New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Goose]

I just heard Randy Karraker on the radio say that there is a local moneyman who is ready to purchase the Rams if the offer presents itself.

Wouldn't that be swell.

It makes you think. You know how Kroenke can kill the Carson project and make sure he's the only team in Los Angeles? Buy the Raiders. Sell the Rams. Spanos can't move to L.A. on his own.

Interesting. This would be the first time we would have heard that STL has a perspective buyer if it is true.

 

[RAMbler]

Well I for one do not believe that Stan's actions in Inglewood is a bluff or leverage. I also do not believe he is going to help build a $2B stadium there so that someone else can move in. And just because he hasn't said he IS moving the team means nothing. He also hasn't said he is keeping them in St. Louis. How can such a powerful dude remain so damn silent??

IMHO, he has his sites set directly on the L.A. market. And he has the team, the money, the land, and the blessing from the folks in Inglewood to make it happen.

What I'd like to know is..... even IF the NFL wanted to block his move to California.... how exactly do they 'force' him to pay upwards of $450M for a stadium he may not want, and will not own, in St. Louis?

As I understand it, the G4 'loan' program is to be paid back..... by the team owner. And then there's that legislative thing brought up by that Mo. senator the other day..... ?

There just seems to be a lot of twists & turns being talked about by those who are hoping to keep the team in St. Louis, when everything Stan is doing as well as the powers that be in Inglewood, points 'straight' to the L.A. market.

The shortest distance between point A & point B is a..... straight line..... just sayin'.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Interesting. This would be the first time we would have heard that STL has a perspective buyer if it is true.

I was told that Peacock was spending nearly as much time trying to put together a local ownership group as he was working on the stadium.

Some of the media have speculated of the vague possibility of local ownership. But this is the first time anyone has said it with certainty.

 

[ZigZagRam]

What I'd like to know is..... even IF the NFL wanted to block his move to California.... how exactly do they 'force' him to pay upwards of $450M for a stadium he may not want, and will not own, in St. Louis?

There just seems to be a lot of twists & turns being talked about by those who are hoping to keep the team in St. Louis, when everything Stan is doing as well as the powers that be in Inglewood, points 'straight' to the L.A. market.

The shortest distance between point A & point B is a..... straight line..... just sayin'.

First, welcome to the board.

Second, they can't force Stan to pay for a new stadium here, but they can force him to stay. At that point he'd either play in the Dome, sell, or try to figure out some London pipe dream.

As far as the shortest distance, the shortest distance scenario alienates two California franchises with the worst stadium situations in the league. I doubt that's in the league's best interest, especially when those two franchises reportedly have the interest to solve their problems, together, in L.A.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

County loan suggested for stadium
A county "bridge loan" might be the way to finance a new Chargers stadium, Supervisor Ron Roberts told Mayor Kevin Faulconer's stadium task force Tuesday.

In an hour-long, closed-door session, Roberts told the nine-member panel that the county could front the public share of the project, which has been projected to cost $1 billion or more, until surrounding development begins generating cash flow. The public share has not yet been determined.

San Diego State University President Elliott Hirshman followed Roberts and afterward expressed his "eagerness" to participate in planning for a new stadium, as well as looking out for SDSU's athletic and academic interests.

Roberts said his finance concept probably works better at the existing Qualcomm Stadium site in Mission Valley than a proposed location downtown.


A photo snapped by the chief of staff of county Supervisor Ron Roberts (on right) with Jerry Sanders at a past event of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, which Sanders heads. — Sal Giametta
"As you look at how you might develop, more Qualcomm than downtown, the staging of that development and when that cash flow starts to occur, that's an issue," Roberts said, summarizing his presentation in an interview with U-T San Diego. "That could be a bridge loan that the county could make to get us through the earlier years until revenue starts to flow from leases that would be signed."

His remarks, on behalf of a supervisors committee that includes Supervisor Dianne Jacob, were the first to outline what exactly the county's financial role in the project might be.

Supervisors Chairman Bill Horn earlier this month had spoken of a revenue bond that might be sold by the county but no payback source was suggested -- though he said there would need to be one.

Roberts said a new stadium -- or vastly renovated Qualcomm -- could be surrounded by residential and commercial development that would "kick off a lot of new taxes."

Normally, any development at the Qualcomm site would generate property taxes that flow to the county and city general funds, as well as schools, and the city would collect sales taxes and hotel room taxes. But Roberts suggested if the county and city revenues are somehow applied to paying back any stadium construction bonds, that could go far to underwrite overall costs.

Roberts did not speak of how much in public funds for the stadium might total but did say other revenue sources that the Chargers have said they would like to retain, such as naming rights and personal seat licenses, "have to be brought into play, no question."

"We've got to do a quick analysis of the sites and try to get down to one site," Roberts said, "and then we've got to put everything on the table. Everything means everything."

For other sports facilities around the country, the public has covered around 50 to 60 percent of the total cost, according to the Chargers. In San Diego's case that would work out to around $500 million, of which some could come from a county loan, repaid from surrounding development, and the balance from naming rights and other sources.

He told the task force that a two-thirds vote to raise taxes for the project would be "very, very difficult."

But he said there are new financial tools available, such as an infrastructure district, that would require just 55 percent voter approval. He also said the city and county could lobby in Sacramento for special legislation to expedite environmental review of the final plan, just as Los Angeles obtained for one of its stadium concepts.

"I think there's a way to get this done and I think with the city and county partnership, just as the city and county were (partnered) when the original stadium was built (in the 1960s)," he said.

The county is sitting on hundreds of millions of dollars in reserve funds and also is collecting tax funds previously diverted to various redevelopment agencies in the region, which have been disbanded.

"My colleagues are interested in participating," Roberts said, "but that doesn't mean we just give anybody a blank check. We want to make sure to protect our credit rating at the end of the day."

He said his final message to the task force was "to hurry, get a site selected, focus on that."

SDSU's Hirshman followed Roberts and issued a statement that read in part:

"Today, we expressed our eagerness to participate fully in a stadium partnership that will retain the Chargers in San Diego and advance our region."

Before the meeting task force officials said they had expected Hirshman to talk about the needs of the Aztecs football team, which currently plays at Qualcomm, and possibly what the campus might do if all or part of the Qualcomm site became available as an annex for student and faculty housing and academic buildings -- an idea floated last week by Sen. Marty Block, D-San Diego, whose district includes SDSU.

Task force chairman Adam Day issued a statement after the meeting saying the sessions was "good" and the group looks forward to its first public meeting to be held at Qualcomm at 6 p.m. Monday.

"All of us want the Chargers to remain in San Diego and that's our focus -- finding a solution that works for everyone," Day said. "We're going to put the best plan forward."



The LA leverage game sure seems to be working in San Diego.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Three major problems with that idea that the article mentions:

Roberts did not speak of how much in public funds for the stadium might total but did say other revenue sources that the Chargers have said they would like to retain, such as naming rights and personal seat licenses, "have to be brought into play, no question."

1. This one speaks for itself.

But he said there are new financial tools available, such as an infrastructure district, that would require just 55 percent voter approval. He also said the city and county could lobby in Sacramento for special legislation to expedite environmental review of the final plan, just as Los Angeles obtained for one of its stadium concepts.

2. An infrastructure district would take years to develop. Spanos doesn't have that luxury.
3. A 55% voter approval is certainly better than the 2/3 needed otherwise, but still unlikely. Spanos also doesn't have the luxury of waiting for a vote if the league is targeting L.A. in 2016.

 

[tahoe]

that would still have to pass a vote and that wont happen. that is nothing more than a pipe dream

 

[BuiltRamTough]

My financing plan for a new stadium in SD. Keep in mind I'm LA biased lol

Spanos - 300

G4 loan- 200

Public - 500

PSL- 100

Stans relocation fee goes towards this plan- 300

1.4 bill should get the job done.

 

[tahoe]

My financing plan for a new stadium in SD. Keep in mind I'm LA biased lol

Spanos - 300

G4 loan- 200

Public - 500

PSL- 100

Stans relocation fee goes towards this plan- 300

1.4 bill should get the job done.

the public will never ever approve the 500 million, end of story. San Diego and Oakland will never build new stadiums

 

[ZigZagRam]

My financing plan for a new stadium in SD. Keep in mind I'm LA biased lol

Spanos - 300

G4 loan- 200

Public - 500

PSL- 100

Stans relocation fee goes towards this plan- 300

1.4 bill should get the job done.

First, Spanos wants to keep PSL money.

Second, where's the public money coming from and how do you plan on getting it to pass a vote when nearly everybody says it would be dead in the water?

Third, why would the other NFL owners be OK with handing Spanos a larger chunk of the relocation money? The relocation money is the main reason they'd allow a team to be in LA in the first place.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

that would still have to pass a vote and that wont happen. that is nothing more than a pipe dream

They could kinda do the same thing like what STL is doing and bypass public vote. Even tough it's not certain Nixon has the power to bypass public vote. Other then stadium renderings and a deal in place to move some rail road tracks , STL is not as far ahead of San Diego to build a stadium. Local STL media might disagree though.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

First, Spanos wants to keep PSL money.

Second, where's the public money coming from and how do you plan on getting it to pass a vote when nearly everybody says it would be dead in the water?

Third, why would the other NFL owners be OK with handing Spanos a larger chunk of the relocation money? The relocation money is the main reason they'd allow a team to be in LA in the first place.

Ok fine screw PSLs and the relocation money. 1.1 is still enough to build a stadium. Ok fine the public will give 400 mill not 500 mill. The stadium would then cost 1 bill. Just like the river front stadium.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Ok fine screw PSLs and the relocation money. 1.1 is still enough to build a stadium. Ok fine the public will give 400 mill not 500 mill. The stadium would then cost 1 bill. Just like the river front stadium.

It costs a lot more to build a stadium in San Diego than St. Louis so you'd have to scale back the riverfront stadium by quite a bit to get it to cost the same. That would be pretty unimpressive and I'm not sure Spanos would be pleased with that.

Also, where is the $400M in public money coming from, and how do you plan to get voter approval when everyone else seems to say it'll be nearly impossible?

 

[ChrisW]

They could kinda do the same thing like what STL is doing and bypass public vote. Even tough it's not certain Nixon has the power to bypass public vote. Other then stadium renderings and a deal in place to move some rail road tracks , STL is not as far ahead of San Diego to build a stadium. Local STL media might disagree though.

The only reason STL is able to think about doing that is because of the very nature of the bonds that exist on the dome. Do these bonds exist on the Quaalcom stadium?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

It costs a lot more to build a stadium in San Diego than St. Louis so you'd have to scale back the riverfront stadium by quite a bit to get it to cost the same. That would be pretty unimpressive and I'm not sure Spanos would be pleased with that.

Also, where is the $400M in public money coming from, and how do you plan to get voter approval when everyone else seems to say it'll be nearly impossible?

I'm not saying it will happen for sure but it's doable, read the article again. There are ways to get public money. What do you think the bonds in STL are? Google charger stadium. Read all the new articles in the past 24hrs and you'll see the political dudes are optimistic. If anyone thinks San Diego can't get a deal done is mistaken. Yes I know they have been trying for 15 years but when push comes to shove a deal will get done. There's more movement in San Diego then has been in last 15 years. Why? Bc of LA. And if Spanos didnt think he could get a deal done in San Diego then wtf didn't he move to LA all these years. He knows its doable in SD.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The Fabini dude had a interview today saying that if the Chargers get a new stadium in SD he wouldn't mind 2 teams in LA Bc of all the new revenue that comes with a new stadium in SD. So what about the 25% percent they were crying about? Idk how to post that video but it's interesting. He talk about STL too

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The only reason STL is able to think about doing that is because of the very nature of the bonds that exist on the dome. Do these bonds exist on the Quaalcom stadium?

They could create new bonds in SD can't they? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't know.

Here's the Fabiano interview. Spanos and friends - Italian mafia

http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/ex...f_id/27336881/entry_id/0_4nrmdcn5/embed/auto?

 

[ZigZagRam]

I'm not saying it will happen for sure but it's doable, read the article again. There are ways to get public money. What do you think the bonds in STL are? Google charger stadium. Read all the new articles in the past 24hrs and you'll see the political dudes are optimistic. If anyone thinks San Diego can't get a deal done is mistaken. Yes I know they have been trying for 15 years but when push comes to shove a deal will get done. There's more movement in San Diego then has been in last 15 years. Why? Bc of LA. And if Spanos didnt think he could get a deal done in San Diego then wtf didn't he move to LA all these years. He knows its doable in SD.

It's not going to happen without a vote in San Diego and a vote has little to no chance of happening.

Spanos didn't move to L.A, because he couldn't afford to do it himself without selling a controlling share of his team to Anschutz and there was no current threat to take over the L.A. market.

What do you expect the politicians of San Diego to say? They're trying to save face.

If you're wanting the Rams back in L.A. I'd be hoping Kroenke goes rogue because there's little to no chance of anything getting done in San Diego.

 

[ZigZagRam]

They could create new bonds in SD can't they? I'm not being sarcastic I really don't know.

The Dome bonds were approved by voters 20 years ago. They'd need a 2/3 majority to approve financing like that in San Diego because of state law.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Faulconer tries to QB new stadium for SD
His Honor leaned back in the chair behind his City Hall desk and looked me in the eye — straight, not behind detached political retinas — which, as we San Diegans know all too well, do not see things through.

“I’m going to get this done,” Mayor Kevin Faulconer said. “I wouldn’t be trying if I didn’t believe I could. I wouldn’t be wasting my time; I wouldn’t be wasting everybody’s time.”

We were speaking Tuesday morning in his office, the topic of course being the Chargers stadium issue (although it can’t be and won’t be just a football stadium), and I saw no reason to believe our 11-month mayor wasn’t speaking from his civic heart and gut.

“I’m way out there on this,” he said. “I’m here on the job. This is my time. And I think it’s important to tackle problems head on.”

He’s a little defensive back, Mayor “Rudy,” trying to tackle Jim Brown, but he cares.

I can’t say I believe Moses and his staff can get anything done any more than the mayor and his staff in a town where trimming a palm tree requires a resolution. But the answer he seeks — one we’ve never had — is how to pay for this thing.

The events of the past week, with the Chargers announcing they’re now ridiculously in cahoots with the Oakland Raiders to build an equally ridiculous $1.7 billion stadium in the Shangri-La that is Carson, caught him with his mayoral britches down.

“I was surprised, as was all of San Diego,” he said.

He’s not saying how deep he feels the threat is. I see it as a bluff. But Carson or no Carson, he has his panel of blue ribboners studying the matter and there will be some kind of how-can-we-pay-for-a-stadium plan in place within 90 days.

Carson exacerbated this process, although he said: “I don’t know. I was already going after it before this.”

The biggest surprise was that Carson was being worked on for months and wasn’t leaked. Chargers-Raiders?

“A lot of people are scratching their heads, including this mayor,” Faulconer said. “The road is not clear.”

Faulconer not only inherited this mess, but he’s also the first politician — period — to try to catch the hottest of political footballs. For 13 years, the Chargers — mostly team counsel Mark Fabiani — have done all the talking while the pols cowered with deaf ears.

Carson (it’s called leverage) explains why Fabiani was (overly) critical of the way the mayor was handling the issue, leading to a face-to-face meeting Sunday between Faulconer and Chargers President Dean Spanos.

“It was productive” was all Faulconer would say.

Fabiani, no rube, knew that after so many imagined threats about L.A., Carson was something that could defibrillate the issue.

“I’m probably the first mayor to say we need a new stadium. Can you think of another one?” he asked rhetorically.

He didn’t expect an answer, because he knew I knew.

“We’re going to have a plan, for the first time,” he added, “a plan that will work for the taxpayers. I’ve been here 11 months. Let’s try to solve this. Thirteen years, and what do I have here on a new stadium? Nothing. Zero files.”

In his defense, he wasn’t going to get it done in a few weeks — the Chargers saying he wasted 11 months wasn’t fair — but he went into office knowing he had to do something, that Qualcomm Stadium is a dump. Off-road racers won’t even play there anymore.

“We need a new stadium,” he sighed, adding that a new facility, be it downtown or on the current site, will have to be more than a stadium, that development around it, as with Petco Park (property tax, sales tax, transient occupancy tax) will be important.

He’s not afraid of a good fight, but said: “Let’s get it out there at least. We can’t debate it until we know what the plan is, a plan that’s fair. I have bright people working on this, volunteers who are invested in success. There are a lot of other things they can be doing.

“Look, something’s going to happen in L.A., but I’m focused on San Diego, not L.A. We’re going to have a plan for the first time, one I believe will work.

“Sunday afternoons. The Chargers are part of our fabric.”

If Carson has a fabric, who would wear it?