[Hacksaw]

Task Force Gaining Ground in Quest to Keep Rams
Shane Gray posted on August 25, 2015 11:53

Last week, after moving another step closer towards keeping the St. Louis Rams and the world's most prestigious sports league in town, St. Louis Stadium Task Force co-head Dave Peacock reiterated once again -- for about the 100th time this year -- their priority remains the same:

"We continue to make meaningful and measurable progress towards keeping the St. Louis Rams here in St. Louis," Peacock said.

And with that, Peacock again clarified the Task Force's first focus is squarely on retaining the Rams -- as it absolutely should be.

Sure, they could switch gears and make their No. 1 goal the attainment of a new franchise, but -- quite frankly -- that would be a stupid thing to do at this point.

Why, one might ask, would shifting focus to another franchise be an unwise move at this juncture? Among other things, one should consider these points:

- Even if another team could be obtained -- which isn't a given -- there would be real challenges in attempting to build a third fanbase inside of 30 years after losing two teams since 1988.

- The owners comprising the NFL's Committee on L.A. Opportunities are collectively considered an old-school group. This is a fact that is often overlooked but should not be underestimated in the slightest. Keep in mind, ownership typically follows the general lead and recommendation of their committees. This could be a major factor going forward and may bode well for St. Louis and its work to keep the Rams.

- In spite of the rhetoric of some and the narratives of many, the Task Force is unquestionably closer to retaining the Rams today than they were a month ago, than they were three months ago or they were in January when they made their initial presentation. Boxes continue to get checked and they continue to impress league decision makers with their steady progress.

- Task Force leaders will have an opportunity to further impact the relocation process while in New York at the next NFL owners meeting in early October. One thing you can count on is this: Peacock and company will serve up a world-class presentation and optimally represent their efforts while making a very strong case to the NFL that the Riverfront Stadium project is viable and more than worthy of retaining the Rams. Sports Business Journal's Dan Kaplan is among those in the camp who believe that the league will not allow the Rams to relocate with a stadium deal in place here. If they were to move under such conditions, it would be a first in league history.

- Following the Inglewood presentation in Chicago, Rams Chief Operating Officer Kevin Demoff again asserted the club is keeping their options open in regard to future franchise location. As I reported in July by way of a trusted, well-connected source, St. Louis remains a viable, voluntary long-term prospective option of the organization.

- Several reputable reporters -- including the aforementioned Kaplan and Kevin Acee of UT San Diego -- believe the Chargers and Raiders currently have the votes to block a prospective relocation filing by Rams owner Stan Kroenke. Sam Farmer of the L.A. has stated Kroenke and the Chargers/Raiders likely have the votes to block each other.

- There is doubt the Rams meet several NFL relocation bylaws, including some noted here.

- Carson has made meaningful progress over the last few months and is currently supported by a large contingent of NFL owners. Vincent Bonsignore of the L.A. Daily News believes it is essentially running neck-and-neck with Inglewood. As should be obvious, an approved Carson all but assures St. Louis the Rams remain in place.

- Regardless of any faulty, bogus reports suggesting the Rams to L.A. is over 99 percent done, the truth is that no solution has remotely been finalized at the league's ownership level.

- Although it seems as if the relocation ruckus has been dragging on forever, there is still considerable work to be done before culmination. At this stage, ownership as a whole is split on what the end game(s) should be and are contemplating a variety of potential alternatives. In short, there are several scenarios remaining in play.

With all that said, the October meetings will be critical for Carson, St. Louis and all parties involved in the stadium chase.

For Carson, they must convince a certain segment of ownership that their proposal and long-term financial stability -- with the full backing of investment banking giant Goldman Sachs -- is just as sound as that of Kroenke's collaboration and in effect, at least as good of an option as Inglewood. In addition, Carson will and must continue to present the common sense option that they have to date: a California solution for the two teams with the worst stadiums in the league and for two organizations who never left the state. A solution that would also position the league to more easily honor its bylaws and maintain the precedent that a local market who steps up with funding -- assuming St. Louis seals the deal -- gets rewarded with retention of their team.

For St. Louis, they must convince owners of how stout corporate support can be for the Rams in St. Louis -- and they are working on just that -- while presenting an actionable stadium plan (with financing and land acquisition in place).

In the meantime, St. Louis Rams fans need to step off the ledge and realize that -- just as it remains a very real possibility that the Rams relocate -- it is also a viable possibility that the Rams remain.

As of now, as Peacock continues to point out, the Rams are St. Louis' team.

And rest assured, as we move into the fall and towards the critical October meetings, Peacock and crew will leave no stone unturned in working towards ensuring the Rams are St. Louis' team for a long, long time.

Nobody knows exactly how this all will play out, but the region has a legitimate chance at pulling off the upset due in large part to the work being done by the Task Force. I don't know about you, but I for one would certainly not bet against them right now.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Rams.aspx

[The Ripper]

He needs to actual do some research before he makes any definitive statements. Cleveland had 175 million approved for a stadium and a tax increase.

[Elvis]

I'm sure Shane's a good guy but he's been wrong every step of the way. He always presents the best case scenario for St. Louis in a time when the worst case has been ruling the day.

I do find it a little amusing that this is the one article they thought worthy of putting in the locked relocation thread at ROD...

[bubbaramfan]

A long article, but no content. Saying you're making progress is progress? Not one sentence of anything concrete. No mention of more money or where it came from. " We're making progress", "We're light years ahead of where we were yesterday", But no details. I guess "checking boxes" and "impressing owners" with comic book pictures of futuristic stadiums is their idea of progress. The piece posted above is fraught with comical double talk. "With the full backing of Goldman-Sachs", they make it sound as if its free money. GS is going to want some garuntees they get paid back every dime. I highly doubt they finance the whole thing. And what of the relocation fees? Can the Raiders and Chargers afford that? I bet neither Davis or Spanos can come up with that much. They've been talking about 500 mil for Stan to move the Rams.

"Carson has made meaningful progress" Huh? What progress? Still sliding around remediation.

[Hacksaw]

They are living the dream,, err, in a dream.

[Hacksaw]

A long article, but no content. Saying you're making progress is progress? Not one sentence of anything concrete. No mention of more money or where it came from. " We're making progress", "We're light years ahead of where we were yesterday", But no details. I guess "checking boxes" and "impressing owners" with comic book pictures of futuristic stadiums is their idea of progress. The piece posted above is fraught with comical double talk. "With the full backing of Goldman-Sachs", they make it sound as if its free money. GS is going to want some garuntees they get paid back every dime. I highly doubt they finance the whole thing. And what of the relocation fees? Can the Raiders and Chargers afford that? I bet neither Davis or Spanos can come up with that much. They've been talking about 500 mil for Stan to move the Rams.

"Carson has made meaningful progress" Huh? What progress? Still sliding around remediation.

I spotted this at RRF and replied to him there.

[LoyalRam]

I like Shane, but he is definitely not an objective journalist. He is an advocate for St Louis. Look at Jim Thomas, he concedes that Inglewood is probably the home of the Rams, and that is definately not where is heart is at, being a St Louis guy. He is somewhat gloomy now, but he is legit as a journalist..Shane is an advocate blogger and that is all

[Elvis]

A long article, but no content. Saying you're making progress is progress? Not one sentence of anything concrete. No mention of more money or where it came from. " We're making progress", "We're light years ahead of where we were yesterday", But no details. I guess "checking boxes" and "impressing owners" with comic book pictures of futuristic stadiums is their idea of progress. The piece posted above is fraught with comical double talk. "With the full backing of Goldman-Sachs", they make it sound as if its free money. GS is going to want some garuntees they get paid back every dime. I highly doubt they finance the whole thing. And what of the relocation fees? Can the Raiders and Chargers afford that? I bet neither Davis or Spanos can come up with that much. They've been talking about 500 mil for Stan to move the Rams.

"Carson has made meaningful progress" Huh? What progress? Still sliding around remediation.

Damn straight.

[snackdaddy]

I like Shane, but he is definitely not an objective journalist. He is an advocate for St Louis. Look at Jim Thomas, he concedes that Inglewood is probably the home of the Rams, and that is definately not where is heart is at, being a St Louis guy. He is somewhat gloomy now, but he is legit as a journalist..Shane is an advocate blogger and that is all

Yeah, everything Shane writes about the situation seems to be slanted in St. Louis' favor. I don't know if he's in denial or just trying to rally the masses. He's definitely not an objective writer.

[OldSchool]

I wish he actually answered questions from people other than those that kiss his butt in their questions.