New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[tonyl711]

Which is exactly why I find it curious.
Why is there ever a difference? The business of the NFL is the Rams

and 31 other teams

 

[WillasDad]

What determines standing is what may potentially be appealed. Frawley's answer was essentially that not liking the bond and being a tax payer aren't enough to give you standing in this case. That may indeed be appealed but I really don't see the city helping in that appeal and I'm not sure how much others could afford to pursue it.

I don't even agree with what the judge said but I think it will be difficult to overturn him.

I don't recall all too well the different cases I've ever read regarding taxpayer standing, but I'd assume based solely on the sheer dollar numbers being thrown around and the economic climate being what it is, standing would probably be the easiest hurdle in this case, Mr. Frawley's opinion notwithstanding.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't recall all too well the different cases I've ever read regarding taxpayer standing, but I'd assume based solely on the sheer dollar numbers being thrown around and the economic climate being what it is, standing would probably be the easiest hurdle in this case, Mr. Frawley's opinion notwithstanding.

One would think. But I have been involved in many initiatives that got overturned by the courts on very skinny definitions of multiple subject provisions (called ambiguities in some courts). Though standing would seem to be automatic, many judges don't see it that way and also are reluctant to appeal another judge's opinion unless there is clear standing. It can all be a real circle jerk.

 

[RhodyRams]

and 31 other teams

not where STL is concerned

 

[bluecoconuts]

Why is Kronke so silent ? How far will he go to get his way ?? Can the NFL stop him ??

Because that's his style. Who knows? And who knows?

I think the NFL would rather the Chargers and Raiders move but Inglewood get built. Obviously that won't happen, so I think they likely just pick Carson. Might not be as good, but good enough.

I should have said "apparently" instead of "historically," but I guess it's not really fair to say that since it's not like he owns that many sports franchises, but at least appearance-wise, he seems to want to own the land and stadium. I could be wrong but I don't believe that's an option that CVC would want happening.

Due to the loopholes being used I don't think he can own the land. How big of a stumbling block that is, I don't know.

 

[bubbaramfan]

"250 million from team ownership, and a 200 million LOAN to team ownership". That's 450 million out of Kroenke's pocket, half the cost of the stadium. So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up? I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

 

[Dxmissile]

"250 million from team ownership, and a 200 million LOAN to team ownership". That's 450 million out of Kroenke's pocket, half the cost of the stadium. So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up? I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

It's 250 out of Stan pocket 200 from the nfl and the nfl market survey says that 200 million can be made from seat licensing that's 40 million more than what peacock and Co thought so if you do that then Stan can only come out of 210 million instead of 200

 

[RamFan503]

"250 million from team ownership, and a 200 million LOAN to team ownership". That's 450 million out of Kroenke's pocket, half the cost of the stadium. So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up? I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

I think there is an extension provision in the existing bond that deals with "adjacent" but it may very well come to them having to up the ante a bit. The SD proposal also had only half the PSL money going to the stadium and the other half going to Spanos. These proposals are all apples to oranges though so it is hard to see how they ultimately compare. And for what it's worth, the NFL upped the amount to $250 million and if ticket and corporate sales goals are met, I believe $200 million of that is essentially forgiven by the NFL through revenue sharing. What that means is that Stan would end up paying $50 million of that portion if sales goals are met.

 

[RamzFanz]

So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up?

He can stay in the dome.

 

[Loyal]

"250 million from team ownership, and a 200 million LOAN to team ownership". That's 450 million out of Kroenke's pocket, half the cost of the stadium. So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up? I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

He can stay in the dome.

I am skeptical that Stan CAN be forced to stay in town, but if it happens....I fully expect him to continue year to year until he sells the team or he takes another look at London...

 

[bluecoconuts]

I am skeptical that Stan CAN be forced to stay in town, but if it happens....I fully expect him to continue year to year until he sells the team or he takes another look at London...

If I had to take a guess Toronto would come before London. In terms of the Rams though, I think Kroenke would go year to year on the lease, and then maybe look to the Broncos.... Maybe... He wont invest unless St Louis makes him excited about it, that is probably part of his argument to the owners. How does he trust the city to negotiate towards a deal that's good for him when they know he can't leave? What happens if they refuse to budge on the deal until the bonds extend and then there aren't any loopholes to use? The NFL's response will hinge on which LA project they decide on.

 

[Warner4Prez]

I'm sure I'm incredibly naive in my thoughts here, but is there a scenario where at 'zero hour', Stan sells his Inglewood land to Spanos/Davis and uses the profits to make an offer to purchase the proposal outright from the city of St. Louis?

I think it would be pretty amazing and akin to Scrooge showing up on Christmas with a goose for Tiny Tim and the whole family. (I'm a romantic, what?!)

 

[iced]

"250 million from team ownership, and a 200 million LOAN to team ownership". That's 450 million out of Kroenke's pocket, half the cost of the stadium. So where are they going to get that money if Stan doesn't pony up? I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

Falcons owner is pitching in over a billion on his stadium;Vikings have covered $529 million for their stadium, including the $52 million in latest additional costs.

The deal is not bad or unrealistic at all from that stand point, and seems to be on par with other stadium deals around the league

 

[RamzFanz]

I'm sure I'm incredibly naive in my thoughts here, but is there a scenario where at 'zero hour', Stan sells his Inglewood land to Spanos/Davis and uses the profits to make an offer to purchase the proposal outright from the city of St. Louis?

I think it would be pretty amazing and akin to Scrooge showing up on Christmas with a goose for Tiny Tim and the whole family. (I'm a romantic, what?!)

Stan will probably build out Inglewood as a retail / entertainment complex. It's what he does.

I'm of the opinion that once the time comes when Stan sits down with STL about the stadium, he will either make a sweetheart deal with a long term lease and control or just buy it out.

I will bet he won't even ask to move come the deadline IF STL is over all hurdles and under construction.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Who is the architect for the Carson stadium? I can't seem to find any information, do they not have one? Are they not getting the nitty gritty details hammered out?

 

[ChrisW]

" I guess with Frawley's ruling, the folks in St. Louis can expect more new bonds to pay for it since the politicians don't need a public vote to create them. Why stop at a new stadium, with that ruling they can crate bonds for anything they want now.

No, that's not what the ruling means it all. This covers existing bonds on the dome. They can't create new bonds without a public vote.

 

[ChrisW]

Who is the architect for the Carson stadium? I can't seem to find any information, do they not have one? Are they not getting the nitty gritty details hammered out?

Manica Architecture

http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/47-los-angeles-stadium

 

[bluecoconuts]

Manica Architecture

http://www.manicaarchitecture.com/projects/stadia/47-los-angeles-stadium

Ah thanks, they have a lot of projects overseas, some of them are pretty cool.

Anyway, Vinny was talking about how the judge ruling doesn't really change the Rams mindset (duh), but then he said "What works well for St. Louis is that...when the dust settles, should the Rams get the OK to move to Los Angeles... St. Louis is going to be set up, hopefully, with a great stadium plan to then present to the next team that needs to move. And there will be a team that needs to move probably pretty soon" which I found somewhat interesting.

I suppose the Bengals would be the team, the Jags could be the team as well but they're kind of stuck until 2030 unless they open their books. No way the Dolphins move, I guess the Panthers could be another one? An interesting idea though, most of us figure if the Rams left the Raiders would be a candidate to relocate, but I wonder if another team would be more likely if it does come to that.

 

[OldSchool]

Ah thanks, they have a lot of projects overseas, some of them are pretty cool.

Anyway, Vinny was talking about how the judge ruling doesn't really change the Rams mindset (duh), but then he said "What works well for St. Louis is that...when the dust settles, should the Rams get the OK to move to Los Angeles... St. Louis is going to be set up, hopefully, with a great stadium plan to then present to the next team that needs to move. And there will be a team that needs to move probably pretty soon" which I found somewhat interesting.

I suppose the Bengals would be the team, the Jags could be the team as well but they're kind of stuck until 2030 unless they open their books. No way the Dolphins move, I guess the Panthers could be another one? An interesting idea though, most of us figure if the Rams left the Raiders would be a candidate to relocate, but I wonder if another team would be more likely if it does come to that.

Bengals have a sweet deal and their lease isn't up until 2027. They also generate more revenue from their 8 games than their yearly lease requires them to pay. Khan is sinking money into Jacksonville and their stadium and as you say they have an iron clad lease, though the buyout isn't outrageous.

The three teams with the shortest leases are the three rumored to want LA, all are year to year. The others that have/had stadium or lease issues mostly have resolved them. Whiners got a new stadium, Vikings will open a new one. Buffalo changed owners and he pledged to stay there. Atlanta is getting a new stadium. The Dolphins just announced a $350 million dollar renovation. In reality the 3 vulnerable franchises are the Rams, Raiders and Chargers.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Bengals have a sweet deal and their lease isn't up until 2027. They also generate more revenue from their 8 games than their yearly lease requires them to pay. Khan is sinking money into Jacksonville and their stadium and as you say they have an iron clad lease, though the buyout isn't outrageous.

The three teams with the shortest leases are the three rumored to want LA, all are year to year. The others that have/had stadium or lease issues mostly have resolved them. Whiners got a new stadium, Vikings will open a new one. Buffalo changed owners and he pledged to stay there. Atlanta is getting a new stadium. The Dolphins just announced a $350 million dollar renovation. In reality the 3 vulnerable franchises are the Rams, Raiders and Chargers.

That was my thought until he said that, to me it seemed like he wasn't talking about the Raiders or Chargers, but maybe that's just me.