St. Louis shuffles Rams stadium funding streams, and other exciting NFL-to-LA non-news

Speaking of things that miraculously keep burning way longer than you ever thought possible, here’s the latest from the debates over whether and which NFL teams will move to Los Angeles:

December 28 is the alleged NFL deadline by which cities have to submit their stadium plans or else risk losing teams to L.A. I have no idea what happens if some city comes up with new plans on, say, December 29 — do the NFL owners put their hands over their collective ears and shout, “Not listening! Not listening!”? — but at least it should make for some excitement during an otherwise slow news week.


8 comments on “St. Louis shuffles Rams stadium funding streams, and other exciting NFL-to-LA non-news

  1. It really is too bad that the Raiders’ attitude towards the Coliseum is different from the Packers’ attitude towards Lambeau Field. Oakland remains the best place in the League to watch a game and I’m going to be sad if that is lost.

  2. I believe there are two reasons why it the Raiders are different than Green Bay

    1) Getting Green Bay to move would require a vote of its shareholders (all 250,000 or so) so it has no credible threat to move.

    2) The Raiders are second fiddle to the A’s as tenants so they don’t really contol the stadium and all of its revenues.

  3. The fact that the Packers are unable to move has absolutely nothing to do with its 250,000 marks– err, shareholders. Also, you’ve got to up your reading comprehension skills. I said, “attitude towards”, not anything about revenues or anything else stadium related. If the Raiders had the same ATTITUDE TOWARDS the Coliseum (“This is our permanent home.” “We’ll never move.” “Let’s maximize revenue for the good of the team.” “This is a community effort.”) then the Coliseum site would’ve seen revenue-drawing improvements long ago.

  4. What is the point of having a self imposed artificial deadline if you can’t put it in a sack and hit people over the head with it?

    #societyforputtingthingsontopofotherthings

  5. If anyone is interested, Peter King of Si.com–an excellent writer not prone to hyperbole and typically has good sources—devoted a section of his regular Monday treatise to the LA stadium situation.

    “L.A. Update: Carson surges ahead” http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/07/chip-kelly-philadelphia-eagles-new-england-patriots-nfl

    (scroll about halfway down the main article)

    Peter asserts that the Chargers Carson project (with or without the Raiders) is favored by the NFL LA sub-committee, assuming that St. Louis provides a “solid” plan for the Rams.There are some other tidbits about Kroenke in there as well.

  6. King also predicted earlier this year that the Rams and Chargers would both end up going to Inglewood:

    http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis-stadium-rams-raiders-chargers-los-angeles-nfl/5

    I agree with you that his sources are good, though, so this (Carson surging ahead) may well be a good snapshot of where things are right now. What eventually happens is another story, especially given the key piece of info in King’s latest item: “Neither site is close to having the 24 votes to approve one plan.”

  7. St. Louis’ original plan made no sense because the reimbursement of tax revenue to the Rams would be taxable income.

    Now the City’s liability is limited to the extended tax on tourists and game-day tax revenue, the State is liable for any shortfalls. The total public funding is just over $400 million and should be approved before the deadline. The Rams are staying in St. Louis, the No Financial Liability owners are addicted to free money.