New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

@NateTheRam Post that kind of stuff again and I will bounce you. And don't use how you qualified it as an excuse. You can find this guy in multiples in LA or any other town or city. Watch them all you want. Don't post it on this site.

 

[OldSchool]

Just for reference Los Angeles county showed a per capita income last census of $28k. The lowest in New York was 10k over that. There is money in Southern California yes but even San Diego county has a higher per capita than LA county.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't buy that - they wouldn't have local revenue then, which is part of the reason for a salary cap bump

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-revenue.aspx



Think about it - the NFL forces the a city to only watch their local team (unless they have Sunday Ticket).. in the mind of an advertiser, thats guaranteed viewership.

When you move to a larger market, you have a bigger audience - more people to target. Add in Football games are a guaranteed viewership, and a larger market, now the price of spots go up.

Last year The NFL Charged $4.5 million for 30 seconds during the super bowl. Why do you think they charged so much? Because its a gigantic audience with Companies and businesses competing for those spots.

When you combine viewers in the 2nd largest TV market + competitors for those spots = you can see how they reap the rewards

Yeah - I would guess the LA market is in every contract anyway. If it is filled then there is probably a predetermined bump.

 

[Moostache]

Ease up just a little - Mkay? By that I mean that you need to back off the confrontational tone and just stick to points.

Its not my party so I will try to make sure I pee in the toilet and avoid hitting the seat.

...You can say that they didn't build a fan base or the market but history doesn't just go away.

Serious question ...what is the target age demographic for advertisers?
And a serious follow up question ... what is the average age of any remaining LA based fans that would have been there when the Rams last played a home game in California - 1993? or in Los Angeles proper (and not in Anaheim - 1980)?

That is age +20 or age +35. Those are critical numbers to consider. Unless you're telling me that there is a huge, YOUNG fan base in LA as Ram fans...I don't know, I don't live or travel there often (haven't been to LA since '09 except for flights in or out of LAX).

The point is not to make anyone angry about it, and it IS factually based - the NFL wants the LA market because of the numbers of new target age group eyeballs it can sell to the networks and other broadcast partners. The target group that the NFL seeks is not the BBTLAR crowd or other LA Ram fans...those folks are not in the 18-34 demo that advertisers crave, the malleable ones, the ones that advertisers feel can be eadily influenced in their buying decisions.

In THAT regard, the LA Rams history does not contribute anything, its actually not even part of the NFL equation for determining which way they will go. The fact that LA has a larger metropolitan area than St. Louis and by definition more 18-34 year olds as well is of far greater import to the final decision than the 50,000 or so remaining LA Ram fans

 

[iced]

Those are also pretty well established fan bases with long histories in the area. Not so much with the Raiders and especially the Chargers. The Carson location could honestly push some fans away as well, especially when they have to wait 4 years to wait until a game anyway (that could make some people delay on buying them).

If it doesn't succeed, I think that'd be the reason. Wonder if they're banking on LA's eagerness to just have a team

I don't really know how all that works to be honest, I was just going off of what I heard from other people in relation to benefits the league got from the Rams. St Louis fans were dismissing the idea that the Rams moving was a financial benefit to the league until the TV contracts were up for renewal. So you're saying that they are a financial benefit. That would help Inglewood though, no? If the Rams are indeed the most desired team by LA (according to the only poll we have, which was quite non-scientific) then wouldn't that be the team to stick there? If fans don't care as much for the team, they can just simply watch something else, or continue to use DirectTV as many NFL fans probably already do. If the market study were to also suggest that the Rams are the local favorite (and honestly I would expect they would be, especially from who the people who most likely got the surveys) then it would be expected the NFL would want that one. Especially if the general thought is that either stadium will eventually house two teams as it currently is. Rams and Chargers would be a much more appealing duo than Raiders and Chargers from that standpoint.

I don't think it matters who's favorites, especially since a Poll isn't truly subjective of the whole populous. We all know winning = dollars. If a Team in LA is winning (like the Chargers), fans will fill the seats - especially if you're talking playoffs.

And with Television Contracts being the bread n butter, I think that's what truly matters (it does make up 60% of the NFL's overall revenue). Ticket sales don't come close to that - and it's not like people aren't going to buy tickets if Rams don't move.

In fact, IIRC, you've pointed out before Kroenke would be pocketing his own ticket sales (revenues are split 60/40 home/away)if he built his own stadium vs the Riverfront deal...so i'm not sure how this would matter to the other owners, since their big money comes from TV.

 

[dieterbrock]

The worst thing about the Rams proposal was that it would've closed the dome for a very long time during construction which would have cost the CVC and city money. Not only that it would have hurt, or killed their ability to host conventions which is what pays for the EJD.

In the end I have always thought the City and the Rams should've started out right after arbitration on working land deals for Kroenke to build his own stadium. His business track record isn't one of being a renter.

This may be the best post I've read on the topic. Lots of good insight there. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[RamFan503]

A little heavy handed on the warning IMO...but its not my party so I will try to make sure I pee in the toilet and avoid hitting the seat.

That's all I ask.

Serious question ...what is the target age demographic for advertisers?
And a serious follow up question ... what is the average age of any remaining LA based fans that would have been there when the Rams last played a home game in California - 1993? or in Los Angeles proper (and not in Anaheim - 1980)?

That is age +20 or age +35. Those are critical numbers to consider. Unless you're telling me that there is a huge, YOUNG fan base in LA as Ram fans...I don't know, I don't live or travel there often (haven't been to LA since '09 except for flights in or out of LAX).

The point is not to make anyone angry about it, and it IS factually based - the NFL wants the LA market because of the numbers of new target age group eyeballs it can sell to the networks and other broadcast partners. The target group that the NFL seeks is not the BBTLAR crowd or other LA Ram fans...those folks are not in the 18-34 demo that advertisers crave, the malleable ones, the ones that advertisers feel can be eadily influenced in their buying decisions.

In THAT regard, the LA Rams history does not contribute anything, its actually not even part of the NFL equation for determining which way they will go. The fact that LA has a larger metropolitan area than St. Louis and by definition more 18-34 year olds as well is of far greater import to the final decision than the 50,000 or so remaining LA Ram fans

I can answer this somewhat anecdotally. I am a third generation Rams fan. Both my sons are huge Rams fans. I have family and friends in the LA area (mostly Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Simi, and San Fernando Valley) that are mostly the same way. The team was there for so long, it was just a way of life to be a Rams fan. We watched them on TV as actors, they did all kinds of non-football events around the city, the Rams were LA. It's really hard to describe. But we talk Rams history to our kids. They sit around and listen to the yore of the "old folk". All corny stuff maybe but it's just the way it is. More people I know still talk about the great times at Rams games and even Dodger games than Lakers games. You wouldn't believe how jacked my sons are to watch the opening day game in St Louis.

The demographic that actually has money in LA is a little older than the 18 - 35 demo so there is that. But the thing is, the fact that LA hasn't had a team in 20 years cuts both ways. Much of the younger demographic would have likely gravitated toward a new LA team if one had come in. But none did so...

I'm sure that some of the current Rams fans in the LA area would gravitate toward another team should the Rams not be the ones to move to LA. My guess is that the Chargers would garner most of the switching Rams fans while the Raiduhs would pull in the teen crowd and (sorry but it's true) the gang/thug contingent much like they would no doubt do in most any city. If you have ever been to a home Raiduh game, you'd know this to be true.

So IMO - the LA Rams fan contingent does mean something. Certainly not everything or the most important thing to the NFL. But it certainly doesn't hurt - again IMO - to have an instant rabid fan base that has missed their Rams for 20 years. From what I know, they will come back with a vengeance and PSLs will be sold out in a NY minute. I would think that weighs in at least a little.

Cheers man.

 

[OldSchool]

.those folks are not in the 18-34 demo that advertisers crave, the malleable ones, the ones that advertisers feel can be eadily influenced in their buying decisions.

The kids of people who were Rams fans when they were still in LA age range. Perfect target audience built in. Most (read I'm not implying all) kids follow their parents in their sports affiliations.

 

[iced]

The kids of people who were Rams fans when they were still in LA age range. Perfect target audience built in. Most (read I'm not implying all) kids follow their parents in their sports affiliations.

was gonna say...

my old man is a steelers fan,i'm rams, one sister is a chiefs,and other is a redskins fan lol

 

[blue4]

I don't think he's going to be able to successfully argue that they built a market in LA. I don't think he will even try. The forgotten fact here is that he will be abandoning a healthy market so I very much doubt he will even want to have a discussion about fans and building markets. The LA market is so huge that I'm willing to bet he pays what he needs to in order to get it. In other words, the other owners will want their cut to allow this to happen and like a mafia don paying a cut to the police to be able to operate that's what he will do. IMO.

 

[RamBill]

Mo. legislators sue Nixon to stop state stadium funding
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html

ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block state funding of a proposed riverfront football stadium here.

Senator Rob Schaaf and Representatives Rob Vescovo, Jay Barnes, Mark Parkinson, Eric Burlison and Tracy McCreery allege that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally by the Defendant in pursuance of an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money,” the suit says.

Nixon’s two-man stadium task force has presented a plan for a $985 million stadium just north of downtown. The task force estimates it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and say that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.

The legislators’ suit argues that extending those bonds is illegal.

Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, said lawmakers did everything they could to resolve this problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed and discussions were had on the floor but they didn't get anywhere.

"If they want to build a stadium, go ahead but don't expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt," Schaaf said.

If it is approved by a vote of the people, he said, he would be OK with money going toward the stadium.

"I always trust the people," Schaaf said. "If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them."

This story is breaking. Check back soon for more details.

 

[ChrisW]

So....Rob Schaaf is back after his bill was thrown out before the state voted on state funding.

 

[tonyl711]

You're talking about two separate things. First, Goldman Sachs isn't throwing all their money behind the project, they are an investment bank, there is a limit they will hit before the investment is no longer worth it. Which is why saying that they have more money is worthless.

Second I'm not talking about getting the stadium built. Again I'm talking long term security, that has nothing to do with building the stadium or initial losses. That's about what might happen down the line. Unless they have a guarantee from Goldman Sachs to lend them more money if needed, then that's pointless. That's a question that Kroenke can easily answer.

i dont think Stan is going to empty his bank account either, he has his limit too. i dont understand why you would think GS will cringe and Stan wont when GS has 12 times the money. they have publicly stated that they would cover the cost of the stadium and help cover any operating losses, why is it that thier word is not as good as Stans in your eyes?

 

[OldSchool]

So....Rob Schaaf is back after his bill was thrown out before the state voted on state funding.

Question on that, I didn't read the links about this, are they upset about the repurposing the bonds or because they're trying to extend the bonds. I can understand if they're mad about an extension that is creating more public debt without a vote. But if they're just using the remaining years in the current bonds and applying that to the new stadium I don't see much grounds for objecting.

 

[tonyl711]

Why would they though? They need to get that money from various banks, if they can't get them then they're SOL, right? Goldman hasn't offered any guarantees before, have they? Studies are saying its going to take 30 years to set a net gain, so they could have issues with money if suddenly they need it. That's with two teams as well, if it was one team its 40+ years, the return isn't actually all that much for the first few decades, because they have to pay back all the various banks that they borrowed from. They're not just borrowing from Goldman Sachs, they're borrowing from a bunch of different banks that Goldman Sachs is setting up. At least that's how they've done it before and from what I read a whole ago were doing again.

I think that's the main difference between them and Kroenke, its his own money. If costs goes up, its not a big deal, because its his money. If there's an emergency and suddenly he needs to drop another half a billion into the market for whatever reason, its not a big deal because he has it. There's no worry of any issues down the road because Kroenke has the funds on hand, he doesn't need to go anywhere.

and you dont think the Folks at GS realize there might be cost overruns? im sure they arent going into this blind.

 

[OldSchool]

i dont think Stan is going to empty his bank account either, he has his limit too. i dont understand why you would think GS will cring and Stan wont when GS has 12 times the money. they have publicly stated that they would cover the cost of the stadium and help cover any operating losses, why is it that thier word is not as good as Stans in your eyes?

My objection to the GS discussion is people are making it sound like they're providing a blank check for this stadium and there are no issues. The problem lies in if the debt owed to GS exceeds the clubs ability to pay it back or approaches the value of the franchises the NFL will step in and not allow this. The NFL demands that teams are financially stable and that scenario wouldn't make them stable. Most of us realize there is a limit these two franchises can afford to pay back GS, we aren't saying GS doesn't have the money to burn.

 

[D L]

I hope every Missouri politician that is against this new stadium loses reelection, and loses badly. Even if the Rams stay.

 

[ChrisW]

Question on that, I didn't read the links about this, are they upset about the repurposing the bonds or because they're trying to extend the bonds. I can understand if they're mad about an extension that is creating more public debt without a vote. But if they're just using the remaining years in the current bonds and applying that to the new stadium I don't see much grounds for objecting.

I'm pretty sure what he wants to do is extend the payoff year of the bonds 30 years past what they are now. The arguement is that it won't create a new tax, but extend the current Hotel/Rental Car taxes.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Mo. legislators sue Nixon to stop state stadium funding
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html

ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block state funding of a proposed riverfront football stadium here.

Senator Rob Schaaf and Representatives Rob Vescovo, Jay Barnes, Mark Parkinson, Eric Burlison and Tracy McCreery allege that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally by the Defendant in pursuance of an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money,” the suit says.

Nixon’s two-man stadium task force has presented a plan for a $985 million stadium just north of downtown. The task force estimates it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and say that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.

The legislators’ suit argues that extending those bonds is illegal.

Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, said lawmakers did everything they could to resolve this problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed and discussions were had on the floor but they didn't get anywhere.

"If they want to build a stadium, go ahead but don't expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt," Schaaf said.

If it is approved by a vote of the people, he said, he would be OK with money going toward the stadium.

"I always trust the people," Schaaf said. "If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them."

This story is breaking. Check back soon for more details.

These guys aren't going to let it go.

 

[cracengl]

Okay, well breach is probably not the best use of the word, but St Louis not living up to their end, gave the Rams the out. The point I was originally making is that Kroenke going year to year on the lease isn't going to be used against him or help Spanos win over any votes. The Rams were only able to go to year to year because St Louis didn't keep the dome in the top 25% of the league as they were supposed to according to the lease and didn't want to pay for the necessary upgrades. If anything this helps Kroenke, not Spanos, because the Cardinals cited problems with building and maintaining a stadium for reasons for leaving as well.

No one really expected them to live up to them. Not after the ode to extravagance in Dallas. It was wishful pandering from desperate people to lure the Rams.