[SoCalRam78]

Richardson ans Iger took the toxic and the fuzzy math out of Carson

Carson plan is as poor as the Missouri one. Two teams with none of the financials to build a stadium are leveraging themselves out to Goldman Sachs. How is that good business when you have another owner that can finance his entire project? That's not even mentioning all the side bs associated with getting Carson off the ground. The NFL is blind to this? Oh that's right, Spanos needs parking.

[Elvis]

http://www.101sports.com/2015/12/10/st- ... round-two/

St. Louis and Stan Kroenke: NFL Preparing For Round Two

Posted by: Bernie Miklasz in Bernie Miklasz, National Football League December 10, 2015

I figured something was up Tuesday night when I received a text message from a high-ranking NFL executive who asked if I’d like to have league executive VP Eric Grubman as a guest on my Wednesday morning radio show on 101 ESPN (Interview here).

Well, sure. Grubman is a key player in the NFL’s relocation game involving St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland and the dramatic race for the lucrative Los Angeles market. Grubman is the point man in negotiating with the three NFL markets that have tried, to varying levels of aggressiveness, to prevent their franchises from moving to Los Angeles.

Let me say upfront that Grubman doesn’t have an easy job. He has to play the role of the so-called bad guy. Which doesn’t mean he’s actually a bad person — in his dealings with St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland, Grubman must nudge, admonish, chastise and challenge the leaders of the respective markets. It’s Grubman’s duty to make the best possible deal on behalf of the NFL, and he pushes hard. And in conversations with mayors, governors and civic leaders Grubman hammers with his blunt style, and that doesn’t always sit well with influential people that don’t like being bossed around by the NFL.

Anyway, the timing of the NFL’s offer to put Grubman on my Wednesday show was curious.

Tonight (Thursday) the St. Louis Board of Aldermen are scheduled to discuss — and almost certainly will pass — a bill that will provide the city’s share of the funding for the proposed north riverfront stadium … a stadium that in theory would compel the league and Rams owner Stan Kroenke to keep the franchise in St. Louis.

This is an important measure, and a necessary step in the long, difficult quest to keep the Rams. The effort led by Dave Peacock, Bob Blitz and Gov. Jay Nixon is nearing the finish line. The task force has until Dec. 30 to submit a firm stadium proposal to the league, and next month the NFL owners plan to make a decision on Los Angeles.

So after all of this time … and on the eve of a crucial vote in St. Louis …

The NFL and Grubman suddenly and voluntarily wanted to have a chat on live radio?

Interesting.

Grubman thanked me for inviting him. I don’t recall inviting him but the invitation could have been extended by someone that used to help me with the show. Either way I was pleased to have Grubman as a guest.

But I knew this was no random courtesy. Not when you receive a guest offering, out of the blue, at 9 p.m.

NFL media-relations executive Brian McCarthy went to Twitter and tweeted an alert to encourage listenership. This was unusual. The NFL wanted to draw attention to an interview in a local market? Well, that’s different. How nice of the NFL to offer to expand my audience.

St. Louis Rams fans hold up a sign in support of the team staying at a November 15 game at the Edward Jones Dome.

Later on, the league’s online apparatus, NFL.com, posted excerpts of the Grubman interview.

Hmmm…

Obviously, the NFL had all of this planned out in advance. This was clearly a coordinated effort.

But for what reason?

I could think of two possible motives for the NFL/Grubman wanting to be heard in St. Louis:

First, Grubman planned to make a good-faith gesture by encouraging the Board of Aldermen to support the stadium bill. And warn the Board that they must pass the bill to have a chance to keep the Rams here.

Grubman knows that Peacock, Blitz and Nixon have cleared major hurdles during their extensive work on this project; maybe Grubman wanted to offer his support.

Second, perhaps Grubman was aware that Gov. Nixon was planning to spend several hours in St. Louis on Wednesday to huddle with members of the Board of Aldermen to stress the importance of passing the bill. Moreover, Grubman is certainly aware that Nixon is still dealing (behind the scenes) with members of the Missouri legislature to find a way to come up with more funding for the stadium and north-riverfront development. It’s a sensitive time. This is a contentious and controversial issue. So maybe Grubman wanted to sound off, take his hammer to the St. Louis stadium initiative, and preemptively dismiss the proposal that he expects to receive from city/state. And if Grubman could make enough noise to to draw the attention of the Board of Aldermen (or Nixon’s opponents in Jefferson City) maybe he could blow up the St. Louis effort and recharge the momentum for Kroenke’s campaign for Los Angeles.

So what would it be?

Grubman — and I like this about him — didn’t play games.

In our nearly 45-minute uninterrupted discussion on 101 ESPN, Grubman soon got to the point:

“St. Louis will fall short of having a compelling proposal that would attract the Rams,” Grubman told me.

And away we go …

Are you listening, Board of Aldermen?

Why even vote?

Are you listening?

“And to that end,” Grubman said, “and I don’t mean to oversimplify and I’m certainly not going to negotiate the individual points or attempt to negotiate, the stadium is going to cost more than is at the drawing board at the moment, the funding has declined, and new taxes are being proposed to the Rams. So if you already had an owner who was showing great reluctance to come off his position that he won in arbitration (that gave Kroenke an ‘out’ in his Edward Jones Dome lease) it sort of moved away if you will from Stan Kroenke.”

Was this a planned attack on St. Louis — a last-minute broadside to create havoc on the eve of the Board of Aldermen vote?

Was Grubman trying to demoralize stadium backers — not to mention Nixon, Peacock and Blitz — by trashing in advance the city/state proposal?
Did the NFL and Grubman want the Board of Alderman to hear him declare that the proposed STL stadium is a non-starter that won’t entice Kroenke to commit to the city?

Did Grubman want the St. Louis Board of Aldermen to think the stadium was a lost cause — so they should just vote it down, or not vote at all?

I found this telling: Grubman didn’t inform Peacock, Blitz or Nixon that he’d asked for time on the show and was planning to drop some metaphorical bombs in his drive by. I think it would have been appropriate for Grubman to give them a courteous heads-up, but he declined.
Draw your own conclusions.

But here’s the the thing …

If Grubman had devious intentions here, I don’t think it worked.

After speaking with Peacock and sources close to Nixon, I can tell you that they’re more motivated than ever to succeed in keeping the Rams here. The STL task force already knew it had to adjust their offer. They’ve already been working on it. They’re making progress. And they will submit an enhanced offer.

Peacock, Blitz and Nixon didn’t require additional motivation. But Grubman’s preemptive launch immediately became a rallying point. Grubman’s disparagement fired up the stadium supporters (including politicians) on the eve of the vote.

No one is demoralized here.

Sure, a few local clowns are aroused by the chance to do some grandstanding, but that reaction is predictable.

If the Board of Aldermen are so vulnerable to an NFL operative’s manipulative strategy — if they fall for this — then we can only conclude that they’re weak of mind and character and easily pushed around by outsiders who don’t give a damn about the city. But I don’t the Board will be bullied by Grubman. I believe the Board is much stronger than that.

We’ll see.

Grubman’s interview quickly made the rounds in NFL circles. The six owners that sit on the influential Los Angeles committee had access to the audio. I was told — directly in one case — that multiple committee members weren’t happy with the timing of Grubman’s hit-and-run job.

Why? Because the committee has been working closely with Peacock to offer guidance and request changes to the proposal.

The six-owner committee has a conscience and wants this to be an ethical and honest process. And with Grubman jumping into the fray on the day before the Board of Aldermen vote, it raises serious questions about the fairness and legitimacy of the process. It makes the NFL look bad — even the most honorable of NFL owners who don’t deserve to be tarnished.

If the NFL and the LA committee wants to play hardball with Peacock in carving out the terms of the proposed stadium funding — and no doubt the league definitely wants a larger cut of public money — the haggling can be done privately. There’s no need to embarrass the task force and a sitting Governor, generate controversy, and get emotions roiling.

Frankly, this is the kind of stuff that could get the NFL smacked with an epic antitrust suit.
Grubman likely engendered more empathy among committee members and other NFL owners that want St. Louis treated seriously and fairly by the league.

So this may actually end up helping the STL cause.

If nothing else, Grubman served notice that there was more work to do here.

After giving it some thought — and reviewing Grubman’s comments — I have another takeaway:

Grubman was laying the groundwork for potential stadium negotiations between Kroenke and the STL task force.

If Kroenke is denied in his attempt to move the Rams to Los Angeles, he’d have to keep the team here for 2016.

Grubman made it abundantly clear that Kroenke has no obligation to sign a lease to play in the a new stadium here.

Kroenke can have the Rams continue to play in the Edward Jones Dome on a year-to-year basis.

This isn’t exactly a revelation. This was always a possibility.

The difference?

Grubman really wanted to emphasize the point, and he did so by going public instead of using a media-leak strategy to get the word out.
“(Kroenke) is a very able negotiator, he’s very capable, he’s very shrewd, and he thinks very long term,” Grubman said. “So I’ll go back to what I said before. He doesn’t have to do anything He has a lease (at the dome.) That lease has rights. What he may choose to do in the future is the same as anybody who would be in that situation. It depends on what his options are.”

Grubman added, “We’re really talking about what keeps the Rams there … and I think it’s the difference between a lease that he has, which has certain rights, coupled with other opportunities that he thinks he may have compared to what they’re putting forward (in St. Louis).”

Grubman is trying to set the conditions for the next phase of the Kroenke vs. STL faceoff.

Grubman was serving as a de facto representative of Kroenke on during his interview on our station. Grubman works for the league and — by extension — the owners. All along he’s been representing team owners in a stadium-related discussions with officials in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland.
But Grubman took his pro-Kroenke sentiment to a higher level.

Grubman wanted to make it perfectly clear: even of the owners block him from Los Angeles, Kroenke doesn’t have to do a damned thing in St. Louis. And if Kroenke for any reasons decides to negotiate a deal, it will be on his terms.

That was Kroenke’s — sorry, I meant Grubman — unmistakable message. It isn’t an uplifting message. It’s a message that will cause more anger and frustration. It’s a message that can have a demoralizing impact on the fans, the customers, an new-stadium advocates. It is a message that will intensify the apathy here.

Which is also a major part of the Kroenke, Grubman and Kevin Demoff strategy.

So don’t fall for it.

St. Louis can still pull this off, even if the city has to play Kroenke to a draw … for now.

A draw would be having Kroenke and the Rams return here for 2016.

It isn’t ideal. Hardly. But a draw is preferable to defeat.

Understand that this is actually a two-part process.

The first stage: the vote on Los Angeles. Will the owners give Kroenke the go-ahead to relocate? Or will the owners reject his application to set up the Rams in Inglewood and opt for the Chargers-Raiders proposal instead?

The second stage: if Kroenke’s bid for relocation gets voted down, the focus shifts to Kroenke and St. Louis and the potential negotiations for a lease at the riverfront stadium. Or negotiations over other potential solutions.

The task force and Gov. Nixon should be flattered.

Grubman and the NFL didn’t proactively reach out to San Diego or Oakland radio stations or news media.

No, they chose St. Louis.

Why? Because only St. Louis has made substantial progress on a stadium.

Only St. Louis is in position to make a successful defense of its market and protect it from moving vans.

And the Carson combination — Chargers, Raiders and Disney CEO Bob Iger — has the momentum over Inglewood.

If the St. Louis proposal/case was in weak shape or didn’t have support among influential NFL owners, Grubman wouldn’t be paying much attention to the STL. He wouldn’t be trying to stir things up here. He wouldn’t care about the Bernie Show on 101 ESPN.

Again, Grubman is doing his job. Let’s understand that. But let’s also understand what he tried to do here.

Do some folks in the NFL want St. Louis to fail? Of course. All is fair in love and war.

Others want St. Louis to succeed. Many of the owners that now support Carson are leaning that way, in part, by seeing St. Louis make such a dedicated and ambitious effort to fight to save their NFL franchise. It’s an effort that few if any NFL owners or executives took seriously at first. They scoffed at the very idea of Peacock, Blitz and Nixon having a chance to pull this off.

It was viewed as an incredible long shot. No chance of it happening.

No way that St. Louis can come up with a stadium.

Nothing to worry about here.

At least until there was something to worry about.

And that’s why Mr. Grubman made sure to have his voice heard — loud and clear — on the eve of a critical vote in St. Louis.

Thanks for reading …

–Bernie

[SoCalRam78]

LMFAO, Bernie. I guess he's still under the delusion that SK really badly wants to stay in St. Louis. He literally changes his tune everyday to whatever fits his Rams remaining in St. Louis argument. Now the Charaiders will get the go because of course how can they not with Bob Iger coming aboard. Iger of course is the one who has tipped the scales to Carson. Now St. Louis has to hope for a draw (draw being Kroenke loses LA and signs a one year lease deal) and then a new magical offer will come from the state and governor, the same governor out of office next year. Kroenke will forget about his big city dreams and accept it.

This initial proposal was all a rouse to force a draw. The REAL one is coming in 2016. Politicians are fired up.

[Hacksaw]

Damage control for BM. He knew all along the Grub was going to throw a hay-maker a the StLoon.
So he see's this as energizing for the superhero task force. Well perhaps it is. It didn't energize Poppycock or Millhouse II into making a statement though. Perhaps they didn't want to take the bait.

The BoA passed the first bill so perhaps that was the desired affect. Probably not.
Seems to me, if any of this was intended to help StLoo, it would have been as a warning to get your stuff together and fast, and that they we're woefully short on funding and cost analysis. Of course that message didn't require being broadcast on ESPN StL.
So why then did the NFL go public with StL on this? What is gained by doing so? And right before the BoA meetings. My guess is that the NFL was trying to take the heat off the Aldermen but that didn't occur. Kill the deal in Way and Means then the NFL's desired outcome becomes simpler.

BM wrote, "Frankly, this is the kind of stuff that could get the NFL smacked with an epic antitrust suit." That seems preposterous considering how we all got here.

[Hacksaw]

LMFAO, Bernie. I guess he's still under the delusion that SK really badly wants to stay in St. Louis. He literally changes his tune everyday to whatever fits his Rams remaining in St. Louis argument. Now the Charaiders will get the go because of course how can they not with Bob Iger coming aboard. Iger of course is the one who has tipped the scales to Carson. Now St. Louis has to hope for a draw (draw being Kroenke loses LA and signs a one year lease deal) and then a new magical offer will come from the state and governor, the same governor out of office next year. Kroenke will forget about his big city dreams and accept it.

This initial proposal was all a rouse to force a draw. The REAL one is coming in 2016. Politicians are fired up.

The full board and the the state legislature all looking the other way to do no more than force Stan Kroenke to lose LA. That is their prime objective.

To force Stan Kroenke to lose LA. Not to keep them necessarily ,, although that does give them their best shot.

Selfish mudderfuggers all of them.
When this is over, one way or the other, I never want to hear the words St. Louis again.

[dieterbrock]

Pull on this leg Bernie, it plays Jingle Bells

[SoCalRam78]

LMFAO, Bernie. I guess he's still under the delusion that SK really badly wants to stay in St. Louis. He literally changes his tune everyday to whatever fits his Rams remaining in St. Louis argument. Now the Charaiders will get the go because of course how can they not with Bob Iger coming aboard. Iger of course is the one who has tipped the scales to Carson. Now St. Louis has to hope for a draw (draw being Kroenke loses LA and signs a one year lease deal) and then a new magical offer will come from the state and governor, the same governor out of office next year. Kroenke will forget about his big city dreams and accept it.

This initial proposal was all a rouse to force a draw. The REAL one is coming in 2016. Politicians are fired up.

The full board and the the state legislature all looking the other way to do no more than force Stan Kroenke to lose LA. That is their prime objective.

To force Stan Kroenke to lose LA. Not to keep them necessarily ,, although that does give them their best shot.

Selfish mudderfuggers all of them.
When this is over, one way or the other, I never want to hear the words St. Louis again.

I obviously prefer LA, but I am at the point where anywhere but St. Louis isn't a bad consolation prize.

[SoCalRam78]

Damage control for BM. He knew all along the Grub was going to throw a hay-maker a the StLoon.
So he see's this as energizing for the superhero task force. Well perhaps it is. It didn't energize Poppycock or Millhouse II into making a statement though. Perhaps they didn't want to take the bait.

The BoA passed the first bill so perhaps that was the desired affect. Probably not.
Seems to me, if any of this was intended to help StLoo, it would have been as a warning to get your stuff together and fast, and that they we're woefully short on funding and cost analysis. Of course that message didn't require being broadcast on ESPN StL.
So why then did the NFL go public with StL on this? What is gained by doing so? And right before the BoA meetings. My guess is that the NFL was trying to take the heat off the Aldermen but that didn't occur. Kill the deal in Way and Means then the NFL's desired outcome becomes simpler.

BM wrote, "Frankly, this is the kind of stuff that could get the NFL smacked with an epic antitrust suit." That seems preposterous considering how we all got here.

Good point, also that tidbit regarding Oakland earlier in the week. Hey, we can go anyway we want with it if Bernie can.

[Stranger]

The worst case scenario for Kroenke is that the owners refuse to let him move because STL has a plan on the table; a plan that Grubman said isn't good enough. It's a plan that almost every owner wouldn't take themselves. And both Grubman and VinnyB have made that point.

It reminds me of that scene from Caddy Shack where Rodney tells Ted Knight that he wouldn't be caught dead in a hat like that but it looks good on you.

So the owners would have to stick Kroenke with that ugly hat while giving Spanos and Davis the golden ticket.

That would be as one sided of a decision that the NFL has ever made.

And whenever I bring up that point to anyone in the media who says Carson is the likely winner, they always back track.

Yeah, I don't see the owners doing this to one of their wealthiest clan, who can really help them reach the next level in revenues and exposure with NFL-Disneyland.

[bluecoconuts]

That interview was a bit painful to listen to at times.. The follow up articles aren't any easier.