Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 57
Like Tree27Likes

Thread: Return to LA for Rams?

  1. #1
    GroundChuck's Avatar
    GroundChuck is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    California
    Posts
    189
    Rep Power
    7

    Return to LA for Rams?

    A return of L.A. Rams? Owner is said to buy possible stadium site
    St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is said to have bought a 60-acre lot in Inglewood next to Hollywood Park that could potentially be used for an NFL stadium.

    By Sam Farmer
    January 30, 2014, 6:31 p.m.

    The owner of the St. Louis Rams has bought a large piece of land in Inglewood that potentially could be used for an NFL stadium, multiple individuals with knowledge of the transaction have told The Times.

    Within the last month, billionaire Stan Kroenke bought a 60-acre parking lot located between the Forum and Hollywood Park, according to individuals who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on behalf of the buyer or seller.

    Wal-Mart originally owned the land but sold it after failing to get public approval for a superstore. Madison Square Garden Co., which owns the Forum, had planned to buy the lot for an estimated $90 million in order to acquire more space for parking and possibly additional development. However, MSG was informed by Wal-Mart at the end of 2013 that the land had already been sold to an unnamed party. The individuals confirmed the buyer is Kroenke, a former Wal-Mart board member and husband of Ann Walton Kroenke, daughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton. For years, Kroenke has owned a substantial amount of land in Southern California.

    The Rams neither confirmed nor denied that Kroenke had purchased the land and declined to comment on the situation.

    Los Angeles has been without an NFL franchise since the Rams and Raiders left after the 1994 season. Although relocating a franchise would be fraught with challenges, and the L.A. market repeatedly has been used as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities, this is the first time an NFL owner has bought a piece of land in the L.A. area capable of accommodating a stadium.

    The Rams have been unable to work out a stadium deal in St. Louis, and, according to the terms of their lease, are able to move after the 2014 season. Last February, the Rams won an arbitration case against the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission concerning upgrades to the Edward Jones Dome. The commission proposed spending $124 million to bring the venue up to date, but the Rams said the necessary renovations would cost about $700 million.

    Kroenke's purchase of the L.A.-area land puts additional pressure on St. Louis to come to the bargaining table or risk losing its NFL team. However, 60 acres is probably too small to fit a stadium and the required parking.

    An adjacent 238-acre site is owned by Stockbridge Capital Partners, which intends to transform the recently closed Hollywood Park Racetrack into a modern residential community, Hollywood Park Tomorrow, with development beginning this spring. It is unclear whether it would be possible or financially feasible for Kroenke to purchase some portion of that land for a stadium, especially one unlikely to be publicly financed in any way.

    Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts said he was aware of the land sale and that he would welcome a football stadium if the development included shops, restaurants and entertainment-related businesses that would be open year-round.

    "It would not surprise me at all that there would be interest in a football stadium," Butts said. "We have been the home of sports teams before, and we have experience working with sports franchises."

    Inglewood is centrally situated near multiple freeways and the Los Angeles International Airport, he said. "If there is to be interest by the NFL, we have the most desirable location."

    It is risky for an NFL owner to take an obvious step toward Los Angeles for a number of reasons.

    First, Kroenke could be creating a lame-duck situation for the Rams in St. Louis, potentially driving down attendance dramatically, as was the case when teams that announced they would move lingered in the Houston and Cleveland markets.

    In order to move, the Rams would need more than an escape clause in their lease. They would need to satisfy the NFL's relocation guidelines, which require a good-faith negotiation with St. Louis and/or the state of Missouri on a stadium plan. Because St. Louis has already shown a willingness to spend public money on a venue — something that will not happen in the L.A. market — that would make it more difficult for the Rams to get the NFL's blessing on a move.

    The NFL effectively controls the L.A. market, because the league participates heavily in the financing of new stadiums and the awarding of Super Bowls.

    In the post-9/11 era, there is a potential Federal Aviation Administration issue with building a stadium at or near Hollywood Park, which sits in the flight path of Los Angeles International Airport. Al Davis, then owner of the L.A. Raiders, got a Hollywood Park proposal approved in the 1990s, but the world was a different place then.

    There probably would be a slew of other environmental challenges to building a stadium there — among them traffic and parking issues — particularly next to a large Hollywood Park Tomorrow development.

    Already, there are two competing NFL stadium proposals in the Los Angeles area, one next to Staples Center, and another in the City of Industry. Both almost certainly would exert as much political and public pressure as possible to derail a third option.

    Finally, a relocation would require a three-quarters majority vote of the league's 32 teams. The fact that the Rams already left this market would be a strike against them. What's more, a team filling the L.A. market would be a detriment to getting stadium deals done in San Diego and Oakland because it would deprive those teams of leverage in their home cities. A coalition of at least nine NFL owners could block any such move.
    Last edited by Nick; -01-30-2014 at 10:42 PM. Reason: Edited for spacing and formating


  2. #2
    Mikey's Avatar
    Mikey is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    830
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Copying what I wrote about it on another forum.

    A couple of years ago. He also owns a large property management company.

    If you're in negotiations with somebody you want as much leverage with the other side as possible. What could possibly give him more leverage than owning enough land in another city to build a stadium? When/if he works out a deal with STL to keep the Rams there he simply turns it over to his property company and makes money off it. Really nothing to freak out about.
    RamDez and Rammed like this.

  3. #3
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,709
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    a positive for St. Louie fans NO BLACKOUTS yes!
    LA RAMMER

    It's Jim not Chris
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

  4. #4
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,262
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by GroundChuck View Post
    A return of L.A. Rams? Owner is said to buy possible stadium site
    St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is said to have bought a 60-acre lot in Inglewood next to Hollywood Park that could potentially be used for an NFL stadium.

    By Sam Farmer
    January 30, 2014, 6:31 p.m.

    The owner of the St. Louis Rams has bought a large piece of land in Inglewood that potentially could be used for an NFL stadium, multiple individuals with knowledge of the transaction have told The Times.

    Within the last month, billionaire Stan Kroenke bought a 60-acre parking lot located between the Forum and Hollywood Park, according to individuals who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak on behalf of the buyer or seller.

    Wal-Mart originally owned the land but sold it after failing to get public approval for a superstore. Madison Square Garden Co., which owns the Forum, had planned to buy the lot for an estimated $90 million in order to acquire more space for parking and possibly additional development. However, MSG was informed by Wal-Mart at the end of 2013 that the land had already been sold to an unnamed party. The individuals confirmed the buyer is Kroenke, a former Wal-Mart board member and husband of Ann Walton Kroenke, daughter of Wal-Mart co-founder Bud Walton. For years, Kroenke has owned a substantial amount of land in Southern California.

    The Rams neither confirmed nor denied that Kroenke had purchased the land and declined to comment on the situation.

    Los Angeles has been without an NFL franchise since the Rams and Raiders left after the 1994 season. Although relocating a franchise would be fraught with challenges, and the L.A. market repeatedly has been used as leverage to get stadium deals done in other cities, this is the first time an NFL owner has bought a piece of land in the L.A. area capable of accommodating a stadium.

    The Rams have been unable to work out a stadium deal in St. Louis, and, according to the terms of their lease, are able to move after the 2014 season. Last February, the Rams won an arbitration case against the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission concerning upgrades to the Edward Jones Dome. The commission proposed spending $124 million to bring the venue up to date, but the Rams said the necessary renovations would cost about $700 million.

    Kroenke's purchase of the L.A.-area land puts additional pressure on St. Louis to come to the bargaining table or risk losing its NFL team. However, 60 acres is probably too small to fit a stadium and the required parking.

    An adjacent 238-acre site is owned by Stockbridge Capital Partners, which intends to transform the recently closed Hollywood Park Racetrack into a modern residential community, Hollywood Park Tomorrow, with development beginning this spring. It is unclear whether it would be possible or financially feasible for Kroenke to purchase some portion of that land for a stadium, especially one unlikely to be publicly financed in any way.

    Inglewood Mayor James T. Butts said he was aware of the land sale and that he would welcome a football stadium if the development included shops, restaurants and entertainment-related businesses that would be open year-round.

    "It would not surprise me at all that there would be interest in a football stadium," Butts said. "We have been the home of sports teams before, and we have experience working with sports franchises."

    Inglewood is centrally situated near multiple freeways and the Los Angeles International Airport, he said. "If there is to be interest by the NFL, we have the most desirable location."

    It is risky for an NFL owner to take an obvious step toward Los Angeles for a number of reasons.

    First, Kroenke could be creating a lame-duck situation for the Rams in St. Louis, potentially driving down attendance dramatically, as was the case when teams that announced they would move lingered in the Houston and Cleveland markets.

    In order to move, the Rams would need more than an escape clause in their lease. They would need to satisfy the NFL's relocation guidelines, which require a good-faith negotiation with St. Louis and/or the state of Missouri on a stadium plan. Because St. Louis has already shown a willingness to spend public money on a venue — something that will not happen in the L.A. market — that would make it more difficult for the Rams to get the NFL's blessing on a move.
    While hope the RAMS stay in St. Louis, I think the league has no right to tell an owner where his team will play. If any owners feels moving his business to a difference city makes it more profitable, it should be illegal for the league to stop that owner.

    Quote Originally Posted by GroundChuck View Post
    The NFL effectively controls the L.A. market, because the league participates heavily in the financing of new stadiums and the awarding of Super Bowls.

    In the post-9/11 era, there is a potential Federal Aviation Administration issue with building a stadium at or near Hollywood Park, which sits in the flight path of Los Angeles International Airport. Al Davis, then owner of the L.A. Raiders, got a Hollywood Park proposal approved in the 1990s, but the world was a different place then.

    There probably would be a slew of other environmental challenges to building a stadium there — among them traffic and parking issues — particularly next to a large Hollywood Park Tomorrow development.

    Already, there are two competing NFL stadium proposals in the Los Angeles area, one next to Staples Center, and another in the City of Industry. Both almost certainly would exert as much political and public pressure as possible to derail a third option.
    These are some VERY VALID reasons why the RAMS will not move back to LA.

    1. Competing stadiums: This was the one and only excuse the league used to issue an expansion team to the unprepared (and nonsupporting) city of Jacksonville vise St. Louis.

    2. Leverage: Any team moving to LA removes that bargaining chip from state funded stadiums being built.

    3. Flight paths: Living near a military base is about the same as airport when it comes to this subject. Ain't no way a tall structure is being built in the flight paths of an airport, so this site cannot house a large football stadium

    Quote Originally Posted by GroundChuck View Post
    Finally, a relocation would require a three-quarters majority vote of the league's 32 teams. The fact that the Rams already left this market would be a strike against them. What's more, a team filling the L.A. market would be a detriment to getting stadium deals done in San Diego and Oakland because it would deprive those teams of leverage in their home cities. A coalition of at least nine NFL owners could block any such move.
    My personal opinion of the league, and their hatred for the city of St Louis, I don't see this as a roadblock. I see this as a bonus for the RAMS leaving St. Louis.


    gap

  5. #5
    gap's Avatar
    gap
    gap is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,262
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by LA Rammer View Post
    a positive for St. Louie fans NO BLACKOUTS yes!
    True, there would be no blackouts, but the local station would probably broadcast Da Bears on FOX and maybe the Chiefs on CBS. But more than likely, CBS would continue broadcasting the cheatriots, as we all know that CBS stands for cheatroits broadcasting service, as that is the team they have as the default team when they are not on another network/timeslot.


    gap

  6. #6
    LA Rammer's Avatar
    LA Rammer is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Wilmington, CA
    Age
    44
    Posts
    2,709
    Rep Power
    38

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Quote Originally Posted by gap View Post
    more than likely, CBS would continue broadcasting the cheatriots, as we all know that CBS stands for cheatroits broadcasting service
    Rams fans cant win... ughhh cheatriots
    LA RAMMER

    It's Jim not Chris
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HNgqQVHI_8

  7. #7
    MoonJoe's Avatar
    MoonJoe is offline Ram MVP
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Norco, CA
    Age
    49
    Posts
    1,440
    Rep Power
    42

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    He can trade that land for land in Downtown LA now...
    "The disappointment of losing is huge!"

    Jack Youngblood

  8. #8
    Bald_81's Avatar
    Bald_81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    25
    Posts
    894
    Rep Power
    22

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Everyone grab your umbrellas. This isn't going to end well.
    MoonJoe likes this.

  9. #9
    jjigga3000's Avatar
    jjigga3000 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cali
    Posts
    1,440
    Rep Power
    16

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Unless you've flown into L.A. you wouldn't know. I've lived in Inglewood and Fly into L.A. all the time. There is more than enough room to build a Stadium there. The question would be would the FAA allow it. But no owner is building a stadium in Inglewood, it's the hood especially that area. Also it's right next to a Cemetery. Not gonna happen there is not as much room and the area is congested. Parking is the issue, not the stadium
    r8rh8rmike likes this.

  10. #10
    THOLTFAN81's Avatar
    THOLTFAN81 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    1,938
    Rep Power
    25

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Honestly, this stadium issue is about the least important issue to me as a Rams fan. After all, I am a RAMS fan, not an LA or StL fan. The Rams could move to Alaska for all I care, I would still be a diehard RAMS fan.
    laram0, LARAM, Fettmaster and 2 others like this.

  11. #11
    tomahawk247's Avatar
    tomahawk247 is online now Registered User
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Essex, England
    Age
    27
    Posts
    4,730
    Rep Power
    57

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Or you know, maybe he is buying the land as an investment

    Just because he happens to own a football team doesn't mean he will build a stadium on the land.

  12. #12
    AvengerRam's Avatar
    AvengerRam is offline Moderator Emeritus
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Longwood, Florida, United States
    Age
    46
    Posts
    18,625
    Rep Power
    167
    Stan' s grand nephew just went to Disney World. Clearly, this means that the Rams are moving to Orlando.

  13. #13
    laram0's Avatar
    laram0 is offline Superbowl MVP
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Age
    57
    Posts
    9,221
    Rep Power
    108

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Too many positives and negatives in the article to know if the RAMS are moving or not. I'm going back to sleep zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
    Last edited by laram0; -01-31-2014 at 10:02 AM.

  14. #14
    NJ Ramsfan1 is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    new jersey
    Posts
    2,246
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Though news like this creates the inevitable speculation on the future of the Rams, I like being kept abreast of the situation. Also adding to it are the obligations involved for stadium improvements to keep the Rams in their current home. It is premature to discount anything. While it is foolish to assert because Stan bought property in LA, the Rams will move there, it is equally foolish to suggest it will never happen. And unless one is clairvoyant, dismissing anyone's opinion on the subject shows arrogance.

    2014 will be an interesting year in many ways for the Rams.
    Last edited by NJ Ramsfan1; -01-31-2014 at 10:13 AM.
    macrammer likes this.

  15. #15
    chucknbob is offline Registered User
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Age
    31
    Posts
    499
    Rep Power
    10

    Re: Return to LA for Rams?

    Regardless of Stan's plans to move (or not move) the team, I doubt this 60 acre plot has anything to do with it. I've never seen a stadium and thought "man, that's a good place to put a Wal-Mart" Wal-Mart typically builds near residential areas, Stadiums are either built in downtow urban areas or outside the suburbs where there aren't neighborhoods to piss off.

    Besides, if LA truely has multiple plans to build a stadium if a team relocated there, why would Stan take the time, effort, and money to build his own?

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Kick Return / Punt Return
    By sosa39rams in forum DRAFT & FA
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: -08-25-2013, 06:52 AM
  2. PD: Mikell not likely to return to Rams
    By Nick in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: -07-21-2013, 09:55 PM
  3. Rams are set for Steussie's return
    By RamWraith in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: -11-20-2007, 08:29 PM
  4. Coakley will return to Rams
    By RamsFan16 in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: -02-23-2006, 02:01 PM
  5. Martz should return to the Rams because
    By CRAZYHORNS in forum RAM TALK
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: -11-02-2005, 05:47 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •