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.

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
edit: removed an answered quote.

This is Mayor Fraye(did I get St Louis' mayors name right?) appointed guy or is it an elected official? In other words is this a guy appointed by the Mayor who's a backer of the stadium giving a bad report? Or is this another political obstacle being thrown out there. I'm curious on St Louis' elections. Here the budget director is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the city council. So he's a political appointee/pawn so to speak. Either way this looks like yet another financing hurdle to get over, the degree of which would be decided by the politics of the office imo.

PD articles have been anti-stadium for awhile now. This could be nothing, or it could be everything.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2022 TOP Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
38,389
PD articles have been anti-stadium for awhile now. This could be nothing, or it could be everything.

Very well could be and truthfully I believe it's a small amount per year. Wasn't this only slated to cover like $6 million a year? Granted that's funds that would have to come from elsewhere but not a large number in the grand scheme of things.
 

WillasDad

Rookie
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
147
Name
WillasDad
But you don't need LA to make this strategy work. It will work anywhere. Wasn't Ming in Houston? The world doesn't hang on every thing LA does. It's a mistake to think otherwise, I think.

Maybe you're right, but I'd argue that had Yao Ming played in Los Angeles, or if Nomo, Park, and Fernando hadn't played in LA, their names would take on a very different aura internationally. I guess it's debatable, but there's a reason most of these international players generally want to play in NY or LA, no offense.
 

ChrisW

Stating the obvious
Joined
Sep 9, 2013
Messages
4,670
Very well could be and truthfully I believe it's a small amount per year. Wasn't this only slated to cover like $6 million a year? Granted that's funds that would have to come from elsewhere but not a large number in the grand scheme of things.

Yea, the cities portion of the new stadium is 6M/year. That's why I want to know how much the increased revenues from having the dome open for conventions year round is. It could very well cover this number.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
i have a hard time believing that anyone on this forum would be happy negotiating with someone who wont even answer a phone call,

Demoff wont answer the phone? Strange, because he seems to be doing that, giving input, and going to market studies, meetings, etc.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
But you don't need LA to make this strategy work. It will work anywhere. Wasn't Ming in Houston? The world doesn't hang on every thing LA does. It's a mistake to think otherwise, I think.

I think it's more talking about the Chinese/Asian base that's already in Los Angeles. A lot of rich Asian families (especially Chinese) send their children to UCLA to study before returning home. Often they move three generations out there (student, parents, grandparents) while they're in school with them. It's actually a little weird, because they'll be eating lunch and quizzing their child. Anyway, getting them as fans, allows the brand name to spread much easier, as the hope is they'll go back home and influence their friends and family as well. Yes it's doable in every city, it's easier in LA because the rotation of families is already pretty well established and there's a lot more fruit to be picked so to speak.
 

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Maybe you're right, but I'd argue that had Yao Ming played in Los Angeles, or if Nomo, Park, and Fernando hadn't played in LA, their names would take on a very different aura internationally. I guess it's debatable, but there's a reason most of these international players generally want to play in NY or LA, no offense.

I would argue that they want to play there because of the diversity and culture of the cities, not because they grew up loving LA sports. But it's debatable.
 

WillasDad

Rookie
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
147
Name
WillasDad
I think it's more talking about the Chinese/Asian base that's already in Los Angeles. A lot of rich Asian families (especially Chinese) send their children to UCLA to study before returning home. Often they move three generations out there (student, parents, grandparents) while they're in school with them. It's actually a little weird, because they'll be eating lunch and quizzing their child. Anyway, getting them as fans, allows the brand name to spread much easier, as the hope is they'll go back home and influence their friends and family as well. Yes it's doable in every city, it's easier in LA because the rotation of families is already pretty well established and there's a lot more fruit to be picked so to speak.

I don't doubt that a lot of what you say has and will continue to happen, but I think it's more practical than that. People in general take interest in a sport if they have someone that can take interest in who participates in that sport. It's basically like the Olympics. How much do we really care about track and field, curling, or Greco-Roman wrestling unless an American is participating in the sport? As to why LA or NY is important, it's basically because most decent sized media from other countries will generally have anywhere from one to three offices (NY, DC, LA) in the U.S. The Internet helps, but being close to action has its benefits.
 

WillasDad

Rookie
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
147
Name
WillasDad
I would argue that they want to play there because of the diversity and culture of the cities, not because they grew up loving LA sports. But it's debatable.

Yeah, that's the point I was trying to make, but clearly not as efficiently as you were able.
 

OldSchool

Rams On Demand Sponsor
Rams On Demand Sponsor
ROD Credit | 2022 TOP Member
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
38,389
when did KD buy the Rams?

It's funny that Fabriani is accepted as the voice for the Chargers in their stadium issues yet Demhoff isn't accepted in the same position for the Rams. I guess the Kroenke hate is too strong. Demhoff at the last meeting presented both the St Louis and Inglewood plans/updates. He's long been Kroenke's voice in all matters Rams.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,812
Name
Stu
Man please, who thinks about putting up another stadium 10 years after building the first one? I'm pretty tired of this being brought up. The first tier clause is why we are here, no denying that, but c'mon.
I wouldn't argue that they should have necessarily been planning out a new stadium but should have likely been planning out how to honestly deal with the top tier issue as they knew it was there and that shoe would eventually drop.

I know that wondering why and criticizing St Louis for not starting plans on a new stadium in 2005 is silly. We were one year from the playoffs, the dome rocked every Sunday, and the facility was a mere ten years old. The bathrooms were still in mint condition for God's sake. So I can't speak for SD, but the criticism on this is invalid. Because it's completely divorced from reality. Top tier? Certainly open for criticizing, hindsight it was dumb, born of desperation. But to criticize for not starting in 2005 is completely invalid.
Again, the condition has been there for remaining in the Dome lease. It was a bad idea from the get go but the elephant has always been in the room.

This is a very good point. Many like to say St. Louis should have talked about building a new stadium in 2005 as if we had a crystal ball and knew Georgia would not be here in a few years, her kids couldn't afford to keep the team, and then sell it to Kroenke (who had a small hand in bringing the team here in the first place) who in turn tries to make a move back to L.A. (if that's indeed his intention). I too imagine if Georgia was still alive, we wouldn't be going through this. And again, who talks about putting up a new stadium or paying hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade a 10 year old facility?
I really don't give Georgia this kind of latitude. If nothing, she was all about sucking as much money from the team as possible and keep in mind that she originally had Baltimore in her sights until Shaw - being on the NFL stadium committee - brought the St Louis dilemma to her knowing how desperate they were to get a team in the dome.

Demoff isn't a wall, I'd rather negotiate with him than with someone who sits down, doesn't really listen, and then trashes everything they see to kill the proposal before it gets off the ground.
I would definitely agree with this. If someone is bashing plans in public, how does the public get behind it? Sorry but Fabiani appears to be intentionally poisoning the water whereas Demoff at minimum is offering suggestions on the proposal at hand without undermining it with the public.

You don't know if Demoff does that or not
I kinda think we do but even if this is true, we don't know that Fabiani is helping in SD either.

He may not put publicly, but you have no idea how he is behind closed doors. We don't know if he sit there like a brick wall or not, we don't know what suggestions he makes, we only know that in public they are polite. There are as many reports that say the Rams are forced to attend meetings.
The Rams may have been indeed forced but through that, we know Demoff has offered suggestions (undoubtedly from Stan) and some of those suggestions have been incorporated. What we do know is that he hasn't publicly discredited what the task force is doing.

Behind closed doors isn't a big deal, that's not what I'm worried about. Trashing the project publicly greatly damages the project and essentially kills it. It's very hard to garner support for a project when the team is trashing it, people don't want to agree to spend money if they figure it doesn't matter anyway.
Again, I have to follow this logic. Publicly dismissing the proposal in SD and openly criticizing those involved like Fabiani has been doing can't help in getting the public behind a proposal to use tax dollars toward a new stadium.

lol, so you would rather negotiate with someone who has no real say in how something goes, than with the person who has all the say on how it goes? really? that doesnt make sense to me.
You are assuming that Demoff has no say or is not echoing his boss' edicts yet Fabiani is. I don't see how that would possibly be the case - at least with Demoff.

I gotta stop coming to this thread every day. From the notion that the city should have started stadium plans before the paint dried on the ED, to this new idea that the Rams are being gracious to St Louis for not falsely trashing a perfectly good stadium proposal they barely look at, it's getting a bit out there.
My take is that the city should have at minimum had an end goal in mind here. Not necessarily for a new stadium but just what they were going to do throughout the process. I don't know that there is a good answer here because the lease was so damned one sided toward the Rams. It sucks.

It's not that the Chargers want Los Angeles or San Diego. What Dean Spanos wants is simple, and Mark Fabiani has been telling us for over a decade what it is. The team wants a new, state-of-the-art NFL stadium that doesn't potentially bankrupt the team's owner.

That's it. That's all.
What bankrupts the owner? The Chargers are supposedly being paid to play in SD.

It would be more of a boon for the city than it would be for the team.
That is not what most evaluations indicate but I do agree with this. There are many financial reasons a team playing in a city impacts the tax base through economic activity and the like.

I'll gloss over this quickly, but the Mission Valley site also has a ton of issues. Traffic down there is already a nightmare.
And Carson isn't? Really?

This would be like if the Chargers, as a way to start negotiations with Eric Weddle, gave him a low-ball offer ($5 million a year for two years) in a press conference to the whole of the San Diego media. Then, when everyone pointed out that he's worth closer to $10 million and probably wants four or more years, the team says "Well, this is just the start of negotiations." It's silly!
Not to beat a dead horse but isn't that exactly what the CVC did with their proposal to the arbitrators?

Due to the task they were given and the way they were told to go about it, CSAG got no assistance from the Chargers. We want to call the Chargers the bad guys for this, but they're actually not! If the Chargers interacted with CSAG and gave them some guidance, it would likely be their stamp of approval on the project, closing potential options in Los Angeles. Because they knew the big announcement was coming, their only option was to respond to it once it was out.
And yet Demoff IS giving the task force in St Louis input on the Riverfront stadium. Doesn't that indicate a potential willingness to play in the new stadium in St Louis? Is it possible that staying is still in their future plans?

A starting point for negotiations should be figuring out deal-breakers and baselines. The Mayor should have met with the Chargers and figured out what types of things they would not be willing to do (or not able to afford) to get a stadium, then he could have had someone put together a starting point based on that. Instead, he did it backwards, and embarrassed the city in the process.
I thought all indications and Fabiani himself said that they had been meeting with the mayor.

Financing

Let's do some quick, stupid-guy math on that CSAG proposal.

The Chargers were asked to contribute $300 million.
The Chargers were asked to pay $173 million in rent.
The Chargers were asked to split $60 million in estimated PSL sales with the city/county, so that's another $30 million they're kicking in.
The Chargers were asked to share in the cost of operation and maintenance of the stadium, so tack on another million or so dollars per year.
The Chargers were asked to assume the cost of construction overages, which I'm estimating to be another $100 million (JMI's estimate for overages on a downtown stadium were about $120m).
So now we're over $600 million that the Chargers are potentially putting towards a new stadium in Mission Valley.

Flawed stadium site aside....the stadium proposed was a bit "bare bones" itself. The seating capacity is listed as somewhere between 65,000 and 72,000. There were no mention of luxury boxes and they're missing from the artist renderings (which is important because they affect construction costs and revenues in a pretty big way). There is no roof of any sort (because they said it would cost an addition $150 million), leaving out any chance of getting any sort of indoor event (such as the NCAA Basketball Tournament).

So, to quickly summarize, Mayor Faulconer wants the Chargers to pay over $600 million for a bare bones stadium in a part of the city that has no real room for expansion or growth. Is that a lot or a little? Let's find out!
There are several flaws here. The PSLs are supposed to be $120 million (still seems low); the $600 million is not taking into account what we already know will about to $200 million not coming out of the owner's pockets but $50 million that would; the Riverfront stadium would not be able to host NCAA tourneys either and Stan wouldn't get one dime from any held in the dome and the seating for the Riverfront stadium is less.

Again, it is really difficult to compare apples to apples on any of the financing proposals over the past 10 years or more.

Truth be told, the Chargers are already likely pushing the limits of their budget, and are "overspending" when it comes to what NFL teams spend on these stadium things.
How so? Specifically. And are we talking their current stadium or what they have offered to spend? I don't recall anything saying what they are willing to spend.

L.A.'s NFL stadium riddle: Three teams, two plans, what to expect next
By Sam Farmer contact the reporter
Seems like a pretty fair article.
So wait, it could be argued that Kroenke's utter unwillingness to work with the city, and the cities ability to come up with a viable stadium on it's own, without any input from the team, is a reason why Kroenke should be allowed to move?
Yeah - not sure how that passes muster if that is actually the case. The team is apparently giving some input but how much is debatable.

He's talking to Peacock and Blitz. Peacock said that the stadium was built with the Rams input. You can be assured that the NFL and the STL stadium crew know what he wants. He's not just sitting at home with his arms crossed not talking to anyone.

Now, maybe not much direct contact has gone on with Kroenke. But you can damn well bet that he's given Demoff specific instructions to reign over the Rams side of this.
This is what I have read. Again, I don't have any way of knowing how active the Rams have been in this process. We know Stan hasn't been directly involved but what that means or how it is viewed by the NFL is unknown.

It doesn't get built, but maybe he then decides to secure his own land and finance his own stadium. If the Rams were to stay, I'm sure Goodell would try hard to persuade Kroenke to do the Riverfront project, however.
This may not be too far from what actually happens. In fact, Kroenke may be still working toward this end. It may seem far fetched but Kroenke could still be even building a stadium with plans to sell it to either another team(s) or the NFL itself. Then he turns around and secures the Riverfront property for himself and builds what he actually wants in his native lands. Can anyone actually say that the city wouldn't be able to secure the land and then sell it to Stan at a very owner friendly price.

But I can see why he might have a change of heart... since he said that, his financial position has worsened... oh, wait.
OK - this is pretty funny. Thanks for that.

Just another great article by Shane.
 

CodeMonkey

Possibly the OH but cannot self-identify
Joined
Jun 20, 2014
Messages
3,449
He doesn't sell things, but I will add this. IMHO it's about raising the value of the Rams to where it's an even swap for the Broncos. That alleviates the dual ownership problems.
eyebrow-081.jpg
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
It's funny that Fabriani is accepted as the voice for the Chargers in their stadium issues yet Demhoff isn't accepted in the same position for the Rams. I guess the Kroenke hate is too strong. Demhoff at the last meeting presented both the St Louis and Inglewood plans/updates. He's long been Kroenke's voice in all matters Rams.
do you see anything that says Spanos has refused to take the governors calls? i havent?
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Can anyone actually say that the city wouldn't be able to secure the land and then sell it to Stan at a very owner friendly price.

I think they can't take the land by force, which they're planning on doing, for a privately owned venue. That would create a potential hiccup there if the case.
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
Hadn't you heard? Man you really ARE out of the loop. :D
i must be, but really, if you were a St Louisan wouldnt you want to hear that the owner is at least taking calls? i understand that KD is listening, but to hear your governor, the task force and anyone involved in St Louis plan say they have tried and Stan wont answer thier calls, leaves a really bad taste in alot of mouths. so no i for one am not satisfied that KD is the only one we have to deal with.
 

tonyl711

Starter
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
863
Kroenke negotiates through KD. Kind of likehow a player negotiates through an agent.
yes, when he feels like it, he has done more than his share of deals without having KD there, do you not think this is an issue that just maybe he should voice his opinions on by himself? this decision affects millions of people yet he has an underling do his talking?
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
33,812
Name
Stu
I think they can't take the land by force, which they're planning on doing, for a privately owned venue. That would create a potential hiccup there if the case.
They do it in Oregon. They take parcels along side things like schools and parks and then sell the larger parcel to developers in exchange for revenues from the project or other considerations. It seems a little sketchy but they put a bunch of wording in that apparently satisfies the "for the public good" argument when you are talking eminent domain.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.