New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

You're talking about revenue that goes to the NFL and the owners, I'm talking about revenue that goes to the city. If they're the ones responsible for the stadium upkeep, and it's safe to assume that's the case given that it's owned and operated by Carson Stadium Authority, then either the owners need to set aside additional funds to maintenance and upkeep of the stadium, or more likely Carson needs to find that money.

Why are you assuming that? The model is based off of Santa Clara. In that model, the City IS NOT responsible for stadium operating/maintenance

Also: http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

IS THERE MORE WORK TO BE DONE ENVIRONMENTALLY AND WHO WILL PAY FOR IT ?

Yes, there is. Over the years, more than $150 million has been spent on clean up, both by the various land owners controlling the 152 acres and the Carson Redevelopment Agency. Still to be completed is installing extraction wells to remove methane and other gases – a process that will take about six months – the cost of which will be shared by the developer and the Carson Redevelopment Agency, which has contributed financially to the clean up over the years and will continue to do so.

An important point to note: That money is going to be spent on the site
no matter what. Football, no football, mall, no mall. Whatever that land is eventually used for, money has already been set aside by Carson Redevelopment Agency to assist in the remaining clean up.

It’s important to note there is no connection between the clean-up funds and the City of Carson’s general fund.

Meanwhile, all of the extra costs necessitated by a football stadium will be paid for privately from revenues generated by the team or teams at the stadium. Such a large contribution by the teams is made possible by the enormous size of the Los Angeles and Orange County markets.

Investors do have a cut off point, that's a pretty important part of investing. That's not saying they cant afford the stadium, that's pointing out that the statement of "We have Goldman Sachs, we have more money." is incorrect because it doesn't work that way.

Correct - But unless you're assuming you know what their threshold is, it's irrelevant to speculate what it is. Have you not noticed how much they've been backing this? They've offered to finance the move, the initial losses, and assist in any renovations needed in temporary venues. I'm sorry but that sounds like a firm commitment to me. If its fair to question their cut off point it'd be equally fair to question Kroenkes...And let's stop acting like he has Cash in hand either, and is most likely drawing loans himself.

No it doesn't, Carson is a stadium that can house two teams. There are three teams trying to get to LA. One team doesn't get it and thus doesn't have a stadium. Inglewood is a stadium that can house two teams. There are three teams trying to get to LA. One team doesn't get it and thus doesn't have a stadium. Implying that Carson solves all three implies that Kroenke wants St Louis, and everything seems to suggest otherwise. Either way if two teams move to LA then two teams lose a market. Raiders and Chargers moving does not just simply add another market, you're losing both of their current ones.

Inglewood gets two teams in LA and has more revenue than Carson.

I'm 99% confident Carson is going to have two teams - Davis and Spanos recently bought land together for the stadium -

A complex land transaction was completed Tuesday that would allow for the construction of a joint stadium to be shared by the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders, the Bolts' special counsel confirms.

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/Chargers-Raiders-Carson-Stadium-Land-Purchase--304291411.html

And I never implied Kroenke wanted the deal - that scenario though gets all 3 teams new stadiums. and It'd be the best option for the whole league as far as Market Revenue goes. And no, you're not losing the markets like you would be with the Rams leaving St.Louis. The Chargers have been the only team in SoCal for the last 20 years, and would still be drawing some of their fans from San Diego area. Raiders leaving the bay area doesn't mean much since The Niners are still there, and having 2 teams in LA only strengthens the market. However losing St.Louis would be losing a market since no one is coming here, which is a whole another city to extract television money from. When I'm thinking markets I'm thinking the more you're in the more money it is for the owners, and since the majority of their revenue is TV money, that's what they care about - especially if they wanna get to $25 billion.

 

[WillasDad]

All this talk about Goldman Sachs, but Spanos and certainly Davis do not have the kind of money to pay back whatever the stadium ends up costing. I'd imagine there's a significant amount of risk for both owners to take on a loan of this size, along with whatever the relocation fee ends up being.

 

[The Ripper]

Why are you assuming that? The model is based off of Santa Clara. In that model, the City IS NOT responsible for stadium operating/maintenance

Also: http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

Correct - But unless you're assuming you know what their threshold is, it's irrelevant to speculate what it is. Have you not noticed how much they've been backing this? They've offered to finance the move, the initial losses, and assist in any renovations needed in temporary venues. I'm sorry but that sounds like a firm commitment to me. If its fair to question their cut off point it'd be equally fair to question Kroenkes...And let's stop acting like he has Cash in hand either, and is most likely drawing loans himself.

Their not backing anything for a year so all your hearing the pitch.

I'm 99% confident Carson is going to have two teams - Davis and Spanos recently bought land together for the stadium -

They bought 11 acres for 20 million combined and that's not big enough for a stadium.

And I never implied Kroenke wanted the deal - that scenario though gets all 3 teams new stadiums. and It'd be the best option for the whole league as far as Market Revenue goes. And no, you're not losing the markets like you would be with the Rams leaving St.Louis. The Chargers have been the only team in SoCal for the last 20 years, and would still be drawing some of their fans from San Diego area. Raiders leaving the bay area doesn't mean much since The Niners are still there, and having 2 teams in LA only strengthens the market. However losing St.Louis would be losing a market since no one is coming here, which is a whole another city to extract television money from. When I'm thinking markets I'm thinking the more you're in the more money it is for the owners, and since the majority of their revenue is TV money, that's what they care about - especially if they wanna get to $25 billion.

That's just like saying the Chiefs are there so what does it matter if the Rams leave.

Ad revenue also dependent on the demographics and San Diego and the Bay Area have higher ad rates.

Why are you assuming that? The model is based off of Santa Clara. In that model, the City IS NOT responsible for stadium operating/maintenance

It's not an assumption because that's what the Raiders and Chargers have said. Carmen Policy as also used that talking point.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Why are you assuming that? The model is based off of Santa Clara. In that model, the City IS NOT responsible for stadium operating/maintenance

Also: http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

Santa Clara has public funds and G4 loans, it's changed from that. What you bolded doesn't say that the teams are paying for maintenance, it looks like it's talking about the cleanup from all the toxic waste, and that the money for that will come from the stadium.

Correct - But unless you're assuming you know what their threshold is, it's irrelevant to speculate what it is. Have you not noticed how much they've been backing this? They've offered to finance the move, the initial losses, and assist in any renovations needed in temporary venues. I'm sorry but that sounds like a firm commitment to me. If its fair to question their cut off point it'd be equally fair to question Kroenkes...And let's stop acting like he has Cash in hand either, and is most likely drawing loans himself.

I didn't say I knew what their threshold is, I said it's unlikely that it's somewhere in the 3 or 4 billion dollar range, which is money that Kroenke could, in theory, pay. That doesn't mean that it's not in that range, and it doesn't mean that Kroenke is going to drop 3 or 4 billion. It's saying that I don't think the threshold is as much as Kroenke's networth, which is in theory, the amount of he can put down for a stadium. Of course he's not going to do that, but he has the ability.

I'm 99% confident Carson is going to have two teams - Davis and Spanos recently bought land together for the stadium -

I never said it wasn't. Two teams in Inglewood generates more than two teams in Carson.

And I never implied Kroenke wanted the deal - that scenario though gets all 3 teams new stadiums. and It'd be the best option for the whole league as far as Market Revenue goes. And no, you're not losing the markets like you would be with the Rams leaving St.Louis. The Chargers have been the only team in SoCal for the last 20 years, and would still be drawing some of their fans from San Diego area. Raiders leaving the bay area doesn't mean much since The Niners are still there, and having 2 teams in LA only strengthens the market. However losing St.Louis would be losing a market since no one is coming here, which is a whole another city to extract television money from. When I'm thinking markets I'm thinking the more you're in the more money it is for the owners, and since the majority of their revenue is TV money, that's what they care about - especially if they wanna get to $25 billion.

If Kroenke doesn't want the deal then how does that solve all three teams? We don't know that it's the best market as far as market revenue goes without knowing the results of the market study, but I'd assume that yes you'd want to keep St Louis as a market.

You are losing markets though. Typically speaking San Diego residents don't like Los Angeles, you're assuming that they'll still draw a sizable portion from that city, and that's unlikely. If they were only able to draw 25% from LA, why would they be able to draw more from San Diego? If that's the argument, you could say that the St Louis market would be absorbed by the various teams that are near by, Kansas City, Chicago, etc. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most from St Louis would disagree.

If TV market sizes are the most important thing then keeping a second team in the 6th market (Bay area) would be more important than the 21st market (St Louis) which is more important than the 28th (San Diego).. Which means either Spanos goes at it alone, or the Chargers replace the Rams since Inglewood alone generates more than Carson alone.

Either way Inglewood or Carson, two teams get a stadium and one does not. If Kroenke has told the NFL they can select whichever team goes to Inglewood with him that can solve several problems, including the worry that they're going to move too quickly by sticking two teams in the area suddenly, and that they'll have too much time in temporary stadiums. They both leave that third team in the same situation. Stuck back home where they probably don't want to be (although that's debatable with Davis) and no leverage to get the deal they want.

 

[iced]

That's just like saying the Chiefs are there so what does it matter if the Rams leave.

Lol how is that even remotely the same? They're 12 miles away from each other - a hop over the bridge. St.Louis and Kansas City are not local in the same regards The Bay area is.

They bought 11 acres for 20 million combined and that's not big enough for a stadium.

Uh no, 160 acres.

http://thepioneeronline.com/26247/sports/silver-and-black-explore-carson-stadium/

On May 19 the Oakland Raiders, in partnership with the San Diego Chargers, agreed to purchase nearly 160 acres of land in Carson. The Raiders and the Chargers are trying to acquire new stadiums in their current homes, but they are pursuing the Carson proposal if a deal does not present itself.

It's not an assumption because that's what the Raiders and Chargers have said. Carmen Policy as also used that talking point.

it's an incorrect assumption
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

It’s important to note there is no connection between the clean-up funds and the City of Carson’s general fund.

Meanwhile, all of the extra costs necessitated by a football stadium will be paid for privately from revenues generated by the team or teams at the stadium. Such a large contribution by the teams is made possible by the enormous size of the Los Angeles and Orange County markets.

 

[blue4]

Their not backing anything for a year so all your hearing the pitch.



They bought 11 acres for 20 million combined and that's not big enough for a stadium.





That's just like saying the Chiefs are there so what does it matter if the Rams leave.

Ad revenue also dependent on the demographics and San Diego and the Bay Area have higher ad rates.




It's not an assumption because that's what the Raiders and Chargers have said. Carmen Policy as also used that talking point.

With all due respect, the Raiders leaving has nothing in common with the Rams leaving. The Chiefs are on the other side of the state if the Rams leave. The 49ers are in plain sight, on the other side of a bridge. It's nowhere near the same thing. This is about markets and who can serve that market in the long term. The 49ers can serve that market easily in the long term. Maybe not the day after the Raiders move, but again the NFL is going to think long term. I sorry but the Chiefs are too far away to serve the St Louis market in any meaningful way. IMO this isn't going to be about fans, or division rivalries, or stuff like that. It's going to be about markets, distance, and the ability to reach as many markets as possible.

 

[RamBill]

Market assessments coming to St. Louis
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/18776/market-assessments-coming-to-st-louis

EARTH CITY, Mo. -- The NFL market studies being conducted on the cities trying to keep their teams are complete and the results have been passed along to the teams in St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego. But the people working on trying to get stadiums built in those cities are still awaiting those results.

“The first phases of the market study are completed," NFL executive Eric Grubman said. "They’ve been in our hands, and we’ve been analyzing them. We gave them to the clubs a week or so ago and will shortly be giving summaries of that to the home market officials and task forces, and so forth and so on."

The study to which Grubman is referring is the market assessments that began earlier this offseason. The league sent out surveys to thousands of fans in each market and conducted smaller focus groups to go along with it. The goal of both was to get an idea of how committed fans are to buying tickets, personal seat licenses, merchandise and more.

In addition, the league spent time interviewing local business leaders -- the types who pay for sponsorships, suites and premium seats -- to gauge their interest in providing big money investments.

All of that information has been collected but now the league, the teams and the cities must put it to work.

“There’s another refinement to those studies," Grubman said. "The study is data, and then you make some judgments based on that data. Then you have to design a marketing plan, and go test the assumptions around that marketing plan. That step has not been done, because you need to know where you are marketing and who you are marketing.

“So all of the work to have the raw material and data is done, but to refine those judgments is going to take a little bit longer.”

When that's done, those results will be shared with the current markets. Here in St. Louis, that means passing along the data to the north riverfront stadium task force led by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz. That group has been eagerly anticipating that information for awhile after sitting in on the focus groups.

"We sat through the focus groups," Peacock said last month. "It was good, gave me confidence in the seat license number. We have not had a good NFL experience in St. Louis. Take team performance out in 99-2004 then played in a baseball park and a convention center. When fans start understanding it, you see this is something different and unique and new for the market. We look forward to the league sharing that."

The league also has done repeated studies in Los Angeles, surveying multiple sites with multiple team combinations. According to Grubman, that includes looking at sites beyond just Inglewood and Carson.

Perhaps most important in all of this is getting a grasp on what's realistic for PSL sales in a given market. Those numbers can be used as a major source of funding in getting a new stadium built. For example, a Los Angeles stadium could come up with record-breaking numbers on the PSL front while St. Louis is hoping to land something in the range of $120 million to $130 millon in PSL money.

“The next step for the market assessment study, other than divulging the information, is you have to connect the marketing data, and the judgments around that data, to a sales and marketing plan," Grubman said. "You have to then come to judgments about – if you have data on how many PSL seats could be supported, and what the level of those PSLs are."

Soon enough, those results should be made available to the cities and then to the rest of us.

 

[The Ripper]

Lol how is that even remotely the same? They're 12 miles away from each other - a hop over the bridge. St.Louis and Kansas City are not local in the same regards The Bay area is.

Same thing no difference

Uh no, 160 acres.

They bought 11 acres for 20 million that's it. The remaining parcel was sold to a shell for $ 2 and then transferred to the authority. The Raiders and Chargers never took possession of the land.This is not disputed they would have had liability if they owned the property at anytime.

it's an incorrect assumption
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

Sorry try again completely wrong nothing in that article says anything about the structure of the project and how it is not modeled after Levi. Plus Vinny has changed his tune about that article since he wrote it.

If your referring to this. Roger Goodell said if they qualify which was left out of the quote from Vinny. IF you doubt it go search for the video.

The NFL has long insisted it will financially support just one Los Angeles stadium through it’s G-4 loan program – roughly $200 million to the team or teams building a new stadium – a fact Commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated in an interview with Charlie Rose of “CBS This Morning.”

 

[The Ripper]

With all due respect, the Raiders leaving has nothing in common with the Rams leaving. The Chiefs are on the other side of the state if the Rams leave. The 49ers are in plain sight, on the other side of a bridge. It's nowhere near the same thing. This is about markets and who can serve that market in the long term. The 49ers can serve that market easily in the long term. Maybe not the day after the Raiders move, but again the NFL is going to think long term. I sorry but the Chiefs are too far away to serve the St Louis market in any meaningful way. IMO this isn't going to be about fans, or division rivalries, or stuff like that. It's going to be about markets, distance, and the ability to reach as many markets as possible.

I was responding to a post so if you want to comment make sure you get the context correct. Iced was making the point of the Raiders's leaving and they still had the 49'rs. I didn't make the point he did. Switching team loyalties is not about distance

 

[iced]

I was responding to a post so if you want to comment make sure you get the context correct. Iced was making the point of the Raiders's leaving and they still had the 49'rs. I didn't make the point he did. Switching team loyalties is not about distance

Team Loyalty isn't about TV Revenue - markets are, and that's biggest chunk of their revenue

 

[iced]

Same thing no difference

Big time difference when you're discussing broadcast areas and markets - Ticket sales aren't the revenue they used to be, TV Contracts dominate.

They bought 11 acres for 20 million that's it. The remaining parcel was sold to a shell for $ 2 and then transferred to the authority. The Raiders and Chargers never took possession of the land.This is not disputed they would have had liability if they owned the property at anytime.

Lol they have agreed to buy the land - it's theirs unless no decision is made on it by April 30th,2016. Then it would go back to the city.. But they have the agreement for 160 acres everywhere. You can google it yourself and easily find many places talking about the final closing of the land.

Sorry try again completely wrong nothing in that article says anything about the structure of the project and how it is not modeled after Levi. Plus Vinny has changed his tune about that article since he wrote it.

The same link you posted before the about the G4 had Fabiani stating multiple times that its modeled after Santa Clara. Not exactly but extremely similar.

If your referring to this. Roger Goodell said if they qualify which was left out of the quote from Vinny. IF you doubt it go search for the video.

The NFL has long insisted it will financially support just one Los Angeles stadium through it’s G-4 loan program – roughly $200 million to the team or teams building a new stadium – a fact Commissioner Roger Goodell reiterated in an interview with Charlie Rose of “CBS This Morning.”

I'm sure they will - and given how Fabiani also said he planned on two G4's but now only getting one, you think its a coincidence the NFL increased their debt from $200 to $250? The Raiders can take that loan from the NFL in place of The G4, so its just a wash. Not that different when the NFL created funds for Levi stadium - they look like they could doing it again here.

 

[The Ripper]

Team Loyalty isn't about TV Revenue - markets are, and that's biggest chunk of their revenue

Yes, I wasn't calling you out. I just wanted to refer it back to what I was talking about. The tv revenues coincide with the networks so comparing Oakland and St Louis is different because they're different networks

 

[iced]

Yes, I wasn't calling you out. I just wanted to refer it back to what I was talking about. The tv revenues coincide with the networks so comparing Oakland and St Louis is different because they're different networks

but losing Oakland isn't the same thing because of the broadcast area it covers. Its not the same thing at all. The NFL is still in the bay area with the niners - if the Rams left St.Louis, there wouldn't be any presence here. Not the same with Oakland - The same area that was covered by both teams before will still be covered by the Niners.. As far as advertising goes, nothing changes. They still had would have the NFL in the bay area at the end of the day.

 

[The Ripper]

Big time difference when you're discussing broadcast areas and markets - Ticket sales aren't the revenue they used to be, TV Contracts dominate.
They bought 11 acres for 20 million that's it. The remaining parcel was sold to a shell for $ 2 and then transferred to the authority. The Raiders and Chargers never took possession of the land.This is not disputed they would have had liability if they owned the property at anytime.

Lol they have agreed to buy the land - it's theirs unless no decision is made on it by April 30th,2016. Then it would go back to the city.. But they have the agreement for 160 acres everywhere. You can google it yourself and easily find many places talking about the final closing of the land.

They have not purchased or have any control over the rest of the parcel. That is not disputed by anyone. It's a fact they never did and never will own the rest of the parcel. If they take possession of the land they're liable in a suit for the environmental issues forever as well as every other owner.

I'm sure they will - and given how Fabiani also said he planned on two G4's but now only getting one, you think its a coincidence the NFL increased their debt from $200 to $250? The Raiders can take that loan from the NFL in place of The G4, so its just a wash. Not that different when the NFL created funds for Levi stadium - they look like they could doing it again here.

What. There's only one loan program. G-4 and that cap was increased.

but losing Oakland isn't the same thing because of the broadcast area it covers. Its not the same thing at all. The NFL is still in the bay area with the niners - if the Rams left St.Louis, they wouldn't be any presence here. Not the same with Oakland - The same area that was covered by both teams before will still be covered by the Niners.. As far as advertising goes, nothing changes. They still had would have the NFL in the bay area at the end of the day.

2 different tv contracts the networks have their own. This has nothing to do with the NFL it's a material change to the tv contract

 

[bluecoconuts]

it's an incorrect assumption
http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/04/30/clearing-up-some-questions-about-carson-stadium-project/

I don't know exactly if Carson is paying for maintenance and upkeep of the stadium, but I'm about 90% sure the bit you're quoting has nothing to do with that, and isn't saying what you think it's saying.

That section is about the toxic cleanup needed before a stadium. Because they plan on building a stadium there, they need to go through extra length in order to make sure it's safe and can hold up to the extra weight/traffic. It also sounds like they're saying that those monies will come from money generated from the stadium, not from the teams.

 

[blue4]

I was responding to a post so if you want to comment make sure you get the context correct. Iced was making the point of the Raiders's leaving and they still had the 49'rs. I didn't make the point he did. Switching team loyalties is not about distance

Well then I must have misunderstood you. You could have just said "I think you misunderstood my meaning" instead of "if you want to make a comment, get the context right". I mean, I have been here for the entire 387 pages, I didn't just jump in to the conversation to start something.
Anyway, I apologize for the misunderstanding.

My point, regardless of who it should have been in response to, is still valid. The NFL probably will consider distance to some degree in order to try to keep as many markets served as possible. Fan loyalty, as we in St Louis can attest, is not going to be much of an issue.

 

[iced]

I don't know exactly if Carson is paying for maintenance and upkeep of the stadium, but I'm about 90% sure the bit you're quoting has nothing to do with that, and isn't saying what you think it's saying.

That section is about the toxic cleanup needed before a stadium. Because they plan on building a stadium there, they need to go through extra length in order to make sure it's safe and can hold up to the extra weight/traffic. It also sounds like they're saying that those monies will come from money generated from the stadium, not from the teams.

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...ing_wp_cron=1432873952.4945371150970458984375

An important point to note: That money is going to be spent on the site
no matter what. Football, no football, mall, no mall. Whatever that land is eventually used for, money has already been set aside by Carson Redevelopment Agency to assist in the remaining clean up.

It’s important to note there is no connection between the clean-up funds and the City of Carson’s general fund.

Meanwhile, all of the extra costs necessitated by a football stadium will be paid for privately from revenues generated by the team or teams at the stadium. Such a large contribution by the teams is made possible by the enormous size of the Los Angeles and Orange County markets.

Granted its up to interpretation, but its right there. Not going to keep repeating myself either - I've quoted this section more than once now, and I think it's pretty clear.

 

[iced]

They have not purchased or have any control over the rest of the parcel. That is not disputed by anyone. It's a fact they never did and never will own the rest of the parcel. If they take possession of the land they're liable in a suit for the environmental issues forever as well as every other owner.

Semantics - several outlets have reported the land is secured for the Raiders/Chargers stadium. I can quote you at least 3 or 5 sources off the top of my head or you can google it yourself.

What. There's only one loan program. G-4 and that cap was increased.

It was never stated the G4 Loan was increased; only what the teams can borrow from the NFL

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/...28/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-debt.aspx

NFL clubs will now have the ability to tap into an additional $50 million each to use for various purposes, from player payroll to stadium construction.

2 different tv contracts the networks have their own. This has nothing to do with the NFL it's a material change to the tv contract

It has everything to do with their TV contracts - do you really not think the NFL is going to get a boost in their market share by moving to LA? If that was the case, people wouldn't be constantly talking about the "#2 Nation's largest TV Market."

When a city has a team playing - they are forced to watch their team only unless they have NFL Ticket. That is guarantee exposure for advertisers, which means dollars to the NFL, especially in untapped or larger markets. When you spread it over different markets, that's more to reap. If the Raiders left, the NFL would still have that market through the presence of the Niners - the bay area is still forced to watch only niner games when they're on. That's one way how they can drive up the prices for spots through LOCAL TV REVENUE, which played a big part in the salary cap bump.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Gurely yells "LA Rams"...

https://instagram.com/p/3QH8nMAr3P/

 

[ChrisW]

Gurely yells "LA Rams"...

https://instagram.com/p/3QH8nMAr3P/

I didn't hear him say LA Rams. He said "LA Dude". Probably because the Rookie Premiere was in LA.

On another note, is this necessary? If you're going to throw shit against the wall, at least make sure it sticks.