New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Seems like a pretty dang important aspect of the project. Wouldn't this tell the city/state how much in revenues they are going to be dealing with? Not sure how you factor spending and ROI without knowing how much of the revenue pie you will be receiving.

Ive always assumed that they've been operating on the assumption that they'll have what they have, and whatever they don't is on Kroenke. When they took the county out, that was one of the suggestions, that Kroenke, or whichever owner is there, cover that portion of the bill. Therefore they can continue to push forward, and try to sell the NFL with "We're coming up with this much money, we're hoping to get this from PSL's, the rest is on them, but we did all we could in your timeframe." And they can sell the public as well, without going into detail.

That's why I'm a bit pessimistic in Stan staying, unless he wants to stay. While the public is an easier sell, and the NFL may be impressed/happy with what they were able to do, I don't think it's an easy sell to say "Well we know we have this much, we hope to get this much more, but if we don't its on him, and if we go over on budget its on him, and he will have to pay more than 50% including your loan, and we want you to force him to accept."

I just don't know if that flies with the owners. Especially if attendance slips to a certain point, or market studies aren't as favorable. If they do approve the December timeline, it may have doomed the task force in forcing the Rams to stay. If Stan wants to stay there then they're okay.

We'll have to see how things develop as they move along though, it'll be interesting. I remain pessimistic that the Rams stay in St Louis, but more optimistic that the NFL will look to keep St Louis an NFL city (as they should). As much as I don't like it, I think the Raiders are the most likely to call the riverfront stadium home.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,959
Name
Stu
Ive always assumed that they've been operating on the assumption that they'll have what they have, and whatever they don't is on Kroenke. When they took the county out, that was one of the suggestions, that Kroenke, or whichever owner is there, cover that portion of the bill. Therefore they can continue to push forward, and try to sell the NFL with "We're coming up with this much money, we're hoping to get this from PSL's, the rest is on them, but we did all we could in your timeframe." And they can sell the public as well, without going into detail.
I never saw where anyone suggested that. But then I haven't seen much detail at all about who is expected to pay for what in reality. I keep seeing vague numbers as to who is going to come up with what as a base figure for construction but there are so many other figures still to be settled.

If Stan wants to stay there then they're okay.
In the end, this may dictate more than many people are acknowledging.

We'll have to see how things develop as they move along though, it'll be interesting. I remain pessimistic that the Rams stay in St Louis, but more optimistic that the NFL will look to keep St Louis an NFL city (as they should). As much as I don't like it, I think the Raiders are the most likely to call the riverfront stadium home.
I just don't see how they go forward with building a stadium if the Rams move. Maybe they can just keep moving forward with financing and hope to lure another team but I really see it as a political death nail if they end up with a stadium being constructed and have to dangle carrots to get someone to play there.

I have to think that there will be no stadium construction starting until a team is committed to playing there.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
I never saw where anyone suggested that. But then I haven't seen much detail at all about who is expected to pay for what in reality. I keep seeing vague numbers as to who is going to come up with what as a base figure for construction but there are so many other figures still to be settled.

It's possible I was reading it wrong, but I took this statement as them suggesting that Kroenke would cover the mission portion. It wasn't a clear "He should do it." but it was saying that it's an option, and I haven't seen anything else that would suggest they have other ways to cover things.

Shrewsbury said the uncertainty of a public election is, right now, worse than losing $6 million a year from the county. “One of the issues that needs to be resolved is the financing,” he said. “The quicker that’s done, the better chance we have of prevailing in this matter. And if there’s some doubt as to whether or not the county can participate, it’s better to move without them.

“At the end of the day, if we get a favorable decision, we can always revisit the issue,” he continued. “If we don’t get a favorable decision, it’s all moot.”

Besides, Shrewsbury said, he thinks the NFL and Kroenke — or whoever might own a team in St. Louis — could be persuaded to put more money into a stadium plan. “I think they’re wanting to see our commitment before they make a commitment,” he said.

He also suggested that the city/state increase their portion, but I don't know if they can increase the portion covered by the city/state by simply extending the bonds. I'd imagine that by changing, and increasing at that, how the costs break down, it would open them up to legal issues, especially with different people already threatening lawsuits and other things. It's possible, but I get the feeling they're more looking to have the owner throw in anything they can't cover.

I just don't see how they go forward with building a stadium if the Rams move. Maybe they can just keep moving forward with financing and hope to lure another team but I really see it as a political death nail if they end up with a stadium being constructed and have to dangle carrots to get someone to play there.

I have to think that there will be no stadium construction starting until a team is committed to playing there.

I don't think they would build it, but I can see them offering up the potential to any owner who would take it (which Davis seems the most likely to me at this point).. The problem is that's a finite option, once the bonds on the dome are paid off there's probably no chance. Honestly if 2-3 years went by it would probably be harder, that's why it would be in St Louis's best interest to try to snag the Raiders while they're looking for a viable long term option, since Oakland sure isn't it, and if the Rams go to LA the Chargers likely quickly move in to avoid letting those two teams take away ticket sales. Unless Spanos were to agree to move to St Louis (but I have serious doubts there) I think Davis is the best bet. This all assumes of course that Kroenke does indeed leave.

I do hope he stays, but if he doesn't, I really hope that St Louis doesn't have some pity party and let the chance to be an NFL city slip away. I don't think that would happen, especially since Peacock seems to be addressing that possibility, but it would be a shame. My family will be leaving LA back to Ireland in about 2-3 years (when my father retires) to live the good life with everyone else (leaving me the only one in the states!) so it's unlikely I'll be back here unless I get work at a university in the area. Since my girlfriends entire family lives in St Louis, and her mom was nice enough to give us a house that she owns (once we get hitched, she said she'll sign it over to us) I know I'll be back there likely every other year or so. Therefore if St Louis doesn't at least remain an NFL city I'm going to be pretty damn pissed.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I never saw where anyone suggested that. But then I haven't seen much detail at all about who is expected to pay for what in reality. I keep seeing vague numbers as to who is going to come up with what as a base figure for construction but there are so many other figures still to be settled.


In the end, this may dictate more than many people are acknowledging.


I just don't see how they go forward with building a stadium if the Rams move. Maybe they can just keep moving forward with financing and hope to lure another team but I really see it as a political death nail if they end up with a stadium being constructed and have to dangle carrots to get someone to play there.

I have to think that there will be no stadium construction starting until a team is committed to playing there.


I would hope not, as this is what led to this situation in the first place. Stan says no, then ask Davis. He says no, well time to dust off some of those old hobbies cause it isn't meant to be. That sucks, but building without a commitment is foolhardy IMO.
 

D L

Rookie
Joined
Dec 24, 2014
Messages
237
Name
Dylan
Bluecoconuts,

Just curious as to why you think Davis would move to STL? To me it seems he is barely interested in moving to LA. He hasn't given any indication that he is interested in St. Louis.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Bluecoconuts,

Just curious as to why you think Davis would move to STL? To me it seems he is barely interested in moving to LA. He hasn't given any indication that he is interested in St. Louis.

If he can't go to LA, and can't get something done in Oakland why not? I think he's wishy washy on LA due to cost, the team is pretty cash strapped, and he's gotta scrape up close to a billion dollars for Carson. PSL and naming rights will only go so far.

Apparently he was going to attend that Inglewood presentation, but couldn't due to a schedule conflict, which could be Kroenke looking to pick off the weak link in the Carson project. However in terms of outcomes the NFL doesn't want, I'd imagine Rams and Raiders in LA is up there, it really screws Spanos over.

Back to Davis though, he's said he wants a smaller stadium, St Louis fits that bill, it's affordable for him, and as a bonus it gives him a fresh start (which means more revenue from new fans), and he doesn't need to compete with anyone (49ers in the bay area, Chargers/Rams in LA) either. He hasn't given any indication he'd move to St Louis, but I think if LA isn't an option, he'd look closely at it. That's just a wild guess on my part, I know others in the media have floated that idea as well, but I'd venture that's just a wild guess as well. JT has said "no comment" on if he knows more about the Raiders moving, but I think he's just trying to come across as having some inside information. Either way, St Louis would probably be the best thing to happen to the Raiders. The flip side is I don't think the Raiders really deserve St Louis, but if it ends up being Raiders or nothing, gotta think people would rather Raiders.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
If he can't go to LA, and can't get something done in Oakland why not? I think he's wishy washy on LA due to cost, the team is pretty cash strapped, and he's gotta scrape up close to a billion dollars for Carson. PSL and naming rights will only go so far.

Apparently he was going to attend that Inglewood presentation, but couldn't due to a schedule conflict, which could be Kroenke looking to pick off the weak link in the Carson project. However in terms of outcomes the NFL doesn't want, I'd imagine Rams and Raiders in LA is up there, it really screws Spanos over.

Back to Davis though, he's said he wants a smaller stadium, St Louis fits that bill, it's affordable for him, and as a bonus it gives him a fresh start (which means more revenue from new fans), and he doesn't need to compete with anyone (49ers in the bay area, Chargers/Rams in LA) either. He hasn't given any indication he'd move to St Louis, but I think if LA isn't an option, he'd look closely at it. That's just a wild guess on my part, I know others in the media have floated that idea as well, but I'd venture that's just a wild guess as well. JT has said "no comment" on if he knows more about the Raiders moving, but I think he's just trying to come across as having some inside information. Either way, St Louis would probably be the best thing to happen to the Raiders. The flip side is I don't think the Raiders really deserve St Louis, but if it ends up being Raiders or nothing, gotta think people would rather Raiders.

It all depends on the relocation fee. If his fee is waived to accomodate STL, then it might be an option. But there's no way he pays something like $500 million in relocation, and 250 million for the new stadium.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,959
Name
Stu
I would hope not, as this is what led to this situation in the first place. Stan says no, then ask Davis. He says no, well time to dust off some of those old hobbies cause it isn't meant to be. That sucks, but building without a commitment is foolhardy IMO.
I agree but hope it doesn't come to that anyway.
Bluecoconuts,

Just curious as to why you think Davis would move to STL? To me it seems he is barely interested in moving to LA. He hasn't given any indication that he is interested in St. Louis.
My only thought on this is that he was looking into and had conversations with people in San Antonio so it would appear that moving to a completely different market is not out of the question for him. I dunno though - maybe SA was a bluff on his part?
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
It all depends on the relocation fee. If his fee is waived to accomodate STL, then it might be an option. But there's no way he pays something like $500 million in relocation, and 250 million for the new stadium.

I don't think they would waive it entirely, but I can see reducing it to entice him, I truly believe that the NFL desires to keep St Louis as an NFL market (if Davis isn't totally against moving there, it could help Kroenke's case to leave), so they'd want him to go there. I don't think it'll be as high as 500 million though, it's not LA. I think it would be closer to 100 million, if that.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,959
Name
Stu
It all depends on the relocation fee. If his fee is waived to accomodate STL, then it might be an option. But there's no way he pays something like $500 million in relocation, and 250 million for the new stadium.
I'd agree with that being what would need to happen or maybe some similar variation. I don't think Davis buys in if he has to come up with $750 million to play in a new stadium. And realistically, he'd have to come with likely $450 million plus a relocation fee if not waived. In that scenario, I don't see any way in hell he does it.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
How Atlanta is financing there stadium...interesting they're borrowing $850 million

http://www.myajc.com/news/business/...tter_2014_falcons_sfp#05e60262.3828699.735716

Falcons will borrow $850 million for stadium construction
By Leon Stafford and Tim Tucker - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The new Falcons stadium is taking shape next to the Georgia Dome.

The Atlanta Falcons plan to take out construction loans totaling $850 million to help fund the team’s portion of the cost of building the new retractable-roof stadium downtown, a team official told a state agency Tuesday.

Greg Beadles, the Falcons executive vice president and chief financial officer, told the Georgia World Congress Center Authority board that the team expects to secure the loans from a syndicate of up to eight banks within the next couple of weeks.

Stadium agreements have been in place among the Falcons, the state and the city of Atlanta for two years, but Tuesday’s meeting marked the first time the Falcons have said publicly how much they will borrow to fund their portion of the cost.

The Falcons reported on the status of their financing as the city’s economic development agency, Invest Atlanta, prepares to issue bonds in May to cover the city’s $200 million commitment toward stadium construction and to cover additional issuance costs. The bonds, and the interest on them, will be repaid from Atlanta hotel-motel tax revenue over the next 30 years.

The final hurdle to issuing the bonds was cleared last month when the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the city’s financing plan, following challenges by citizens.

“This has been a long, long road, but we’re comfortable where we sit in the road,” said Jim Beard, the city’s chief financial officer.

The Falcons’ loans will be for up to five years, by which point longer-term financing would be secured. The Falcons would be able to reduce the loan amount at that point with revenue generated from sales of sponsorships, suites and seats.

The eight banks met with Falcons officials on April 16, according to Elliott McCabe, managing director of the Sports Finance & Advisory Group at Bank of America, the Falcons’ stadium financial advisor. The lenders’ response has been positive, McCabe said.

“I can report the expressions of interest are very strong,” McCabe told the GWCCA board. “In fact, we have received verbal and written commitments in excess of the amount we need. So we are in very good shape.”

After hearing from the Falcons and the city, the GWCCA board voted to authorize a “final closing” next month on the agency’s voluminous stadium agreements with the Falcons. The GWCCA will own the stadium.

“This is the last step of the journey we’ve been on, starting a little over two and a half, three years ago,” GWCCA executive director Frank Poe said.

The stadium — under construction next to the Georgia Dome — has a construction budget of $1.4 billion, not including interest costs. The NFL will contribute $200 million.

Another source of revenue for construction is sales of personal seat licenses, or PSLs, which are one-time fees for the right to buy season tickets. The Falcons have repeatedly declined to say how much they expect the PSLs to generate and again resisted that question when posed by GWCCA board member Doug Tollett.

Beadles replied that the team won’t have a projected total until more prices are set this summer. The Falcons have been selling PSLs for the stadium’s 7,700 club seats since January, at prices ranging from $10,000 to $45,000, and plan to seek GWCCA approval of prices for the other 60,000-plus seats by early June.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,959
Name
Stu
How Atlanta is financing there stadium...interesting they're borrowing $850 million

http://www.myajc.com/news/business/...tter_2014_falcons_sfp#05e60262.3828699.735716

Falcons will borrow $850 million for stadium construction
By Leon Stafford and Tim Tucker - The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

The new Falcons stadium is taking shape next to the Georgia Dome.

The Atlanta Falcons plan to take out construction loans totaling $850 million to help fund the team’s portion of the cost of building the new retractable-roof stadium downtown, a team official told a state agency Tuesday.

Greg Beadles, the Falcons executive vice president and chief financial officer, told the Georgia World Congress Center Authority board that the team expects to secure the loans from a syndicate of up to eight banks within the next couple of weeks.

Stadium agreements have been in place among the Falcons, the state and the city of Atlanta for two years, but Tuesday’s meeting marked the first time the Falcons have said publicly how much they will borrow to fund their portion of the cost.

The Falcons reported on the status of their financing as the city’s economic development agency, Invest Atlanta, prepares to issue bonds in May to cover the city’s $200 million commitment toward stadium construction and to cover additional issuance costs. The bonds, and the interest on them, will be repaid from Atlanta hotel-motel tax revenue over the next 30 years.

The final hurdle to issuing the bonds was cleared last month when the Georgia Supreme Court upheld the city’s financing plan, following challenges by citizens.

“This has been a long, long road, but we’re comfortable where we sit in the road,” said Jim Beard, the city’s chief financial officer.

The Falcons’ loans will be for up to five years, by which point longer-term financing would be secured. The Falcons would be able to reduce the loan amount at that point with revenue generated from sales of sponsorships, suites and seats.

The eight banks met with Falcons officials on April 16, according to Elliott McCabe, managing director of the Sports Finance & Advisory Group at Bank of America, the Falcons’ stadium financial advisor. The lenders’ response has been positive, McCabe said.

“I can report the expressions of interest are very strong,” McCabe told the GWCCA board. “In fact, we have received verbal and written commitments in excess of the amount we need. So we are in very good shape.”

After hearing from the Falcons and the city, the GWCCA board voted to authorize a “final closing” next month on the agency’s voluminous stadium agreements with the Falcons. The GWCCA will own the stadium.

“This is the last step of the journey we’ve been on, starting a little over two and a half, three years ago,” GWCCA executive director Frank Poe said.

The stadium — under construction next to the Georgia Dome — has a construction budget of $1.4 billion, not including interest costs. The NFL will contribute $200 million.

Another source of revenue for construction is sales of personal seat licenses, or PSLs, which are one-time fees for the right to buy season tickets. The Falcons have repeatedly declined to say how much they expect the PSLs to generate and again resisted that question when posed by GWCCA board member Doug Tollett.

Beadles replied that the team won’t have a projected total until more prices are set this summer. The Falcons have been selling PSLs for the stadium’s 7,700 club seats since January, at prices ranging from $10,000 to $45,000, and plan to seek GWCCA approval of prices for the other 60,000-plus seats by early June.
And do we wonder if the Dome lease continues to haunt the city of St Louis? Without that, I really have to suspect Stan is having to offer far more than the city is apparently asking now.

I realize that Arthur Blank initiated the new stadium idea there and offered to pay for most of the costs early on but St Louis would have been under no obligation to do anything with the Dome at this point and instead would have at minimum had to come to the city with a proposal rather than what he knew would win arbitration based on the 25% clause.
 

rams2050

Starter
Joined
Sep 7, 2011
Messages
588
From Jim Thomas's Rams Chat of yesterday:
  • Do you think Dave Peacock would ever consider trying to put together an ownership group to try to by the Rams from Stan if the Rams are blocked from moving?
    by STLFootball 2:13 PM yesterday
  • 0e475d5f-323f-402d-8cf9-425ee2567049.jpg

    Yes.
    by jthomas 2:13 PM yesterday
http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_88?Page=2
 

dbrooks25

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 2, 2014
Messages
1,119
From Jim Thomas's Rams Chat of yesterday:
  • Do you think Dave Peacock would ever consider trying to put together an ownership group to try to by the Rams from Stan if the Rams are blocked from moving?
    by STLFootball 2:13 PM yesterday
  • 0e475d5f-323f-402d-8cf9-425ee2567049.jpg

    Yes.
    by jthomas 2:13 PM yesterday
http://sports.live.stltoday.com/Event/Rams_chat_with_Jim_Thomas_88?Page=2
Yeah, I found that to be interesting. I could be reading into that one word answer a bit, but it seems like JT may know something about that.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,959
Name
Stu
Yeah, I found that to be interesting. I could be reading into that one word answer a bit, but it seems like JT may know something about that.
Somehow I really doubt Stan would be interested in selling. It's not what he does and it's not like he could just go out and buy a new one.
 

Hacksaw

ROCK HARD STUD
Joined
Mar 8, 2015
Messages
451
I'd agree with that being what would need to happen or maybe some similar variation. I don't think Davis buys in if he has to come up with $750 million to play in a new stadium. And realistically, he'd have to come with likely $450 million plus a relocation fee if not waived. In that scenario, I don't see any way in hell he does it.
Davis's cash reserves are limited. Spanos has more money but not so much where he can do anything alone. any where those guys go is going to have a sizable debt.
ESK provides a scenario where one of those two teams could get into a new stadium on a free ride. Not that I want the Raiders in LA but I think Davis would have an open mind considering the financial position he is in. Possibly Spanos too.

Something that really baffles me is that in all these years in those old antiquated stadiums neither of those owners chose to leave. They like their hometowns and have great fan bases. Carson seems to be more about leverage and options then a real desire to play in los angels...
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
And do we wonder if the Dome lease continues to haunt the city of St Louis? Without that, I really have to suspect Stan is having to offer far more than the city is apparently asking now.

I realize that Arthur Blank initiated the new stadium idea there and offered to pay for most of the costs early on but St Louis would have been under no obligation to do anything with the Dome at this point and instead would have at minimum had to come to the city with a proposal rather than what he knew would win arbitration based on the 25% clause.

The Dome is actually turning into a source of Revenue, using to host other events year round now. I think it was part of the reason for building a new stadium as opposed to just renovating
 
Status
Not open for further replies.