Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Stlouislegends. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!
Please follow these rules:
1. No slandering members, players, other staff members of other forums. Slander is very serious, as it can cause lawsuits. If you don't like someone whether it be a member here, a player, or other people, do not under any circumstances call them names, make fun of their sexuality, or....can't remember
2. Keep language PG-13. No obscene language. Editing with symbols such as @#!* is not permitted either.
3. No name calling. The staff has built this place as a different forum from CTs. We like debates, but we expect members to respect others and their opinions.
4. No sexually explicate material. Keep pictures PG-13. NO nudity!

5. No hate speech. Hate speech is any communication which disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race or sexual orientation
6. Spamming is not allowed, unless you have permission by the staff. advertising another forum advertise here as long as they do it once and with the staff's permission, please don't advertise goods and services.

Failure to adhere to the rules will result in a verbal warning.
Second offense will result in a weeks banning
Third offense you will be banned.

Spamming will result in an immediate banning.

Note: St. Louis Legends staff reserves the right to dismiss any member of their choosing for whatever reason.
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Stan Kroenke buys 60 acres in L.A.; By Nick Wagoner | ESPN.com
Topic Started: Jan 31 2014, 12:07 PM (150 Views)
stargatebabe
Member Avatar
Super Sub
[ *  *  * ]
ST. LOUIS -- According to reports in the Los Angeles Times and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, by way of an affiliated holding company, recently purchased a 60-acre tract of land in Inglewood, Calif.

The reports indicate that the land is located between the Forum and Hollywood Park and could serve as a possible spot for development of a new NFL stadium according to the Times' sources.

Kroenke has made much of his fortune by way of land development and has long owned large amounts of land in California and elsewhere. Whether this move is simply adding to his land or being used for other means related to his football team remains to be seen.

What is known is that a clause in the Rams' lease at the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis is set to kick in at the end of the 2014 season. So long as the stadium hasn't been upgraded to one of the eight best venues in the NFL before that time, the Rams' lease will then become a year-to-year proposition beginning in 2015.

Discussions about how to bring the current stadium up to that standard have been ongoing for the past couple of years but no resolution was reached.

In 2012, the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission proposed a $124 million upgrade to help the Edward Jones Dome reach the "first tier" standard.

The Rams countered with a more elaborate proposal which was estimated to cost somewhere in the range of $700 million.

In February of last year, an arbitrator heard both proposals and ruled in favor of the Rams. Soon after, the commission made it clear it does not intend to follow through with the plan, meaning the lease will almost certainly expire after next season.

Los Angeles has been without a professional football franchise since the Rams and Raiders departed for St. Louis and Oakland, respectively, in 1995.

Following those departures, Los Angeles has often been bandied about as a possible relocation site for a number of franchises but in each case, the city has been used as leverage more than anything.

For any team looking to move to Los Angeles or any other city, there would still be substantial hurdles to clear including the blessing of the NFL. The league currently has a strict and expensive set of guidelines for a team to meet before relocation would even be put to a vote before the league's 32 owners.

Kroenke has not publicly discussed the stadium situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BMike88
Member Avatar
MIZ STL
[ *  *  * ]
Maybe I'm in the minority but this doesn't mean anything to me. Kroenke may want to move the team to LA or its just a leverage ploy. Either way, the NFL will not allow a privately owned team to move to the league owned LA area. Goodell has shown on multiple occasions that he's unwilling to give up the market to an existing team, meaning LA will be without an NFL team or one (or two) expansion teams.

I'm not too worried about it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
smokincards
Member Avatar
Super Sub
[ *  *  * ]
I right there with you BMike. No way the NFL gives up the cash they could make on an expansion franchise vs a relocation fee. Plus he bought this from Wal-Mart, his family. This is such a non-news event, I cant believe its getting the play it has so far.

And for all these people that say get lost to the Rams cause they are having a horrible decade or those that are saying goodbye we can get another team...they have no clue. If we lose the Rams we will no longer have a team in the sport with the biggest profits in the world. It will only contribute to the poor image St Louis has with some outside sources and the lost of business on Sundays(I dont care if its only 10 days a year) will have a major impact on the region as well.

Rams are not going anywhere people. Get over it, calm down and find a solution to this situation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BMike88
Member Avatar
MIZ STL
[ *  *  * ]
smokincards
Jan 31 2014, 03:04 PM
And for all these people that say get lost to the Rams cause they are having a horrible decade or those that are saying goodbye we can get another team...they have no clue. If we lose the Rams we will no longer have a team in the sport with the biggest profits in the world. It will only contribute to the poor image St Louis has with some outside sources and the lost of business on Sundays(I dont care if its only 10 days a year) will have a major impact on the region as well.
Agreed. I'll never understand that thinking--the NFL is an investment that will pay massive dividends. Its basically a license to print money. Why would you not want that in your hometown?

The losing really has warped people's minds. If the Rams were as good as the baseball Cardinals have been over the last 10 years, this would be a non-issue.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Prot
Member Avatar
I'll admit the possibility that I am Robert Porter if you'll admit the possibility I am from KPAX
[ *  *  * ]
Yawn
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

You're right about the league and $$$$
KIRO tv did a huge feature on the NFL this week.

Get this

The NFL is listed as a non profit organization and
paus NO taxes.

Individual teams do, but not the league.

I'd put up link, but don't know how on my phone.
You could probably find it on KIRO TV.COM
Quote Post Goto Top
 
smokincards
Member Avatar
Super Sub
[ *  *  * ]
BMike88
Jan 31 2014, 03:21 PM
smokincards
Jan 31 2014, 03:04 PM
And for all these people that say get lost to the Rams cause they are having a horrible decade or those that are saying goodbye we can get another team...they have no clue. If we lose the Rams we will no longer have a team in the sport with the biggest profits in the world. It will only contribute to the poor image St Louis has with some outside sources and the lost of business on Sundays(I dont care if its only 10 days a year) will have a major impact on the region as well.
Agreed. I'll never understand that thinking--the NFL is an investment that will pay massive dividends. Its basically a license to print money. Why would you not want that in your hometown?

The losing really has warped people's minds. If the Rams were as good as the baseball Cardinals have been over the last 10 years, this would be a non-issue.
First, in regards to the expansion, they really want a team in London(Im completely against this) but if they do create an expansion franchise, they will need a second to balance out the schedule. So LA is the only logical market left for that expansion team.

I also looked at attendance stats and found out that we drew 4th lowest in the league last year but only 3,000 behind Pitt. Our stadium only seats 60k so we are one of the smaller venues in the league to start with. However, here is where all of this means nothing. The stadium is the only issue in play here. They still draw fans and turn a profit. So why would the league allow them to move.

Here is why all of this means nothing. This is directly from the NFL's policy: Article 4.3 also confirms that no club has an "entitlement" to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so

So again I ask. Why are the Rams going anywhere?


***Additional Thought: Say it costs 1 billion to build the new stadium either here or in LA, then add on another Billion in relocation fees. Would he rather spend 1 billion here or 2 billion to move to LA? Cali has no money to offer in public financing , they are just as broke as Illinois. The new Niner's stadium was built purely with private funds. They only breaks they are getting are in taxes but they still have to pay rent on the land back to the city of Santa Clara. Where is the benefit to this move?***
Edited by smokincards, Feb 1 2014, 07:03 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Prot
Member Avatar
I'll admit the possibility that I am Robert Porter if you'll admit the possibility I am from KPAX
[ *  *  * ]
I have no doubt that Kroenke would rather have this team in LA, but it still ain't happening. It is cost prohibitive.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BMike88
Member Avatar
MIZ STL
[ *  *  * ]
smokincards
Feb 1 2014, 05:30 PM
BMike88
Jan 31 2014, 03:21 PM
smokincards
Jan 31 2014, 03:04 PM
And for all these people that say get lost to the Rams cause they are having a horrible decade or those that are saying goodbye we can get another team...they have no clue. If we lose the Rams we will no longer have a team in the sport with the biggest profits in the world. It will only contribute to the poor image St Louis has with some outside sources and the lost of business on Sundays(I dont care if its only 10 days a year) will have a major impact on the region as well.
Agreed. I'll never understand that thinking--the NFL is an investment that will pay massive dividends. Its basically a license to print money. Why would you not want that in your hometown?

The losing really has warped people's minds. If the Rams were as good as the baseball Cardinals have been over the last 10 years, this would be a non-issue.
First, in regards to the expansion, they really want a team in London(Im completely against this) but if they do create an expansion franchise, they will need a second to balance out the schedule. So LA is the only logical market left for that expansion team.

I also looked at attendance stats and found out that we drew 4th lowest in the league last year but only 3,000 behind Pitt. Our stadium only seats 60k so we are one of the smaller venues in the league to start with. However, here is where all of this means nothing. The stadium is the only issue in play here. They still draw fans and turn a profit. So why would the league allow them to move.

Here is why all of this means nothing. This is directly from the NFL's policy: Article 4.3 also confirms that no club has an "entitlement" to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so

So again I ask. Why are the Rams going anywhere?


***Additional Thought: Say it costs 1 billion to build the new stadium either here or in LA, then add on another Billion in relocation fees. Would he rather spend 1 billion here or 2 billion to move to LA? Cali has no money to offer in public financing , they are just as broke as Illinois. The new Niner's stadium was built purely with private funds. They only breaks they are getting are in taxes but they still have to pay rent on the land back to the city of Santa Clara. Where is the benefit to this move?***
The big reason why the Rams still make so much money is because of the revenue sharing that the NFL has. Technically, no one could show up at a Rams game and they still would make money.

Secondly, the Rams attendance is really a non issue for me. So many people say STL cannot support an NFL team when in reality, STL supports winning. Look at the Blues in the mid to late 2000s. Their attendance was horrible because the product wasn't worth watching. Same with the Rams--until they show that the product on the field is worth the cost to go to a Rams game, then you're not going to sell out. Not to mention that the Dome is one of the most dreary places to watch a football game.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
royvern
Member Avatar
Super Sub
[ *  *  * ]
Yawn also.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · The NFL · Next Topic »
Add Reply