Rams owner reportedly open to sharing L.A. stadium (if price is right, won’t name price)

With multi-sided game of chicken that is the NFL’s plans to move a team (or two) to Los Angeles going nowhere fast, St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke has reportedly decided to up the ante a bit:

Rams owner Stan Kroenke, intent on playing next season in Los Angeles as he attempts to build a new stadium in Inglewood, has made it clear to the league he is willing to share the facility with another owner from the onset, league sources said.

(Great, thanks for that wording, CBS Sports’ Jason La Canfora. Now I have this stuck in my head.)

As described by La Canfora, this is largely Kroenke trying to win over NFL owners who may be opposing his bid for a stadium in Inglewood because they’d prefer to see two teams move to L.A. (Whether they’d prefer this because they don’t want a single owner hogging all the riches, because they don’t want a single owner being stuck with the nearly $2 billion stadium cost, or just because they want the ensuing game of stadium musical chairs to have maximum number of empty chairs and minimum number of remaining players, it’s tough to say — and may vary owner to owner, even.) Kroenke hasn’t indicated how he’d split revenues and costs with another owner, so we’re still at the very, very early talking stages here — or the talking about talking stages, even.

Regardless, it’s a sign, if La Canfora’s sources are accurate, that Kroenke feels like he has some work to do to win over the NFL on allowing him to move. And, perhaps, that he’s serious about moving to L.A., though we can’t discount the possibility that this whole thing was leaked to turn up the heat on St. Louis. Closed-doors games of chicken are so hard to keep score on.


20 comments on “Rams owner reportedly open to sharing L.A. stadium (if price is right, won’t name price)

  1. Stan Kroenke ought to charge an outrageous amount, because the Raiders won’t have many options & it won’t be for long either. The team that shares his stadium will probably end up moving to the new Olympic stadium somewhere around LA that they’ll build 5 years from now for the 2024 games so it won’t be vacant afterwards.

  2. I’m not sure LA is going to build an Olympic stadium. I think the plans is to gentrify the existing LA Coliseum. Even then, it would not be suitable for the NFL. They prefer smaller stadiums, no track, more boxes, and no USC sharing the stadium.

  3. Mark, that could definitely happen! They could do a major renovation without changing the historical landmark part of the exterior, but people get touchy about that stuff. Chicago did it right, and if they choose to redevelop LA Coliseum then you’re right– it wouldn’t be an option for the NFL & the Raiders would remain renters regardless.

    However, a new stadium would give LA four major stadiums, a couple MLS stadiums, and San Diego just down the road to put them in position to host the World Cup too. Possible re-purposing of 2 MLB stadiums too(?) The trend right now is if you host either a World Cup or Olympics then you get the other, like the Rio/Sochi 2-for1 that’s suppose help people cope with the exorbitant costs.

    In the case for a second NFL team, it could be used as a pawn to justify the longterm viability of the new stadium, so it wouldn’t degenerate into the typical entropic parking lot like every the other stadium in Rio/Sochi/Qatar etc. immediately after hosting the games.

    Side-note: It’d be nice if we got to a point where the World Cup/Summer Olympics were similar to hosting the Super Bowl where we unofficially oscillate between a handful of desirable cities, so we could stop extorting less fortunate countries & bask in the money that has already been irreversibly misappropriated. Places like; LA, Sochi, Beijing, Qatar, London, Australia… except the countries that aren’t on the list will be the ones lining up to be the next Rio. (Sorry for getting so far off topic. I have no idea what LA’s going to do.)

  4. Lefty, when you say “Chicago did it right,” do you mean Wrigley or Soldier Field? Because if the latter, this may genuinely be the first time in history that that opinion has been expressed.

  5. There would be a certain delicious irony to the Raiders leaving the Colliseum in 1994 (because it was out of date) to Oakland only to move back into the exact same venue 30 years later.

  6. Chicago most definitely did NOT do it right with the Soldier Field reno. If Chicago did the LA Coliseum reno, you wouldn’t be able to see the peristyle end from the seats.

    Also, wouldn’t the NFL want to have the MINIMUM number of seats and the MAXIMUM number of players in this theoretical game of musical chairs? Wouldn’t supply and demand say having multiple suitors for limited LA slots drive the price up and help with the extortion, er, negotiations in other markets?

  7. No, no, different seats. Once L.A. is filled, if they have one team left over (say, the Raiders) and three cities wanting a team (Oakland, San Diego, St. Louis), then that increases the Raiders’ leverage.

  8. Neil, I was referring to the Bears stadium, I actually like it. I wouldn’t say I liked the whole process Chicago took to get there. For instance; I would agree with you that everything the Atlanta Braves are doing to push their stadium through is fiscally irresponsible, but I’m sure when the dust settles I’ll still think the Braves will have one of the nicest stadium in MLB, and they should for what they’re paying for it. Like after the hotdog’s made– it can still taste good.

    That’s just my opinion, I like the Bears stadium, its in a great location, and they kept their greek colonnades intact… most cities would’ve given it the Yankee stadium treatment. Soldier Field will still be there in 50 years unlike the Dolphins, dumping $400 million on a stadium that we all know they’re going to try to replace 20 years from now– those are the kind of stadiums I don’t like. What don’t you like about Soldier Field? The historical element: controversy about demolishing & relocating? Field of Scheme angle: the $432 million of public money it took to build it? The backloaded annual interest payments? Personal opinion: don’t like the stadium design? Because without a doubt the financial details are horrendous, that’s what attracts us to this site… I was speaking purely as the “finished product,” despite potential future upgrades & not being fully-paid off.

  9. I was referring to the fact that the redone Soldier Field looks like a spaceship crashlanded in the middle of a Greek ruin, in the words of pretty much everyone who’s seen it. (I’ve seen the outside and tend to agree.)

    While everyone’s entitled to their opinion, and matters of taste are by definition matters of taste, getting kicked off the National Register of Historic Places is a pretty good sign that you’ve done something wrong.

  10. lol I can see that!

    I wonder if they did redevelop LA Coliseum & tried to keep historical elements on the exterior like Soldier Field, yet still lost their historic certification too– if the coliseum would simply re-gain its’ historic standing after hosting the 2024 Olympics… I’m not sure if Utah’s football stadium is revered as historical landmark, outside of locals, for hosting the Winter ceremony in ’02. Perhaps hosting the Olympics isn’t as significant as “history-history,” or maybe the summer games mean more… probably the former.

  11. Neil, do you think LA’s Olympic bid will be successful?

    If it is, LA will want to host the opening and closing ceremonies in a renovated Coliseum for historic purposes. It’d be the first stadium to host the ceremonies three times (1932, 1984, and 2024). Plus it’s now public transportation accessible via the Expo light rail line.

  12. I don’t, not with a couple of major European cities to choose from. I think L.A. is just in there as face-saving for the USOC, this time around, at least.

  13. I just went to Soldier Field for the first time this weekend, and liked the inside more than I thought I would. As for walking around, buying anything, or getting to the bathroom, it is a complete disaster on all those fronts.

    If anything, they should have flipped the field 90 degrees, kept the old luxury boxes in the colonnades which would now be in the end zones as opposed to on the sidelines, and built new multi-deck stands along the new sideline areas (which had been the end zones and have plenty of space). I know the NFL prefers fields to run north-south so that there is no setting sun in receivers’ eyes, but San Diego and the LA Coliseum both go east-west.

  14. “The trend right now is if you host either a World Cup or Olympics then you get the other, like the Rio/Sochi 2-for1 that’s suppose help people cope with the exorbitant costs.”

    Uh, FIFA and the IOC are not coordinating the bids they award.

  15. Michael, I didn’t say they were officially “coordinating,” but how do you explain Rio & Sochi? Coincidence, corruption, common sense? I wasn’t insinuating that they’re in cahoots, even despite recent FIFA scandals… Maybe FIFA & the IOC sympathize with the damaging costs of Rio, Sochi, and presumably all future shakedowns required by them. Its no secret, the price to build those facilities has exponentially skyrocketed decade-to-decade. I just assume, when the costs jump from roughly $10-15 Billion to totaling $50 Billion for 1 lousy event– its nice to get a two-for out of it. Plus, it just seems easier to shakedown 1 city every four years than it is to shakedown 2 with that price tag. Itv may take 3 to confirm a trend, and well see who hosts the 2026 World Cup… South Korea & Japan host the Olympics after Rio & both bids were high on the 2022 World Cup bid-list, because they’re “coincidentally” building Olympic facilities, and one of them would have won if Sepp Blatter wasn’t a Bond villain. **CONSPIRACIES**

  16. There is so much wrong with that I don’t even know how to unpack all of it. But as organizations FIFA and the IOC aren’t sympathetic to anything. Countries hold World Cups; cities host Olympics. And the US was the 4th (last) round finalist against Qatar in the 2022 voting (and had more votes than Korea in the 3rd round and as many in the 2nd round).

    If Putin wants to spend billions on ‘spectacles’, that has almost nothing to do with how the IOC and FIFA operate outside of awarding him the event because A) He’s one of the few people left willing to host the Winter Olympics and B) He bribed FIFA officials just like Qatar, only he was smart enough to literally destroy all of the computers they used (or at least claim they destroyed them).

    Lastly, getting an additional 3-4 games for one stadium (out of 12 being used for the World Cup) isn’t much of a 2 for 1. Similarly, I don’t think the Brazilians that were almost rioting in the streets prior to the 2014 World Cup thought they were getting much of a deal.

  17. My personal opinion has been and remains that housing the Rams and Raiders in Inglewood makes the most sense. Then use the relocation fees to help finance a new stadium in San Diego. Leaving the Raiders in Oakland would prove problematic because there is no chance at all that they get public financing for a new stadium there and it makes no sense for the NFL to contribute funds to 2 separate new stadiums in the Bay Area when they already refused to fund 2 separate new stadium in NY (NJ) and LA. The obvious way around that is for the Raiders to move in with the 49ers (the stadium was designed for 2 home teams as per NFL requirement), but every indication points to the Raiders having no desire to do that.

  18. Leave the Rams in St Louis. Qualcomm, O.com, and the former Busch Stadium were all built within a couple of years of each other. Neither San Diego nor Oakland can figure out how to replace them and St Louis is almost done with a plan to replace the replacement.

  19. Micheal, “sympathetic” was used figuratively. Clearly, their both fairly callous. They’re both well aware of what happens to the host sites afterwards, but they only look forward, like the NFL with T.B.I.’s. Also, if the were literally sympathetic, why would they continue to require countries to waste $50 Billion? (rhetorical) If that doesn’t seem ridiculous, I’d ask what site are on?

    “Countries hold World Cups; cities host Olympics” Lets not split hairs here, bowls are just really big cups– don’t confuse the two. This is important.

    “US was the 4th (last) round finalist against Qatar in the 2022 voting” I didn’t say anything about America’s bid. I specifically referred to Rio & Sochi. They both won bids to both the World cup & Olympic bids within a tight window. Nothing more than an observation.

    While on the subject of the 2022 World Cup: look up who Sepp Blatter is… He’s completely corrupt, so that bid means nothing in regards to the “trend” I mentioned. That’s why I jumped to the 2026 World Cup when he won’t be around, so the former Olympic hosts at that point (South Korea or Japan) might verify the “trend” if 1 of them win that bid.

    So to save you the burden of “unpacking” this labyrinth of complex comments. I only asked 1 question & you didn’t answer it. —> How is it that Sochi hosted the Olympics last year & then won the bid to host the 2018 World Cup? And how is it that Rio hosted the World Cup last year & then won the bid to host the summer games next year? I was suggesting that it might just be common sense. Maybe after one city (or area in a country) wastes $50 Billion– why not get 1 after the other, in that case. It’s not complicated. I think it may have set you off when I indicated that it could be a “trend,” as if I said the IOC and FIFA were colluding & CONSPIRACIES! I wasn’t suggesting that…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *.
NOTE: Personal attacks on other commenters are not allowed in comments, and will be deleted.

HTML tags are not allowed.

757,914 Spambots Blocked by Simple Comments