He wanted a City to pay 100% of the cost and give him a 10 year lease! Are you serious? The City chose not to do the deal with Kroenke knew they would. The City/State then began working directly with the NFL and quickly put together a successful deal. Much sooner than SD or Oak. St Louis has met the NFL criteria more so than any one including Stan.

  81. Walt Gekko

    Please read my post above as to why this makes no sense. Short answer = $$$

    Here is the time stamp – americanfootballarchive says:
    Dec 29, 2015 3:36 PM

  82. – LA is the only BIG market available, and that’s why everyone wants to go there. The size of the market dictates the value of the franchise. Small market franchises are worth about 1 billion. A franchise in LA is worth 2B, maybe 3B.

    – St. Louis officials wisely concluded it was not worth investing $700 million in EJ dome for a 10 year commitment when Minnesota (most recently) invested $500 million for a 30 year deal. (The owners & NFL came up with the other half.) St. Louis did the smart thing and made a smaller better offer. They know the NFL is out of cities to exploit, and that gives St. Louis some leverage. Props to St. Louis politicians for refusing to get screwed.

    – Stan K knows that he has a head start on the stadium, and can claim the LA turf by getting there first. He will, and the Chargers and Oakland are going to be stuck with staying put, or moving to St. Louis or Austin/San Antonio. But those two are small markets, and there is no real financial reason to move there.

  83. Raiders still own the rights to L.A., so how bout them apples. Nobody is moving to L.A. without the Raiders having a say. Votes or no votes, it will be the decision of Mark Davis. Thus the reason all along I have been saying, L.A. Raiders, done deal. Why do you think the Chargers partnered with them?

  84. Let’s see you put up a third of the money for a stadium, I pay 2 thirds of a stadium I don’t even want. You expect me to sign a 30 year agreement giving you 1.5 million a year. Why would I do that?

  85. We can argue the merits of the damn thing about which team or city deserves to move or not move until we’re all super red in the face.

    Let’s step back and take a moment to appreciate those that got us into this god forsaken sports quagmire to begin with.

    The NFL and its owners.

    In two weeks, they’re going to meet in Houston to decide how this thing is going to end, or we’re going to watch it blow up on itself. Which, if you’re a football fan in Los Angeles, San Diego, Oakland, or St. Louis, wouldn’t you at this point get the most enjoyment of watching 32 billionaires squirm and reduce themselves to infighting and it’s all their own fault?

    And what St. Louis has done, whether you love it, hate it, or ambivalent toward it, by completing this proposal is amazing for one reason.

    They’ve now put the NFL into a corner.

    Kroenke was the one who lit the powder keg when the Ingelwood project was announced around a year ago (Fun Fact: He bought the land BEFORE the CVC arbitration ruling as well as doing it BEHIND Spanos’ back AFTER Spanos told him about it). That was followed up soon after by Spanos-Davis tag team in Carson in response. The NFL? They sent out Eric Grubman as the point man to talk to home cities. Some time after that? They announce the owners committee on LA. The league office left it alone and came back to find the committee was solidly working with the Carson project and promising money to near completed St. Louis proposal.

    This wasn’t supposed to happen. St. Louis was a baseball town with meddling politicians. It was supposed to implode on itself at the last minute like it always does. Except it didn’t. Kroenke is one of the richest owners, he’d build the best stadium and that will win him over enough votes to move. Except it hasn’t.

    And that’s where they put the NFL into a corner, and that’s what Florio referenced: Getting Public Money for Giant Opulent Stadiums is hard and is about to become harder.

    A team being allowed to move to Los Angeles? The bargaining chip is gone.

    A team being allowed to move to Los Angeles and a League Throwing Away 300-400 million dollars in Taxpayer money from the home market to do so? It’s over.

    What’s going to happen in Florida where Tampa Bay and Miami are going to need new stadiums? Build it yourself.

    Replace Ralph Wilson Stadium? Yeah, bye.

    FedEx Field? How about you change the name first Snyder? Oh wait, same answer.

    Oh you’re going to move to San Antonio? Might want to let Jerry Jones and Bob McNair know they’ll be sharing Texas, they’ll love that.

    Oh you’re threatening to move to St. Louis? Let’s ask St. Louis…yeah they told you to screw off from getting burned by Kroenke.

    Oh you’re threatening to move to San Diego? You took the Chargers from them, the freaking Chargers.

    The NFL knows that once it moves to LA, they won’t be moving again. They know it, the owners know it and that’s why this won’t end well for anyone. Normally they wouldn’t stand to lose something they actually $$$ value, now they do because of St. Louis of all places.

    So here’s to St. Louis, sure the NFL might take the team again; but if they do, they’ll take any chance of the NFL getting another cent of public money with it!

  86. I am real surprised that some people think the Rams legitimately belong in St. Louis when that was never the case. If it weren’t for the hideous Georgia Frontiere’s antics, the Rams would have never went to St. Louis to start with.

    But that is not to say that St. Louis is not deserving of an NFL franchise, it is just that some NFL owners thought at the time that Jacksonville was going to be the next Atlanta. 20 years later that was never proven to be right.

    After the 2002 expansion and realignment, it only makes sense that the Rams go back to LA, and the Jaguars move to St. Louis. The Raiders and Chargers should be able to stay put with a payoff from Stan Kroenke.

    As much as I would love for San Antonio to be a part of the NFL montage, but that is going to be a fight for another day.

  87. Crazedrevan nailed it. Once LA is occupied, the threat of a team moving is gone, and hopefully the taxpayer won’t subsidize the NFL anymore. There is going to be a stark dividing line within the 32 NFL owners. Those who got public stadium funds, and those who didn’t yet and won’t be able to. At some point the have nots will start pressuring the other NFL owners to chip in and pay for their stadium. At that point, the salary cap will have to stop growing. It should be fun to watch all this.

  88. Kroenke presents an ultimatum to the other owners:

    1. I will move to LA next week, OR
    2. The Chargers & Raiders can move to Inglewood as tenants

    Either way, the stadium in Inglewood is being built as I and my partners have heavily invested in that development. I am even willing to move to the AFC and release the ‘Rams’ name to Spanos as part of St. Louis’s own rebrand. I only ask that you pony-up to pay for the Riverfront Stadium. I can then market the deal to citizens as getting the city a football team without a borrowed identity and doing so on the league’s dime. I make my money in LA while simultaneously being the hero of STL.

  89. Most NFL stadiums nowadays are more than adequate for future. Many stadiums have successfully been renovated to meet modern day conveniences. The hysteria about “nearly every NFL city will need a new stadium in the next twenty years” is highly overblown.

  90. For all you knuckleheads who keep saying that the league vote doesn’t matter and Kroenke can move whether he gets approval or not, you are missing 1 key fact. He IS NOT going to move his team to LA if Oakland and San Diego are already approved and moving there. He will not be the 3rd team in LA, as well as the a-hole who moved despite failing to get league approval. So, it does matter who the league approves to move to LA.

  91. The truth is that if Kroenke doesn’t get approval, he doesn’t have to participate in building the stadium in St. Louis, either. He can just lease the dome year to year. He can wait till a London opportunity arises, or sell the team if the Broncos come up for sale. He wants LA, but won’t join Oakland and San Diego in that market in case they are approved rather than the Rams.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.