ForceEight Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Get ready for 18 months of drama. I suppose the Raiders might start getting serious about San Antonio if LA skips out on them, too. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/05/silent-stan-shakes-up-st-louis-l-a/ It was believed at one point during the 2014 regular season that the NFL would move the opening of the window for relocation applications from January 1 to February 2 in order to prevent talk of a move to Los Angeles from undermining the focus on the postseason. That became irrelevant once it became clear no one would be moving to L.A. in 2015.And now, of course, the focus on the postseason has been undermined by talk of a move to Los Angeles.News of Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s plan to build a new stadium on all that land he has been buying wasn’t leaked. It was announced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 5, 2015 Share Posted January 5, 2015 Why would the man buy that much land in LA if he wasn't going to put a stadium on it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 The guy wants to build a stadium with his own money, he should be able to move the team. Interesting the NFL hasn't commented yet. I imagine the NFL is in a tough spot: the Rams won an arbitration hearing that stated it would take $700M to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome to a first class facility as specified in the lease. Since the city isn't willing to pay up, the Rams can convert their lease into a year to year lease. The other option to stay in St. Louis would be a new stadium, which I imagine would cost at least that. So does the NFL force the Rams to stay in St. Louis and fight for public money that St. Louis hasn't been willing to pay? Or do they let the guy who wants to build his own stadium in LA, without any tax help, move the team? NFL has to be careful about the message they want to send. A lot of these publically financed stadium deals are already controversial. I guess the other option is the NFL says no, a team can only move to LA if it plays in an NFL owned stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I think Stan is going to LA. They will give him approval before long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 8, 2015 Share Posted January 8, 2015 I think Stan is going to LA. They will give him approval before long.Ok I just researched this some more. The NFL isn't commenting because the state has until the end of the month to come up with either a plan for a new stadium or accept the $700M upgrades to the current dome. We'll see what happens. It will be interesting if the state offers a new stadium, because I believe a team can only move if all options have been exhausted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Things are about to get interesting: St. Louis proposes a new $860M stadium. No new tax burden, supposedly. Will the NFL let the Rams leave when there is a new stadium offer on the table? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cravnravn Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 So whats the message these owners are sending to the fans? This is bullshit, they dont care about the fan, the fan pours his heart, money and time into a franchise only to have the owner, because he doesn't get his way just pick up shop and leave, that's a crock of shit. Fuck them all Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thundercleetz Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 So whats the message these owners are sending to the fans? This is bullshit, they dont care about the fan, the fan pours his heart, money and time into a franchise only to have the owner, because he doesn't get his way just pick up shop and leave, that's a crock of shit.Fuck them allWell it depends on the public support. You can't force an owner to spend his own money where he doesn't want to. A investment that large in St. Louis probably isn't smart (for both the owner and the city I'd say). If St. Louis doesn't want to pay for a stadium, the owner should be allowed to move if he is going to pay for a new stadium elsewhere with no public money. IMO, owners need to start paying for their own stadiums. If a city like St. Louis loses their team, then that's an unfortunate consequence. If St. Louis wants to keep the team, put it on a ballot and let the public decide. But the real message here is new taxes being levied for a stadium when the public doesn't want it or doesn't benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papasmurfbell Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 So whats the message these owners are sending to the fans? This is bullshit, they dont care about the fan, the fan pours his heart, money and time into a franchise only to have the owner, because he doesn't get his way just pick up shop and leave, that's a crock of shit. Fuck them allYou are just now figuring out that the owners don't care about the cities they are in? It is about the money and you best provide it or they are gone. Look at Atl having to build 2 new stadiums while they are each playing in pretty new places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.