Stan vs Dean

[oldnotdead]

All this speculation that the Chargers would be a candidate to move to London is purely media BS fantasy.

3. The Chargers haven't even paid their relocation fee of $365M for their move to LA. The league would have to waive that and any relocation fee for moving to London as the Chargers won't have the $$$ to pay to move their team. The other owners are not likely to give away their share, $11.77M each to get Dean Spanos off the hook.

2. The Chargers would lose what little fan base in the US they have remaining.

1. But the number one reason is Stan Kroenke himself. There is no way he's going to let Dean Spanos out of his contract. Not only will it force renegotiation of part of his financing but this is also personal. Stan doesn't like Dean, and never has. By forcing Spanos to live up to his commitment he can see by the minuscule fan base the Chargers have they will be insolvent in a year or two at the most. Dean will be forced to sell the team. So how does this help Stan? New ownership will bring in new money, which is something Spanos can't do. New ownership will likely stabilize the financing picture.

This partnership has always mystified me since the poor relationship between Kroenke and Spanos is well documented. This wouldn't be the first time Stan took advantage of Dean who is a poor businessman. Kroenke wouldn't do this without an end game. I think that end game is to ultimately not share his palace with anyone.

New ownership will see that staying in LA is a loser for the Chargers. Someone like Eli Broad who has openly wanted to purchase the Chargers for decades is a very viable owner candidate. Using him as an example Broad has the deep pockets to buy the Chargers. He also has the pockets to buy out his contract with Kroenke (I would be shocked if there wasn't a buyout clause). Eli would then be free to build his own stadium in the City of Industry where he owns 600 acres. He could sell half that and recoup his purchase and buyout. He knows that the only Charger fan base outside of San Diego is in OC and the Inland Empire. His stadium is close enough to North County San Diego (one of the most affluent parts of San Diego) to draw residual fans from that county as well. San Diego fans hated Spanos not the team.

Kroenke's history shows he rarely makes a move without having an endgame in mind. He's also the kind of man who doesn't like sharing (note Arsenal FC, Denver Nuggets and even Screaming Eagle Winery). This is why partnering with Dean Spanos a man he has already fooled, makes little sense on the surface. Especially when you consider how marginal that partner is financially. But destroying someone he doesn't like while getting a substantial part of his stadium paid for by another owner who will be moving the Chargers makes perfect sense and fits Kroenke's style of doing business. Why share the market when he can own it?

As a Ram fan I would be more than happy to see the Chargers go away. They are like an annoying mosquito buzzing around your ears.

 

[RamFan503]

Dean vs Stan? I'd take Stan in that cage fight. He's apparently also a work out warrior or at least was. And on the financial aspect? Spanos could only hope to hold Stan's jock strap.

 

[SteezyEndo]

Who has the higher “Standing.”? Stan obviously has much more pull. You must not really know about Stan Kroenke...

 

[fearsomefour]

The Chargers should relocate to the Mountain West Conference.

 

[den-the-coach]

Dean Spanos ...Come on Gentleman, we all know the type. He's the guy that when the check comes, wants a breakdown of everything and still tries to pay less. Five guys, bill is $165 or so, everyone throw in $40.00 each and that covers tip and Dean is the guy that says... "Hold on a minute, Stan had one more beer and Den ordered Steak." Hey Dean, you had two appetizers plus dinner...I did? Let me look at the check again.

 

[PressureD41]

Can anyone explain the latest noise around the palace costing way more than Stan can handle. This doesn't make sense. And owners attempting to get players to pay for part of stadium???


NFL owners trying to get L.A. stadium funding inserted into union talks, says Dan Patrick
Posted on October 17, 2019 by Neil deMause
I’m not sure what to do with this story because it’s so sketchily reported, but it’s also so damn weird that I can’t let it pass unremarked: Dan Patrick has said on his nationally syndicated radio show that with the cost of Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s new stadium having soared from $2.5 billion to $5 billion, the NFL is trying to use collective bargaining talks with the union to find a way to make the players help pay for it, sorta:

“The league is proposing that maybe they give players 49 percent of the revenue, but they want to use the extra money they get—a percentage [point] is about $150 million I was told—they want the players to then help finance the Los Angeles stadium. We’ll give you 49 percent of the revenue, but we want to use 2 percent of that revenue—so $300 million for the next couple years—to help finance the stadium.”

If you want to watch video of the relevant section of the radio show, as one does, it’s here:

Dan Patrick Show

✔@dpshow
https://twitter.com/dpshow/status/1184506364971778048

DP heard from a source that old school owners don't want 17 games and they're having problems with LA stadium



112
8:28 AM - Oct 16, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy

34 people are talking about this



The backdrop to all this is that NFL player payrolls are currently set at 47% of league revenues, and the players’ union wants to bump that up to perhaps 50%, but in exchange the owners want to play a longer regular season. If Patrick’s source is to be believed, though, there’s a proposal on the table to require that for the first couple of years, the players’ additional cut would be diverted to pay for Kroenke’s Folly, or at least a $300 million sliver of it.
This isn’t quite “getting players to pay for the Rams stadium,” but more like “okay, we’ll give you an additional couple percent of revenues like you’re asking for, but we want to keep it the first couple of years because man, that stadium sure is turning out to be expensive.” Which is effectively the same as giving the players a slightly smaller cut, or giving them a 49% cut but delaying its start for a couple of years, or any of a number of other asks that then reduce their ability to demand other things, like a longer season schedule.
Why would the other 31 NFL owners want to take a hard-won collective bargaining concession and use it to subsidize the Rams’ new stadium? It’s almost certainly not because it’s their only way of raising cash: Both the NFL and Kroenke have so much money flowing through their hands that skimming off $300 million (or using the revenue as collateral to borrow $300 million) would be trivially easy. Besides, even if the L.A. stadium is wildly over budget and in danger of never earning back its cost, that just hurts Kroenke, not the rest of the league — other owners will still get the same cut of any stadium revenue even if the construction debt hits $5 trillion — so what the hell?
Right now all we have to go on is Patrick’s statement, attributed to an unnamed source, so it’s pretty much at the wild rumor stage of verification. But if there’s actually been any attempt to insert L.A. stadium funding into league-wide collective bargaining talks, something very, very odd is going on, so it’s worth keeping an eye on.
UPDATE: A sharp-eyed reader (see comments below) points out that an NFL.com article from earlier this month noted: “Sources say one important issue within a complicated economic discussion is how to divide revenue from the new SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, which will be home to the Rams and the Chargers. The roughly $5 billion price tag for the L.A. stadium project is much higher than others; by owners’ calculations, it also will bring in much more revenue than other stadiums and they want the new CBA to reflect that investment, while players have pushed back at the idea of altering the revenue-sharing calculation based on one project they had no role in approving.”
That would imply that the league is trying to argue that L.A. revenues shouldn’t really count toward the league salary cap, because they’re already committed to paying off that exorbitant price tag. Which I can see why they’d want to do that, but I can also see why the union would be responding: Hey, you’re the ones who set the cap based on gross revenues, if you’re not turning enough profit on your crazy-expensive stadium that’s not our problem.
It would also explain why the NFL labor negotiators are pushing this angle: It’s not that they’re really trying to help pay off Kroenke’s stadium debt, so much as they’re trying to carve out a bunch of Kroenke revenues and say “These don’t count.” You could actually make a decent case that all revenue sharing should be based on net revenues, not gross, but then you get into questions of net of what (owners’ failed real estate investments? Caribbean island getaways? massage parlor bills?), which would make for some tricky negotiations, as well as tricky audits down the line.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Can anyone explain the latest noise around the palace costing way more than Stan can handle. This doesn't make sense. And owners attempting to get players to pay for part of stadium???


NFL owners trying to get L.A. stadium funding inserted into union talks, says Dan Patrick
Posted on October 17, 2019 by Neil deMause
I’m not sure what to do with this story because it’s so sketchily reported, but it’s also so damn weird that I can’t let it pass unremarked: Dan Patrick has said on his nationally syndicated radio show that with the cost of Los Angeles Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s new stadium having soared from $2.5 billion to $5 billion, the NFL is trying to use collective bargaining talks with the union to find a way to make the players help pay for it, sorta:


If you want to watch video of the relevant section of the radio show, as one does, it’s here:


34 people are talking about this


The backdrop to all this is that NFL player payrolls are currently set at 47% of league revenues, and the players’ union wants to bump that up to perhaps 50%, but in exchange the owners want to play a longer regular season. If Patrick’s source is to be believed, though, there’s a proposal on the table to require that for the first couple of years, the players’ additional cut would be diverted to pay for Kroenke’s Folly, or at least a $300 million sliver of it.
This isn’t quite “getting players to pay for the Rams stadium,” but more like “okay, we’ll give you an additional couple percent of revenues like you’re asking for, but we want to keep it the first couple of years because man, that stadium sure is turning out to be expensive.” Which is effectively the same as giving the players a slightly smaller cut, or giving them a 49% cut but delaying its start for a couple of years, or any of a number of other asks that then reduce their ability to demand other things, like a longer season schedule.
Why would the other 31 NFL owners want to take a hard-won collective bargaining concession and use it to subsidize the Rams’ new stadium? It’s almost certainly not because it’s their only way of raising cash: Both the NFL and Kroenke have so much money flowing through their hands that skimming off $300 million (or using the revenue as collateral to borrow $300 million) would be trivially easy. Besides, even if the L.A. stadium is wildly over budget and in danger of never earning back its cost, that just hurts Kroenke, not the rest of the league — other owners will still get the same cut of any stadium revenue even if the construction debt hits $5 trillion — so what the hell?
Right now all we have to go on is Patrick’s statement, attributed to an unnamed source, so it’s pretty much at the wild rumor stage of verification. But if there’s actually been any attempt to insert L.A. stadium funding into league-wide collective bargaining talks, something very, very odd is going on, so it’s worth keeping an eye on.
UPDATE: A sharp-eyed reader (see comments below) points out that an NFL.com article from earlier this month noted: “Sources say one important issue within a complicated economic discussion is how to divide revenue from the new SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California, which will be home to the Rams and the Chargers. The roughly $5 billion price tag for the L.A. stadium project is much higher than others; by owners’ calculations, it also will bring in much more revenue than other stadiums and they want the new CBA to reflect that investment, while players have pushed back at the idea of altering the revenue-sharing calculation based on one project they had no role in approving.”
That would imply that the league is trying to argue that L.A. revenues shouldn’t really count toward the league salary cap, because they’re already committed to paying off that exorbitant price tag. Which I can see why they’d want to do that, but I can also see why the union would be responding: Hey, you’re the ones who set the cap based on gross revenues, if you’re not turning enough profit on your crazy-expensive stadium that’s not our problem.
It would also explain why the NFL labor negotiators are pushing this angle: It’s not that they’re really trying to help pay off Kroenke’s stadium debt, so much as they’re trying to carve out a bunch of Kroenke revenues and say “These don’t count.” You could actually make a decent case that all revenue sharing should be based on net revenues, not gross, but then you get into questions of net of what (owners’ failed real estate investments? Caribbean island getaways? massage parlor bills?), which would make for some tricky negotiations, as well as tricky audits down the line.

I have not seen this before, or I’ve just missed it.

$5 Billion? That’s insanely over budget if true, and I can see why the ROI calculations are messed up.

Hmm. Interesting story there. Hmm?

 

[oldnotdead]

That cost is the cost of the entire development project, not just the stadium, i.e. the office and entertainment complex etc. Personally I think this is half a conversation someone heard and the media is filling in the blanks and running with a half baked story.

But this dovetails with the talk about the NFL wanting to do something about the LA Shame, i.e. Chargers and the speculation that it might support a move to London. No way is Dean moving from LA because he knows he needs to sell this franchise before the bills come due. But IMO if Stan heard about this fake story he probably made an off-hand comment that if the NFL allows the Chargers to void their contract with the Rams then someone has to pick up the slack...i.e. less of a percentage to the NFLPA and more to the NFL owners, i.e. himself.

Bottom line is this is scam news all around.

 

[LesBaker]

3. The Chargers haven't even paid their relocation fee of $365M for their move to LA. The league would have to waive that and any relocation fee for moving to London as the Chargers won't have the $$$ to pay to move their team. The other owners are not likely to give away their share, $11.77M each to get Dean Spanos off the hook.

That's not how relocation fees work. It comes out of revenue shares for 10 years. That's not money "paid" by the owner, it's just a smaller revenue check.

This partnership has always mystified me since the poor relationship between Kroenke and Spanos is well documented. This wouldn't be the first time Stan took advantage of Dean who is a poor businessman. Kroenke wouldn't do this without an end game. I think that end game is to ultimately not share his palace with anyone.

I can assure you Kroenke wants him there and would sue if he did leave. Kroenke will profit millions from Chargers games.

I've never read that they dislike each other.

As far as forcing the Chargers to insolvency good luck. The revenues each team earns provides huge stacks of cash. The system is staged so that NO owner EVER loses money.

 

[snackdaddy]

That's not how relocation fees work. It comes out of revenue shares for 10 years. That's not money "paid" by the owner, it's just a smaller revenue check.



I can assure you Kroenke wants him there and would sue if he did leave. Kroenke will profit millions from Chargers games.

I've never read that they dislike each other.

As far as forcing the Chargers to insolvency good luck. The revenues each team earns provides huge stacks of cash. The system is staged so that NO owner EVER loses money.

True, but if Dean's bad decisions are costing the other 31 owners money, I can see some pressure being put on him to make a decision that is best for all.

 

[KJD_Ram]

"As far as forcing the Chargers to insolvency good luck. The revenues each team earns provides huge stacks of cash. The system is staged so that NO owner EVER loses money. "

I can think of one guy, who used to own a USFL team, that would probably lose money....

 

[RamFan503]

"As far as forcing the Chargers to insolvency good luck. The revenues each team earns provides huge stacks of cash. The system is staged so that NO owner EVER loses money. "

I can think of one guy, who used to own a USFL team, that would probably lose money....

Yeah.... I'd advise you don't go there.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I get the feeling Stan would happily let the Chargers walk away for free if that meant that LA was all for himself - what he originally wanted in the first place. The contract is only like a dollar a year or something stupid like that.

 

[Rambitious1]

This partnership has always mystified me since the poor relationship between Kroenke and Spanos is well documented.

I understood that the NFL forced it on Stan.

 

[LesBaker]

True, but if Dean's bad decisions are costing the other 31 owners money, I can see some pressure being put on him to make a decision that is best for all.

I don't know what bed decisions you mean, and whatever he does has little to no effect on the other owners.

I get the feeling Stan would happily let the Chargers walk away for free if that meant that LA was all for himself - what he originally wanted in the first place. The contract is only like a dollar a year or something stupid like that.

No way. He has a cheap lease, but Kreonke makes HUGE money form all the ancillary revenues like parking concessions and so on. Trust me he WANTS the Chargers there and filling seats.

There has been a big uptick in owners owning the stadium because the money made is enormous.

If you asked any team owner that also owns the stadium if they would like something in the stadium on weeks the team was travelling that put 60-80 thousand people in the venue they would all say "hell yes!!!"

I understood that the NFL forced it on Stan.

It was one of the conditions to moving. Basically Kroenke said he wanted to leave but it was a violation of the NFL's own bylaws so he made concessions.

 

[Mikey Ram]

Dean vs Stan? I'd take Stan in that cage fight. He's apparently also a work out warrior or at least was. And on the financial aspect? Spanos could only hope to hold Stan's jock strap.

Stan v. Dean would be more one-sided than Ali-Liston..

 

[Zodi]

I often forget that the Chargers are in LA. I often forget about the Chargers in general.

 

[snackdaddy]

I often forget that the Chargers are in LA. I often forget about the Chargers in general.

Who?

 

[RamDino]

Who?

He's talking about the San Diego Chargers.