Rams and possibly the Chargers to return to Inglewood

Raiders appear to be left in the dark.

The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

The NFL left LA because the city wouldn't support the Rams. What makes them think it will now? The Rams suck with a sucky owner and coach.

The NFL left LA because neither the Raiders nor the Rams could get publicly funded football stadiums. Both the LA coliseum and Anaheim stadium (where the Rams played) lacked the revenue generating things like clubs seats and luxury boxes. Al Davis and Rams owner Georgia Frontiere did not have the personal wherewithal (or desire) to privately fund stadiums in LA when public money was flowing elsewhere to build modern stadiums. Since the NFL's TV deal is national, there wasn't extra money coming for having a Local TV deal in LA. Remember, when the Rams moved to STL, STL had the stadium proposal used in the NFL expansion chase of 1992. That is the same reason why the Browns moved to Baltimore.

As a reminder, Memphis was the only city in that race without a proposal for a modern stadium.

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

I think the Raiders are going to jump on a deal in San Diego, San Antonio, or St. Louis.

To me, I'd try to build a stadium in San Francisco privately if I were the Raiders.

(01-13-2016 07:35 AM)Smith Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

The NFL left LA because the city wouldn't support the Rams. What makes them think it will now? The Rams suck with a sucky owner and coach.

With the right ownership group and plan, I believe the time for a newer USFL is upon us. So many markets with continual growth being shut out of the NFL.

If the NFL was smart they'd start a quasi developmental league called NFL2 in the spring and summer using down the roster guys and practice teamers. Use the NFL Network and outlets like Fox Sports 1 and the NBC and CBS spoorts cable channels.

Have two teams partner up to provide players to a market kinda like how minor league baseball is done in the beginning.

Some markets already with perfectly fine stadiums to start off with:

St. Louis, Orlando, Memphis, San Antonio, possibly San Diego, Las Vegas

Other Cities:
Oklahoma City, Salt Lake City, Birmingham, Raleigh Durham, Columbus, Portland, Sacremento.

Explore bringing in some of the CLF teams, a couple of cities in Mexico, a London and Tokyo team maybe as well.

Hell, Jerah could field a team at his new The Star practice stadium complete with hotel and entertainment district just to add an existing market or two.

(01-13-2016 08:28 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

I think the Raiders are going to jump on a deal in San Diego, San Antonio, or St. Louis.

To me, I'd try to build a stadium in San Francisco privately if I were the Raiders.

Davis had said previously that he doesn't want to move to St. Louis, so I think the city would be foolish to get involved in that tug of war with San Antonio.

Jacksonville, on the other hand, is a better fit. Kahn tried to buy the Rams when Georgia died (I wish he had), and he has ties with the city.

The real challenge with St. Louis will be going back to resecure funding for a new stadium. The committee had pulled some really shady strings to get the bonds for the existing stadium rolled over without a public vote, and the state and county are both hostile to spending money on a new stadium. It's going to take another wealthy billionaire to get this done, and Kroenke may have been the last Missouri billionaire still in the state.

(01-13-2016 08:55 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 08:28 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

I think the Raiders are going to jump on a deal in San Diego, San Antonio, or St. Louis.

To me, I'd try to build a stadium in San Francisco privately if I were the Raiders.

Davis had said previously that he doesn't want to move to St. Louis, so I think the city would be foolish to get involved in that tug of war with San Antonio.

Jacksonville, on the other hand, is a better fit. Kahn tried to buy the Rams when Georgia died (I wish he had), and he has ties with the city.

The real challenge with St. Louis will be going back to resecure funding for a new stadium. The committee had pulled some really shady strings to get the bonds for the existing stadium rolled over without a public vote, and the state and county are both hostile to spending money on a new stadium. It's going to take another wealthy billionaire to get this done, and Kroenke may have been the last Missouri billionaire still in the state.

Somehow I think Jacksonville loses since there is such a small corporate presence there and the Jaguars don't seem like a really big deal to the citizens of Jacksonville. The problem for St. Louis is that the Rams are always second fiddle to the Cards and the city of St. Louis went without the NFL before and it's not like St. Louis up and died when the NFL left town. There doesn't seem to be a huge sense of urgency with respect to the NFL in St. Louis (which is pretty great, imo that a city doesn't feel like the NFL is the end all, be all for its image).

I hate to see my team (Raiders) in the situation they're in. They're in a dump of a stadium in Oakland, and the city isn't doing anything to help. That being said, I would have hated to see them in LA, and would hate it for the Raider faithful in Oakland if they did move.

NFL is a cold blooded, money-hungry business. But, I'll still be watching every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday.

(01-13-2016 10:33 AM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  I hate to see my team (Raiders) in the situation they're in. They're in a dump of a stadium in Oakland, and the city isn't doing anything to help. That being said, I would have hated to see them in LA, and would hate it for the Raider faithful in Oakland if they did move.

NFL is a cold blooded, money-hungry business. But, I'll still be watching every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday.

You folks in Oakland got a very good outcome from this. The NFL is offering to pay you an extra $100m (at least) to stay in Oakland.

Here in St. Louis, we looked at the NFL guidelines, and tried to follow them. And we were slapped down pretty hard. We learned that the guidelines were really not guidelines.

(01-13-2016 10:53 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:33 AM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  I hate to see my team (Raiders) in the situation they're in. They're in a dump of a stadium in Oakland, and the city isn't doing anything to help. That being said, I would have hated to see them in LA, and would hate it for the Raider faithful in Oakland if they did move.

NFL is a cold blooded, money-hungry business. But, I'll still be watching every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday.

You folks in Oakland got a very good outcome from this. The NFL is offering to pay you an extra $100m (at least) to stay in Oakland.

Here in St. Louis, we looked at the NFL guidelines, and tried to follow them. And we were slapped down pretty hard. We learned that the guidelines were really not guidelines.

Agreed. STL definitely got the shaft.

(01-13-2016 08:26 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  The NFL left LA because neither the Raiders nor the Rams could get publicly funded football stadiums. Both the LA coliseum and Anaheim stadium (where the Rams played) lacked the revenue generating things like clubs seats and luxury boxes. Al Davis and Rams owner Georgia Frontiere did not have the personal wherewithal (or desire) to privately fund stadiums in LA when public money was flowing elsewhere to build modern stadiums. Since the NFL's TV deal is national, there wasn't extra money coming for having a Local TV deal in LA. Remember, when the Rams moved to STL, STL had the stadium proposal used in the NFL expansion chase of 1992. That is the same reason why the Browns moved to Baltimore.

As a reminder, Memphis was the only city in that race without a proposal for a modern stadium.

Initially, of the expansion cities, Jacksonville refused to consider a public stadium and Charlotte voted no. That "seemingly" let Memphis off the hook from having to pony up a new stadium and the city decided to upgrade the Liberty Bowl. That was still better than what either Charlotte or Jacksonville planned to do.

Of course, it bit us in the butt.

(01-13-2016 08:26 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  The NFL left LA because neither the Raiders nor the Rams could get publicly funded football stadiums. Both the LA coliseum and Anaheim stadium (where the Rams played) lacked the revenue generating things like clubs seats and luxury boxes. Al Davis and Rams owner Georgia Frontiere did not have the personal wherewithal (or desire) to privately fund stadiums in LA when public money was flowing elsewhere to build modern stadiums. Since the NFL's TV deal is national, there wasn't extra money coming for having a Local TV deal in LA. Remember, when the Rams moved to STL, STL had the stadium proposal used in the NFL expansion chase of 1992. That is the same reason why the Browns moved to Baltimore.

As a reminder, Memphis was the only city in that race without a proposal for a modern stadium.

The Jacksonville stadium isn't new, it just went through a major rebuid to land the team. Memphis slapped some suites way up there and I remember something about doming it with a inflated roof. It was Memphis' lack of vision and plan in place that allowed a Houston Oilers to go to Nashville instead of here. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami and Tampa allowed a Jacksonville franchise.

The NFL is at a limit of teams. You now have musical chairs with present and past cities with a city like San Antonio that may seal a team because they continually invest into their existing stadium. Every NFL city that lost a team, ended up getting one back. More teams at this moment doesn't seem wise. The NFL would like to push an existing team to London.

Like I posted, the NFL needs a Triple A, they are playing 10 practice players per squad a little over 100,000 a year. Why not expand and use these players and rarely used active squad players like 3Rd steing QBs for a developmental league. Start with 16 teams, two NFL teams are assigned to a city. For Example, Nashville and New Orleans seeds a Memphis team, KC and Chicago seeds a St. Louis team and so on. Like I said, most these cities already have viable venues. Others like Birmingham could use this as a catalyst for newer but smaller stadiums that would also serve as home for a fall season team like UAB. I could easily see MLS and NFL2 combi tenents in a place like Columbus Ohio and Salt Lake City. If these team can pull in 25,000 a game for 25 or 30 bucks a head for a twelve week regular season with a 6 to 8 team playoff to end a couple of weeks before NFL camps. It would provide content for the NFL network and others like FS1 and NBCSN

(01-13-2016 12:16 PM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:53 AM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 10:33 AM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  I hate to see my team (Raiders) in the situation they're in. They're in a dump of a stadium in Oakland, and the city isn't doing anything to help. That being said, I would have hated to see them in LA, and would hate it for the Raider faithful in Oakland if they did move.

NFL is a cold blooded, money-hungry business. But, I'll still be watching every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday.

You folks in Oakland got a very good outcome from this. The NFL is offering to pay you an extra $100m (at least) to stay in Oakland.

Here in St. Louis, we looked at the NFL guidelines, and tried to follow them. And we were slapped down pretty hard. We learned that the guidelines were really not guidelines.

Agreed. STL definitely got the shaft.

2 lessons hopefully learned: First, that "top tier" stadium language was a shameful dereliction of fiduciary duty by the city in the 90s. Second, it appeared to be a mistake to perceive the competition as only among the 3 at-risk cities, so St. Louis thought if they had a better deal than Oakland or San Diego, they were putting on a strong case. They did not approach Inglewood or Carson as competition they needed to overcome. It wasn't even a 5-city race, or a 4/5-fanbase race. It was more of a 5-stadium race. Among the owners, there was a clear leader there.

Also, St. Louis had the opportunity to spend 700 mill through an offer from the Rams a few years ago to upgrade the Ed, IRRC. This was prior to Kroenke buying the Inglewood property and the ship's horn then sounded.

I do think St. Louis is better off without mortgaging more of their future on a public stadium, particularly in the NFL, an outdoor one (won't have possibility of being occupied by conventions) that would be filled a handful of times. Even with MLS, it wouldn't be used that often. They already have 1 1/2 major league franchises. They can direct their civic attention on hopefully improving their community and building businesses. Austin, Portland, Seattle, they each have two or fewer sports, and appear to prioritize better how far into the pro sports rabbit hole to go.

I wonder if the NBA has any plans to implement a stadium fund like the NFL's, especially with new TV deal money on the horizon?

(01-13-2016 07:35 AM)Smith Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

The NFL left LA because the city wouldn't support the Rams. What makes them think it will now? The Rams suck with a sucky owner and coach.

2016 LA > 1992 (or whenever) LA

And as long as it's only 2 teams in SoCal, then

2016 San Diego > 1992 San Diego

Having 3 teams in Socal in 2016 may be pushing it just because they don't feel like they HAVE to support those franchises. They can go to the beach. If there's a sh!tty product, they should go to the beach, if they're good fans.

Bs the way St. Louis was treated. This is exactly what would be happening to memphis right now if we would have been given a team in '92. The NFL is a publicly funded multi billion $$$$ cartel that pays its CEO over $40 million per year. Pro sports in general and cash strapped cities being forced to build their stadiums is the biggest Ponzi scheme in American history.

(01-13-2016 10:33 AM)ksigtigerdood Wrote:  I hate to see my team (Raiders) in the situation they're in. They're in a dump of a stadium in Oakland, and the city isn't doing anything to help. That being said, I would have hated to see them in LA, and would hate it for the Raider faithful in Oakland if they did move.

NFL is a cold blooded, money-hungry business. But, I'll still be watching every Thursday, Sunday, and Monday.

What about San Francisco?

(01-13-2016 02:27 PM)WaywardMemphian Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 08:26 AM)Latilleon Wrote:  The NFL left LA because neither the Raiders nor the Rams could get publicly funded football stadiums. Both the LA coliseum and Anaheim stadium (where the Rams played) lacked the revenue generating things like clubs seats and luxury boxes. Al Davis and Rams owner Georgia Frontiere did not have the personal wherewithal (or desire) to privately fund stadiums in LA when public money was flowing elsewhere to build modern stadiums. Since the NFL's TV deal is national, there wasn't extra money coming for having a Local TV deal in LA. Remember, when the Rams moved to STL, STL had the stadium proposal used in the NFL expansion chase of 1992. That is the same reason why the Browns moved to Baltimore.

As a reminder, Memphis was the only city in that race without a proposal for a modern stadium.

The Jacksonville stadium isn't new, it just went through a major rebuid to land the team. Memphis slapped some suites way up there and I remember something about doming it with a inflated roof. It was Memphis' lack of vision and plan in place that allowed a Houston Oilers to go to Nashville instead of here. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami and Tampa allowed a Jacksonville franchise.

The NFL is at a limit of teams. You now have musical chairs with present and past cities with a city like San Antonio that may seal a team because they continually invest into their existing stadium. Every NFL city that lost a team, ended up getting one back. More teams at this moment doesn't seem wise. The NFL would like to push an existing team to London.

Like I posted, the NFL needs a Triple A, they are playing 10 practice players per squad a little over 100,000 a year. Why not expand and use these players and rarely used active squad players like 3Rd steing QBs for a developmental league. Start with 16 teams, two NFL teams are assigned to a city. For Example, Nashville and New Orleans seeds a Memphis team, KC and Chicago seeds a St. Louis team and so on. Like I said, most these cities already have viable venues. Others like Birmingham could use this as a catalyst for newer but smaller stadiums that would also serve as home for a fall season team like UAB. I could easily see MLS and NFL2 combi tenents in a place like Columbus Ohio and Salt Lake City. If these team can pull in 25,000 a game for 25 or 30 bucks a head for a twelve week regular season with a 6 to 8 team playoff to end a couple of weeks before NFL camps. It would provide content for the NFL network and others like FS1 and NBCSN

It was new. It was like building a brand new house on the foundation of an old house. That did what the Bears did with Soldier Field.

It might be on the grounds of the Gator Bowl, but that was a brand new building. The only thing that weren't new were the foundation and modern walkways which had been built within the decade of the Jaguars being awarded to the city.

Nashville didn't have an NFL plan in place. They went guns blazing for the NHL, and Bud Adams liked their moxxy. Nashville put together a plan when Bud Adams gave them the perimeters. He didn't even check with any other cities (i.e. San Antonio, Portland, Memphis, Louisville, Las Vegas). Jacksonville was his first choice for relocation and if we had been willing to build a stadium, we get that 2nd expansion franchise over Jax and the Oilers go to Jacksonville.

(01-13-2016 02:55 PM)kabluey Wrote:  

(01-13-2016 07:35 AM)Smith Wrote:  

(01-12-2016 10:37 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  The move was set the moment Kroenke started building on the property in Inglewood. Very sad day in St. Louis, because the city was pretty close to finalizing a package for a new stadium, but essentially got a much worse deal than San Diago or Oakland.

The city of Oakland barely lifted a finger, offered no plan, and will be receiving financing from the league paid out from the settlement.

That's the NFL for you.

The NFL left LA because the city wouldn't support the Rams. What makes them think it will now? The Rams suck with a sucky owner and coach.

2016 LA > 1992 (or whenever) LA

And as long as it's only 2 teams in SoCal, then

2016 San Diego > 1992 San Diego

Having 3 teams in Socal in 2016 may be pushing it just because they don't feel like they HAVE to support those franchises. They can go to the beach. If there's a sh!tty product, they should go to the beach, if they're good fans.

1992 LA had 15 million people, many corporations, access to Mexico/Central America & Asia, and was a media center.

LA WAS ALWAYS A BETTER MARKET THAN ST. LOUIS FOR AN NFL TEAM. The problem was the stadium! That is what it always was. LA won't build a stadium for anyone.

(01-13-2016 03:02 PM)BIGDTiger Wrote:  Bs the way St. Louis was treated. This is exactly what would be happening to memphis right now if we would have been given a team in '92. The NFL is a publicly funded multi billion $$$$ cartel that pays its CEO over $40 million per year. Pro sports in general and cash strapped cities being forced to build their stadiums is the biggest Ponzi scheme in American history.

Revisionist history:

Memphis gets the Memphis Houndogs, owned by Billy Dunavant because Memphis builds the equivalent to Nissan Stadium downtown where AutoZone Park ended up going. The team wouldn't be relocating because Billy Dunavant or Fred Smith would own it today. We wouldn't have the Grizzlies and the Liberty Bowl is probably a bigger deal as a game in an NFL stadium.

It'd be more like the Panthers or Titans than the Jaguars. We'd get the Nashville and Little Rock fans. The team would also be homegrown so it would be more ingrained in the community.