New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

And I'm still not sure I believe that Inglewood with one team is going to give the NFL as much as two in Carson. I don't dispute the notion that Inglewood may generate more money, what I question is whether or not the NFL and the other owners would see enough of that extra money in their profits to use that as a deciding factor, as both would be plenty stable financially. And any Inglewood figure must also take into account the loss of STL unless the Raiders are basically gifted the money to move there.

Inglewood would likely end up housing two teams, unless the Chargers get a stadium deal in San Diego, which obviously 3 new stadiums is best. Honestly I think they would gift St Louis to Davis, if they really are interested in keeping it, which they'd be stupid not to.

I think you need to reread my post - you're saying the exact opposite. I'm saying if Kroenke does leave, what team is going to move to St.Louis? The Raiders can't afford it most likely and the Chargers look dead set on SD or LA.

And it's not just "200'ish" to move here. The investment for the stadium alone is most likely in the $300-$400, and that's not even factoring in the actual cost of moving the team plus any relocation fee's other owners want to associate with it.

If they can't afford their much,much cheaper stadium Oakland, there's no way in hell they can afford to move, pitch in for the stadium, and pay the relocation fee. Pretty much they're only option is Carson or stay put.

Not to mention Davis has made it clear they want to stay in Oakland as option #1...If they can't get a deal in Carson I don't see him packing up. There's also a question to the G4 Loan for his part of the payment too because while Kroenke is eligible for it, they wouldn't be....

Which goes back to your point earlier about the G4 Loans - unless you think they're gonna waive the rules for that too then the question becomes if they're loaning them money for a stadium, why St.Louis over Carson? Their deal solves a problem for two teams with ongoing stadium issues for years, and will house 2 teams.

I believe Carson is more expensive no matter what. That's about 800 million, plus cost of moving, cost of relocation, etc. I was just assuming that they'd give the G4 loan to them, because it's the NFL and they don't give two shits about their rules anyway. If they didn't, then you'd think they wouldn't do it for Carson, so either way 400-500 million is better than a billion. I'm not sure how the costs of the new Oakland deal that they're working on, but I don't know how realistic it is to get done. If they stay in Oakland, then Carson isn't really going to work anyway, which then the NFL easily gives Kroenke the green light regardless of what happens in St Louis.

If the NFL wants to keep the St Louis market, but like the Inglewood project, I think they either wave or extremely reduce the relocation fee for Oakland, and offer them the G4 loan. The funds that they'll get for relocation from the Rams/Chargers would obviously help cover costs for the Raiders as well.

 

[blue4]

Inglewood would likely end up housing two teams, unless the Chargers get a stadium deal in San Diego, which obviously 3 new stadiums is best. Honestly I think they would gift St Louis to Davis, if they really are interested in keeping it, which they'd be stupid not to.



I believe Carson is more expensive no matter what. That's about 800 million, plus cost of moving, cost of relocation, etc. I was just assuming that they'd give the G4 loan to them, because it's the NFL and they don't give two shits about their rules anyway. If they didn't, then you'd think they wouldn't do it for Carson, so either way 400-500 million is better than a billion. I'm not sure how the costs of the new Oakland deal that they're working on, but I don't know how realistic it is to get done. If they stay in Oakland, then Carson isn't really going to work anyway, which then the NFL easily gives Kroenke the green light regardless of what happens in St Louis.

If the NFL wants to keep the St Louis market, but like the Inglewood project, I think they either wave or extremely reduce the relocation fee for Oakland, and offer them the G4 loan. The funds that they'll get for relocation from the Rams/Chargers would obviously help cover costs for the Raiders as well.

I hope the NFL sees it that way as well if the Rams move. I've had the odds of that happening at about 60% for awhile now. I've seen nothing so far to change that so I hope like hell the NFL will do what it takes for the Raiders like they will for Stan.

 

[iced]

Inglewood would likely end up housing two teams, unless the Chargers get a stadium deal in San Diego, which obviously 3 new stadiums is best. Honestly I think they would gift St Louis to Davis, if they really are interested in keeping it, which they'd be stupid not to.

No way - St.Louis would become the new "LA" for leveraging stadiums and deals, and the NFL isn't going to give that away for free. no way the owners pass completely on a relocation fee. An Oakland/Charger in LA and the Rams in St.Louis yields the most dividends imo - SF already has the bay area, Chargers already have a quarter of their fan base in LA, and the St.Louis Market stays in play. Most importantly, you're tapping into all the markets and still keeping all the revenue stream.

I guess where we differ is that to me its not realistic to believe the Chargers or Raiders would move to St.Louis if the Rams were actually allowed to leave..And that's what I'm getting at - is losing a whole market. And the TV Market Share is one of, if not the, biggest part of their income. Last year's Share was in the low $200 millions.

I believe Carson is more expensive no matter what. That's about 800 million, plus cost of moving, cost of relocation, etc. I was just assuming that they'd give the G4 loan to them, because it's the NFL and they don't give two shits about their rules anyway. If they didn't, then you'd think they wouldn't do it for Carson, so either way 400-500 million is better than a billion. I'm not sure how the costs of the new Oakland deal that they're working on, but I don't know how realistic it is to get done. If they stay in Oakland, then Carson isn't really going to work anyway, which then the NFL easily gives Kroenke the green light regardless of what happens in St Louis.

If the NFL wants to keep the St Louis market, but like the Inglewood project, I think they either wave or extremely reduce the relocation fee for Oakland, and offer them the G4 loan. The funds that they'll get for relocation from the Rams/Chargers would obviously help cover costs for the Raiders as well.

The Raiders and the chargers would each both get the G4 Loan for Carson stadium - and I could easily see their relocation fee's being cheaper than the Rams for several reasons.

The owners are gonna do whats best for all 32 owners - thats why I think if there's an LA team its gonna be the Raiders and Chargers with the Rams staying in St.Louis. I don't believe its an even remote possibility that the Raiders would move to St.Louis. Anything is possible, but to say its extremely unlikely would be an understatement.

It's all about that TV Revenue - there's more money in having multiple markets.

 

[bluecoconuts]

No way - St.Louis would become the new "LA" for leveraging stadiums and deals, and the NFL isn't going to give that away for free. no way the owners pass completely on a relocation fee. An Oakland/Charger in LA and the Rams in St.Louis yields the most dividends imo - SF already has the bay area, Chargers already have a quarter of their fan base in LA, and the St.Louis Market stays in play. Most importantly, you're tapping into all the markets and still keeping all the revenue stream.

I guess where we differ is that to me its not realistic to believe the Chargers or Raiders would move to St.Louis if the Rams were actually allowed to leave..And that's what I'm getting at - is losing a whole market. And the TV Market Share is one of, if not the, biggest part of their income. Last year's Share was in the low $200 millions.



The Raiders and the chargers would each both get the G4 Loan for Carson stadium - and I could easily see their relocation fee's being cheaper than the Rams for several reasons.

The owners are gonna do whats best for all 32 owners - thats why I think if there's an LA team its gonna be the Raiders and Chargers with the Rams staying in St.Louis. I don't believe its an even remote possibility that the Raiders would move to St.Louis. Anything is possible, but to say its extremely unlikely would be an understatement.

It's all about that TV Revenue - there's more money in having multiple markets.

I don't think St Louis would become the next LA in terms of leverage, mainly because what makes LA so attractive isn't just because it's an open market, there's plenty of those, but rather because it's the #2 market and it's empty.

I don't think that it's very unrealistic that the Raiders end up moving to St Louis, mostly because if Stan takes the Rams to LA, then that's off the table, and since I don't have much faith in the Coliseum City project actually happening, that leaves the Raiders in need of a stadium. Unless the Chargers move, which I think is the most unlikely thing, where else will they go? St Louis has the stadium they want, they get a fresh start, and their own market.

The cost of moving to St Louis vs Carson wont be significantly different, the relocation fees are likely to be far less, and the stadium is cheaper. Doesn't seem far fetched to me.

If the Raiders do end up staying, then the NFL will probably look at it as trading the 21st market for the 2nd, which to them will probably be seen as a no-brainer.

 

[iced]

I don't think St Louis would become the next LA in terms of leverage, mainly because what makes LA so attractive isn't just because it's an open market, there's plenty of those, but rather because it's the #2 market and it's empty.

I don't think that it's very unrealistic that the Raiders end up moving to St Louis, mostly because if Stan takes the Rams to LA, then that's off the table, and since I don't have much faith in the Coliseum City project actually happening, that leaves the Raiders in need of a stadium. Unless the Chargers move, which I think is the most unlikely thing, where else will they go? St Louis has the stadium they want, they get a fresh start, and their own market.

The cost of moving to St Louis vs Carson wont be significantly different, the relocation fees are likely to be far less, and the stadium is cheaper. Doesn't seem far fetched to me.

If the Raiders do end up staying, then the NFL will probably look at it as trading the 21st market for the 2nd, which to them will probably be seen as a no-brainer.

Except its not realistic for them to afford it - and I have a very hard time believing the NFL is going to give the Raiders a break on the G4 Loan. That'd be setting a precedent to allow teams moving out of state to use a G4 Loan, which is the exact opposite of its intent.

I'm really more curious to see what the NFL is going to do in regards to the Riverfront Stadium - that's the key on whether or not stan can leave, imo.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Except its not realistic for them to afford it - and I have a very hard time believing the NFL is going to give the Raiders a break on the G4 Loan. That'd be setting a precedent to allow teams moving out of state to use a G4 Loan, which is the exact opposite of its intent.

I'm really more curious to see what the NFL is going to do in regards to the Riverfront Stadium - that's the key on whether or not stan can leave, imo.

So then how does Carson get done? That needs the G4 loan as well, from both teams, so if they aren't going to budge on that, then it essentially sinks Carson.

 

[blue4]

StL may be the 21st market, but some success on the field plus some good marketing and there is room to expand your brand a good ways outside the metro area. From a geographical standpoint. The Raiders would be fools not to move here if given the opportunity. IMO.
Hell the way the state of Illinois despises the city of Chicago, you could take most of the state away from the Bears with a couple of playoff wins and some billboards.

 

[iced]

So then how does Carson get done? That needs the G4 loan as well, from both teams, so if they aren't going to budge on that, then it essentially sinks Carson.

Chargers' believe the NFL will allow them both the G4 Loan for the Carson site.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-651853-raiders-carson.html?page=2

“In our view, we’ve concluded that the financing of the stadium here in Carson is very viable and is doable.

The teams would be eligible to borrow $200 million each from the NFL’s G4 stadium fund, Fabiani said.

SD w/ a partial fan base in LA and Raiders joining them to help fund the stadium is a completely different animal than the Raiders packing up and moving to St.Louis (even if they wanted to do it).

 

[Hacksaw]

April 16, 2015

Representatives of proposed stadium projects in Carson and Inglewood met with NFL executives Thursday as the competition to return the league to the Los Angeles area continued.

"I've told all the home market participants and the two potential L.A. participants that we're all in the same situation, which is any clarity around one or more of the home markets can change everything for everybody," he said. "It isn't easy to work in an environment where so many balls are in the air, but that's just a fact of the process that we're in."

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sport...rs-raiders-carson-stadium-20150416-story.html

 

[Big Willie]

The vibe I get from this thread is that most people are willing to accept the Raiders should the Rams leave. Am I misreading the sentiment? The Raiders of the past few years are an organization that is worse than the Rams. So, let's say we get the Raiders....is the consensus that everyone is okay with another 15 years of inept front office management, poor drafting and bad football? Not me. I, for one would rather not have a team than having the Raiders. I want the Rams or an expansion team (not happening). I am not on board with getting behind another downtrodden franchise that will probably move whenever they don't get what they want.

 

[blue4]

The vibe I get from this thread is that most people are willing to accept the Raiders should the Rams leave. Am I misreading the sentiment? The Raiders of the past few years are an organization that is worse than the Rams. So, let's say we get the Raiders....is the consensus that everyone is okay with another 15 years of inept front office management, poor drafting and bad football? Not me. I, for one would rather not have a team than having the Raiders. I want the Rams or an expansion team (not happening). I am not on board with getting behind another downtrodden franchise that will probably move whenever they don't get what they want.

Expansion team is not going to happen like you said. If we lose the Rams and don't get the Raiders then say goodbye to STL football for good. I'm not on board with that at all. I can't imagine why anyone would want that for the fans here. Because they are currently losing? The Cardinals were a downtrodden franchise when they left here. They got a great QB, next thing they are in the SB. Rams sucked ass for a while before coming here, we made a good trade, had a good draft, got a QB, hello GSOT. Things change in the NFL and while the Raiders suck and they're not the Rams, they may have a QB. The people here deserve a team long term, and that's what they'll get with a new stadium. At the very least 20 years with no stupid clauses and a stadium designed for long term use. We build the stadium Peacock has planned there will be no reason for a team to move after 20-30 years.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The vibe I get from this thread is that most people are willing to accept the Raiders should the Rams leave. Am I misreading the sentiment? The Raiders of the past few years are an organization that is worse than the Rams. So, let's say we get the Raiders....is the consensus that everyone is okay with another 15 years of inept front office management, poor drafting and bad football? Not me. I, for one would rather not have a team than having the Raiders. I want the Rams or an expansion team (not happening). I am not on board with getting behind another downtrodden franchise that will probably move whenever they don't get what they want.

It's better then nothing. You want those old abandoned buldings to stay there where the new riverfront stadium would be built? It's more then a stadium, that whole place gets a makeover.

 

[Big Willie]

Expansion team is not going to happen like you said. If we lose the Rams and don't get the Raiders then say goodbye to STL football for good. I'm not on board with that at all. I can't imagine why anyone would want that for the fans here. Because they are currently losing? The Cardinals were a downtrodden franchise when they left here. They got a great QB, next thing they are in the SB. Rams sucked ass for a while before coming here, we made a good trade, had a good draft, got a QB, hello GSOT. Things change in the NFL and while the Raiders suck and they're not the Rams, they may have a QB. The people here deserve a team long term, and that's what they'll get with a new stadium. At the very least 20 years with no stupid clauses and a stadium designed for long term use. We build the stadium Peacock has planned there will be no reason for a team to move after 20-30 years.

No thanks. I will pass. I am still not fully over losing the Cardinals.

 

[Big Willie]

It's better then nothing. You want those old abandoned buldings to stay there where the new riverfront stadium would be built? It's more then a stadium, that whole place gets a makeover.

Not for me. I'd rather say no to the NFL. Considering football is my favorite sport, this would not be an easy decision for me. But if the Rams move, I am done!

 

[blue4]

No thanks. I will pass. I am still not fully over losing the Cardinals.

Not for me. I'd rather say no to the NFL. Considering football is my favorite sport, this would not be an easy decision for me. But if the Rams move, I am done!

Well, that's your decision. But if the NFL comes knocking with a survey I ask that you answer it with a yes. After all, you can choose to not watch if they are here and we still get a team.

 

[CGI_Ram]

No thanks. I will pass. I am still not fully over losing the Cardinals.

I think that's the delicate side to this topic that the NFL does understand, but most fans (those in favor of moving the Rams to LA) miss.

You can't just change teams like you're changing your shoes.

Teams moving is a big deal.

There is a lot of motivation from the NFL side, IMO, to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

 

[ChrisW]

The vibe I get from this thread is that most people are willing to accept the Raiders should the Rams leave. Am I misreading the sentiment? The Raiders of the past few years are an organization that is worse than the Rams. So, let's say we get the Raiders....is the consensus that everyone is okay with another 15 years of inept front office management, poor drafting and bad football? Not me. I, for one would rather not have a team than having the Raiders. I want the Rams or an expansion team (not happening). I am not on board with getting behind another downtrodden franchise that will probably move whenever they don't get what they want.

The Rams won't move if the task force gets funding ironed it. It simply comes down to that. Don't you worry.


If they do leave, I would accept the Raiders on one condition: The Davis family cannot be involved. New ownership, or nothing at all.

 

[Legatron4]

I think that's the delicate side to this topic that the NFL does understand, but most fans (those in favor of moving the Rams to LA) miss.

You can't just change teams like you're changing your shoes.

Teams moving is a big deal.

There is a lot of motivation from the NFL side, IMO, to keep the Rams in St. Louis.

Yeah, I think I rather watch a turd being flushed down a toilet then seeing the fucking raiders trying to immitate a pro football team every Sunday.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Chargers' believe the NFL will allow them both the G4 Loan for the Carson site.

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-651853-raiders-carson.html?page=2



SD w/ a partial fan base in LA and Raiders joining them to help fund the stadium is a completely different animal than the Raiders packing up and moving to St.Louis (even if they wanted to do it).

Yeah, of course the Chargers say that.

If they're willing to change the G4 loans for two teams to leave their markets and relocate, why aren't they willing to do it for one teambti relocate? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[iced]

Yeah, of course the Chargers say that.

Seriously doubt they'd say it if they didn't believe it.

If they're willing to change the G4 loans for two teams to leave their markets and relocate, why aren't they willing to do it for one teambti relocate? That doesn't make sense to me.

Chargers are very confident they're eligible - probably based on the reasoning 25% of their tickets in LA

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/07/nfl-contribution-200-million-chargers-stadium/

“He confirmed what we’ve heard before, that the league is probably good for around $200 million and that we could use that in the development of our financing plan,” Day said. “But that’s dependent on all the other parts coming together.”

^ Doesn't mention anything about the Raiders, but Fabiani never mentioned anything here. Gonna have wait til next week