After more than a year of twists, turns, deal-making and uninspiring play on the football field, NFL owners will take a vote determining the future of professional football in St. Louis.
The leaders of the league鈥檚 32 teams are scheduled to meet on Tuesday and Wednesday in Houston. They鈥檙e slated to take up proposals from the St. Louis Rams, the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders to move to the Los Angeles area.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke provided a big hint that he wanted to bolt from St. Louis last year when he unveiled plans to build largely privately funded stadium in Inglewood, Calif. He confirmed those intentions last ,
But Kroenke鈥檚 LA dreams have been severely complicated by a competing proposal from the Chargers and the Raiders to build a stadium in Carson, Calif. It鈥檚 been widely speculated that the only way for Kroenke to get the votes to move is to make a pact with the Chargers. And that is difficult to imagine, especially since Chargers owner Dean Spanos cited Kroenke's Inglewood overtures as part of his reasoning to partner with the Raiders. (Though it's also quite possible Kroenke could have the votes to block the Carson proposal as well.)
We know that many, many words have been written about this saga (). But this reporter thought it would be worthwhile
Oh, we鈥檙e going to use gifs to illustrate certain points. Why? Because we can.
Do the St. Louis Rams even want to be here?
There was some since Kroenke had remained tight-lipped about his intentions. But there was a pretty strong sense the answer was no,
Well, it鈥檚 fair to say that the Rams' And for St. Louis residents, much of the documents resembled a pro wrestling sneak attack.
The document not only played up the Inglewood facility as the latest and greatest facility to host a NFL squad, but it also and dismissed St. Louis鈥� ability to support a NFL team.
The reaction to the statement of reasons was swift and brutal, and much of the ire was directed at Kroenke. St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay . And responding to the Rams鈥� idea that the new stadium would lead a team to financial ruin, Gov. Jay Nixon issued the sweetest of sweet burns: 鈥淲hen you talk about financial ruin, you generally don鈥檛 think about NFL owners. They seem to have risen to a position to take that away as a life risk.鈥�
How will St. Louis鈥� stadium proposal affect the owners鈥� thinking?
It鈥檚 hard to say definitively since that would require taking a poll of 31 very busy and very rich individuals. (And while Green Packers President and CEO Mark Murphy is probably very well compensated, that team is publicly owned.)
From a cursory glance, the St. Louis proposal seems further along in terms of planning and funding than ones from San Diego and Oakland. and
But when he was in St. Louis last year, NFL executive Eric Grubman . And even the most optimistic person would be hard-pressed to believe that the Rams like the plan, since they declared (literally) in bold terms that 鈥渘o NFL club would be interested in the 鈥� New St. Louis Stadium.鈥�
And if that isn't enough, the Los Angeles Times reported on Goodell said that the St. Louis plan
Grubman went onto say last year, though, that it will be up to the owners to make that determination. And if nine owners believe St. Louis did enough, that鈥檚 all that鈥檚 needed to scuttle Kroenke鈥檚 proposal.
If owners reject Kroenke鈥檚 bid to move, does that mean the new stadium gets built?
Back in November, the answer was no.
And now that we鈥檙e into January, the answer is still emphatically no.
Kroenke is under no obligation to And since the public financing of the facility won鈥檛 become active until Kroenke (or another owner) agrees to pay $250 million and enter into a 30-year lease,
But even though that scenario would keep the NFL in St. Louis, it wouldn鈥檛 exactly create less anxiety. That鈥檚 because nothing is stopping Kroenke from trying to move again in subsequent years 鈥� and possibly to Los Angeles if only the Chargers or the Raiders get the OK this time around.
As the most ardent stadium proponents noted, policymakers here had to come up with some sort of a plan to even stay in this zany relocation game. The question in the case of Kroenke getting rejected: Is it worth it to throw money at somebody who obviously didn鈥檛 want to stay in St. Louis?
What鈥檚 the status of the state鈥檚 funding for the stadium?
Even before the Rams鈥� application became public, the state funding was a bit shaky.
Now, you could argue it鈥檚 on life support 鈥� at best.
Before the Rams鈥� document was released, That included key lawmakers who control much of the legislative process, including House Speaker Todd Richardson, R-Poplar Bluff, Senate President Pro Tem Ron Richard, R-Joplin, and the leaders of the House and Senate budget committees.
Now Kroenke鈥檚 鈥渓ove letter鈥� to St. Louis presents a greater likelihood that the legislature will act to stop that type of action. Stadium task force co-chairman Dave Peacock And since it鈥檚 very, very, very, very unlikely that Kroneke would agree to those terms, there鈥檚 now plenty of time for the legislature to pass (and override a veto) requiring some sort of vote before the stadium bonds are issued.
In fact, it may become a source of pride to some lawmakers to make absolutely sure no state money goes to help Kroenke 鈥� especially after he told St. Louis to effectively buzz off.
So will the Rams stay in St. Louis?
I would love to provide a pinpointed, accurate answer to this question. But the truthful answer is I have no idea.
To paraphrase Alderman Jack Coatar, this reporter cannot view what's inside the hearts and minds of the league鈥檚 billionaire owners. And even if I had that magical power, all the assumptions and predictions in the world could blow up when those powerful individuals haggle in Houston.
But make no mistake about it: No matter what happens, this week鈥檚 meeting will provide some closure to a harrowing process.
That is, unless the three teams deadlock each other so that no team gets to LA, which would ensure a whole lot more ink spilled on this topic.
