Kroenke to build NFL stadium in LA.... (St. Louis, Buffalo: 2015, credit)

[MUTGR]

Owner of St. Louis Rams plans to build NFL stadium in Inglewood - LA Times


...so the plot thickens.

[MassVt]

Seems pretty obvious what's going to happen...

[jskirwin]

Not sure having bad NFL owners (Kroenke, Bidwell) is better than losing a team.

[Ghengis]

Originally Posted by jskirwin

Not sure having bad NFL owners (Kroenke, Bidwell) is better than losing a team.

or if you were an owner with the lowest valued team in the NFL, would you want to be in a sub-standard stadium enjoying the 7th worst revenue stream in the #21 market or, take your chances with a new stadium in the 2nd largest market?

The Business Of Football - Forbes:

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MassVt

Seems pretty obvious what's going to happen...

Agree completely. I'm not buying that this is just a way to gain leverage. Let's be honest: la as a market is too appealing. NYC team wouldn't bite on it. A select group of franchises with ridiculously strong local brand value wouldn't either: Bears, Packers, Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Broncos. Maybe (a big maybe), the Chiefs and Vikings. Any other city that can't produce a truly state of the art venue wouldn't stand a chance though, and the CVC/state/city can't deliver that. The only way the Rams stay in the city is if there is a franchise swap. I'm thinking Jax for STL, so Kroenke can take the Jags to LA while Jags ownership gets stadium enhancements and a bigger market in STL. I don't really think the Rams brand carries any additional weight in LA anymore. They just want a football team.

There's an outside shot this could be the motive. NFL owners like LA being an open market because it gives everyone a card to play on new stadium deals. Buffalo seems content staying put and they have Toronto as a fall back. The worst venues in tenuous markets are probably Jax, stl, sd, and oakland. A revamped dome would give an owner an average facility in an average market, ditching a bad venue small market in Jax. Oakland and San Diego have been able to stand pat because no one else is competing for franchises (figuring there is no point as long as LA is in the picture). CA voters have been able to reject deals because the know the only real destination is LA. Why shell out money to keep a team when the tax revenue generated would stay in state anyway?

With LA out if the way, an Austin, Portland, OKC might come knocking, so SD and Oakland might be forced to step up. This solves everyone's problem: 3 worst stadiums gone, worst football market gone, one of the next 3-4 worst venues in STL fixed, and a team in LA for the league.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

Agree completely. I'm not buying that this is just a way to gain leverage. Let's be honest: la as a market is too appealing. NYC team wouldn't bite on it. A select group of franchises with ridiculously strong local brand value wouldn't either: Bears, Packers, Redskins, Eagles, Cowboys, Steelers, Dolphins, Niners, Broncos. Maybe (a big maybe), the Chiefs and Vikings. Any other city that can't produce a truly state of the art venue wouldn't stand a chance though, and the CVC/state/city can't deliver that. The only way the Rams stay in the city is if there is a franchise swap. I'm thinking Jax for STL, so Kroenke can take the Jags to LA while Jags ownership gets stadium enhancements and a bigger market in STL. I don't really think the Rams brand carries any additional weight in LA anymore. They just want a football team.

There's an outside shot this could be the motive. NFL owners like LA being an open market because it gives everyone a card to play on new stadium deals. Buffalo seems content staying put and they have Toronto as a fall back. The worst venues in tenuous markets are probably Jax, stl, sd, and oakland. A revamped dome would give an owner an average facility in an average market, ditching a bad venue small market in Jax. Oakland and San Diego have been able to stand pat because no one else is competing for franchises (figuring there is no point as long as LA is in the picture). CA voters have been able to reject deals because the know the only real destination is LA. Why shell out money to keep a team when the tax revenue generated would stay in state anyway?

With LA out if the way, an Austin, Portland, OKC might come knocking, so SD and Oakland might be forced to step up. This solves everyone's problem: 3 worst stadiums gone, worst football market gone, one of the next 3-4 worst venues in STL fixed, and a team in LA for the league.

Was listening to the local sports radio hacks discuss this today. A lot were trying to spin scenarios of the Rams staying, that this perhaps is a leverage move by Kroenke. I don't see it myself.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

Was listening to the local sports radio hacks discuss this today. A lot were trying to spin scenarios of the Rams staying, that this perhaps is a leverage move by Kroenke. I don't see it myself.

I agree with you. The swap was really the only thing that might make sense that would allow the Rams to stay. The franchise isn't in great shape with the stadium and market, but I wouldn't say it's one of the worst 3-4 either. If the city/CVC clarify the deal they proposed today using the riverfront, it might be difficult for the Rams to move. Kroenke seems hell bent on LA, which is understandable for anyone with money in the game. A swap where the city puts forth a good faith effort to build a quality venue allowing them to keep the team + a city with an even worse situation losing theirs might make sense.

Personally, I'd let the door hit them in the ass on the way out of town. Pick up an NBA franchise to share ST with the Blues (more economical) and build a legit soccer specific stadium that could double as a concert venue as part of a mixed use commercial/residential somewhere near the Metrolink between Chouteau and the expressway. In the long run, that's a much better move for the city.

[MUTGR]

Originally Posted by Chicago76

I agree with you. The swap was really the only thing that might make sense that would allow the Rams to stay. The franchise isn't in great shape with the stadium and market, but I wouldn't say it's one of the worst 3-4 either. If the city/CVC clarify the deal they proposed today using the riverfront, it might be difficult for the Rams to move. Kroenke seems hell bent on LA, which is understandable for anyone with money in the game. A swap where the city puts forth a good faith effort to build a quality venue allowing them to keep the team + a city with an even worse situation losing theirs might make sense.

Personally, I'd let the door hit them in the ass on the way out of town. Pick up an NBA franchise to share ST with the Blues (more economical) and build a legit soccer specific stadium that could double as a concert venue as part of a mixed use commercial/residential somewhere near the Metrolink between Chouteau and the expressway. In the long run, that's a much better move for the city.

I guess we will find out Friday, but have they announced a site for a proposed new stadium? I assume that's what this two man commission will recommend to the governor.

[Chicago76]

Originally Posted by MUTGR

I guess we will find out Friday, but have they announced a site for a proposed new stadium? I assume that's what this two man commission will recommend to the governor.

Nothing definite re: site, but the "leaks" point to the near north riverfront between Lumiere and the Musial bridge. Stadium supposedly open air and multi-purpose (football, soccer, other special events). No idea on budget, but I've got to believe it will come in around what other mid to small size markets have recently spent on their venues, otherwise the proposal would be a non-starter. Two most recent being Indianapolis and Minneapolis (Somewhere between $800 million to $1 billion).

It's not a bad location and potentially with some development incentives for multi-use around the site, it would add another dimension to the city and bring some much needed activity closer to the riverfront. Personally, I don't like shelling out that kind of dough for a sports team that only plays 8 regular season home dates a year. Pro sports (and NFL in particular) is not an economic growth engine for a city.

$900 million could go to a lot of different places. Just focusing on DT and sports, it would buy:

-a state of the art indoor arena (not that one is needed) suitable as a long term host for both NHL and NBA (which collectively would bring a lot more life to DT than a few football games)
-a 30,000 or so seat soccer stadium for MLS, which would fit a bit better on the north riverfront, leaving more room for development around it
-enough historic tax credits to duplicate a Wash Ave style renovation in another 2 or 3 places in DT (historic tax credits for Wash Ave came in at around $80 million I think).

[Floorist]

I look for either the Raiders or Chargers to eventually go to San Antonio.