[Hacksaw]

I was having a taco and margarita with this British fellow (Peter) last evening and he is a HUGE Arsenal fan. The scoop on Stan from across the pond is he charges more than any other team in their league but has a first class operation and a similar set up to what he is proposing in Inglewood. The 6000 in particular, according to him.
He seemed like a wealthy chap and flyies all over. He candidly asked me what I thought about his American Football team moving their "pitch" to Los Angeles. After my quick 15 minute response (lol), he said, "I don't know why they are in StL anyways?" "That place looks like a rubbish town when you fly into it, and everyone knows their economy is in the loo." I had to laugh out loud (St. Loo), and when I told him that Georgia's mum was Miss StL 1929, he had a face palm moment.

[max]

According to Vinny, Kroenke was willing to do a deal in STL until the arbitration went south, once STL walked away from an offers Stan was done with them. He then turned all his energy to LA and he's on a mission to get it done.

People have said once Stan puts his mind to do something he does it. That's what LA is for him now. The only thing standing in his way now is Spanos. So it will be interesting to see how Stan outmaneuvers Spanos. How will Stan overcome an alleged stacked deck on the LA Committee?

[TSFH Fan]

Plus, STL didn't realize how vulnerable they were in losing the Rams.

They overestimated their value and position.

the arbitration went south, once STL walked away from an offers Stan was done with them

I'm going to roll out the Andy Banker stuff (yes, again, sorry) that supports what max posted:

http://thehorn.sportsblog.com/posts/186 ... anker.html

I personally know this to be true: political leadership here adopted a "leverage game" strategy with the Rams. Within the past two years those leaders and StL media experts (except for Bryan Burwell) were still saying the Rams had nowhere to go; LA was years from getting a feasible stadium plan together. The goal was to get Kroenke to finance the bulk of a new stadium or dome renovations if he insisted they were necessary. The CVC's proposal for dome upgrades reflected as much.

The Rams counter proposal was far more realistic. They won arbitration. Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision. Instead of engaging the Rams in meaningful negotiations, StL leadership kept with the short-sided "leverage" strategy, even heading into this season. They believed there was still nowhere for the Rams to go and they had "leverage" over Kroenke. The "leverage" game is Kroenke's strength.

Everyone knew the "year to year" lease loophole was approaching. I always felt it would be the driving force and a potential move would materialize quickly. Yet, even during Rams training camp this past summer pundits were saying there was no LA option and wouldn't be for years; that St. Louis had "leverage". Political leadership believed it.

[max]

I hadn't seen that Andy Banker stuff before. Don't even know who he is. But it makes perfect sense.

And one salient point there was that the late great Bryan Burwell, who in my opinion was the smartest and the only worldly STL media guy, was savvy enough not to dismiss LA as a threat. Unlike Bernie, Cusumano, Karraker, and JT, who are all small time guys, Burrwell was good enough to work in the bigger markets.

[moklerman]

I think it goes beyond that though. I think Kroenke would have been willing to do in St. Louis what he's doing now in Inglewood. Which is the biggest blight on STL if true. I can understand them not wanting to accept the arbitration on the EJD because the terms of the sweetheart lease would still be in place and they desperately wanted out of that.

But I think Kroenke wanted to buy up some land and build an NFL entertainment venue in St. Louis and they didn't want him to be the one to benefit and control such a thing. The arbitration went just as everyone expected but I think it was after the arbitration that Kroenke soured on STL once they wouldn't let him do what he wanted to do.

[max]

Yup. I think I've heard Vinny say something that corroborates that viewpoint.

[OldSchool]

Political leaders here ignored the ruling -- imagine their reaction had the Rams/Kroenke lost arbitration and ignored the decision.

No matter how many times you discuss the arbitration ruling with somebody from St Louis they don't comprehend this one simple concept. The Judge ruled in favor of Kroenke and the Rams and the CVC ignored the ruling thereby breaking the contract. The contract called for neutral arbitration, it went to it and the CVC lost the ruling then failed to abide by the ruling. How else would you describe that but as a breach of the contract!

[BuiltRamTough]

There was a big rally in front of the BOA meetings today..

https://m.facebook.com/KeepTheRamsInStL ... &source=48

[RamsFanSince82]

I hadn't seen that Andy Banker stuff before. Don't even know who he is. But it makes perfect sense.

And one salient point there was that the late great Bryan Burwell, who in my opinion was the smartest and the only worldly STL media guy, was savvy enough not to dismiss LA as a threat. Unlike Bernie, Cusumano, Karraker, and JT, who are all small time guys, Burrwell was good enough to work in the bigger markets.

He's the Rams PA at the EDJ and I'm pretty sure he does news and maybe sports on one of the STL stations. I only know him from some of his tweets I read. Like most STL media (especially sports media), he's a STL homer. That's the most reasonable thing that I've ever read/heard from him.

[Elvis]

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/11/ ... as-issues/

From the NFL lens, St. Louis stadium plan has issues

Posted on November 6, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

For months now the future of the National Football League in St. Louis rested on the stadium plan being put together by the St. Louis Stadium task force appointed by Missouri Governor Jay Nixon.

But based on some recent poking around, it’s questionable whether the stadium bill St. Louis hopes to deliver will be sufficient enough to compel the NFL to block a proposed Rams move to Los Angeles.

And with St. Louis leaders preparing to present the plan to the NFL’s Los Angeles owners committee next week in New York, that could be a major issue moving forward.

But more on that in a bit.

It’s no secret Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants to move his franchise back to Los Angeles, where he is proposing a privately financed $1.7 billion dollar stadium in Inglewood. It’s one of two Los Angeles-area stadium plans the NFL is considering, along with the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers joint stadium proposal in Carson.

The NFL hopes to decide what team or teams will relocate to L.A. and which stadium site they’ll call home by next January.

Back in St. Louis, local leaders and fans are counting on NFL owners blocking Kroenke’s move based on the merits of the privately/privately financed $1 billion dollar stadium being proposed along the banks of the Mississippi.

The argument being, how can the NFL allow the Rams to move when St. Louis is putting so much public money into a new stadium?

On the surface, St. Louis has a valid argument. No NFL team has ever relocated to a new market when the current market is offering a viable stadium plan.

But along with being viable, a stadium plan also has to be compelling and attractive. And that is where St. Louis might encounter some problems.

After doing some poking around the last few days, some serious concerns are growing in the NFL that any owner – let alone Kroenke – would sign off on what St. Louis is proposing.

In other words, not only is it insufficient to potentially block a Rams move to Los Angeles. But also to eventually lure another team to St. Louis should the Rams leave.

One of the primary issues, according to sources, is how St. Louis views the public/private split for stadium costs and how the NFL looks at things.

And without trying to validate one argument or the other, it’s imperative to keep in mind the math book being used to figure this out was written by the NFL. Their book, their rules.

And considering part of the team and league’s contribution for the stadium – roughly $450 million of it – comes in cold hard cash as opposed to the various mechanisms used by states and cities to be paid out over time – the NFL believes it has every right to to recoup its investment as quickly as possible.

Which means controlling all stadium related revenue, such as naming rights fees, game-day revenue and game-day tax revenue on items like ticket sales, food and beverage and on-site parking.

Which brings us to the St. Louis proposal, and the misgivings the NFL has with the public/private contribution split.

The breakdown of the St. Louis plan is approximately $610 million from the team and league (counted as private, and includes a $160 million Personal Seat License projection) and $390 million in public contributions.

The issue is, St. Louis is using the naming rights deal with National Car Rental to finance $75 million in bonds to go toward its share of construction cost. And since the NFL counts naming rights money as team revenue, the city will rebate the team a percentage of game-day taxes – such as levies on tickets, parking or merchandise.

The plan raises NFL eyebrows for a couple of reasons.

Not only is St. Louis tapping into the naming rights deal – or team revenue – to pay part of its portion, it’s then using team revenue in the form of game-day tax rebates to pay it back.

When viewed through an NFL lens, the $75 million should count as team money, which brings the private contribution to $685 million.

As a result, what St. Louis currently sees as a $610 million dollar private to $390 million dollar public split, the NFL sees as a $685 million private to $315 million dollar public split.

And that is a huge issue.

Especially when the most recent public/private stadium bill agreed to and passed – between the Vikings and Minnesota – broke down as $498 million from taxpayers and $477 million from the team/league on a $975 million stadium.

That doesn’t mean the Rams are a sure bet to Los Angeles.

But it’s obviously not a slam dunk the St. Louis stadium deal will be the major hit with NFL owners that local leaders hoped.