Karraker: St. Louis Should Be Rams’ Permanent Home, Plain and Simple

[Boffo97]

Despite the fact that it's fairly clear that he can make much more money owning a stadium in STL there are still fans insisting that if he farts in a certain direction on Wednesdays it means the Rams are moving back to LA.

Shane Gray has done the best job laying out the scenarios in each market and how it fits SKs business model, which is totally consistent and has been for many years, and why LA actually doesn't make sense.

If you haven't read it you should, I think there is a link in this thread or one of the others about the Rams moving.......it's hard to keep track of all of the threads spread out over the web since he land purchase.

I've read Shane's article, and Shane's a great guy, but he clearly has a dog in the fight and thus the article must be taken with the same grain of salt that you'd take a gung-ho let's get the Rams back to L.A. article.

I don't agree that it's a "fact" that he can make more money in St. Louis. The luxury boxes in L.A. alone would be huge. IIRC, Shane's article assumed that the Rams in L.A. MUST go with one of the groups insisting on partial ownership of the team and that that condition MUST stay ironclad. Those two musts aren't musts. Nothing is must.

This all said, I think the Rams will PROBABLY stay in St. Louis, but the worst thing St. Louis could do is assume that that is the case and try to lowball things. If they want to keep the team, they'll need to negotiate like Stan has one foot out the door.

Of course we as fans can think anything we want.

 

[Boffo97]

Nick Wagoner
(2:22 PM)

I've seen speculation that the league wouldn't charge a relocation fee because the Rams already played in L.A. but I don't know if there's any truth to that or not.

Do you think this would change his mind?

From what I've heard, the Raiders were not charged a relocation fee to return to Oakland.

 

[LesBaker]

I've read Shane's article, and Shane's a great guy, but he clearly has a dog in the fight and thus the article must be taken with the same grain of salt that you'd take a gung-ho let's get the Rams back to L.A. article.

I don't agree that it's a "fact" that he can make more money in St. Louis. The luxury boxes in L.A. alone would be huge. IIRC, Shane's article assumed that the Rams in L.A. MUST go with one of the groups insisting on partial ownership of the team and that that condition MUST stay ironclad. Those two musts aren't musts. Nothing is must.

This all said, I think the Rams will PROBABLY stay in St. Louis, but the worst thing St. Louis could do is assume that that is the case and try to lowball things. If they want to keep the team, they'll need to negotiate like Stan has one foot out the door.

Of course we as fans can think anything we want.

You may want to read it again, I will take a moment to explain a couple of things though.

SK cannot afford to pay a franchise fee for LA, then build a stadium, practice facilities and administrative offices. The league owns the rights to the market and will be selling them to at least one new team eventually. For him to spend over two billion, and more likely two and a half billion is out of the question if he wants to make money, that's not speculation, that's fact. That debt will take his and his sons lifetimes to erase and by then the stadium will be crumbling. This is actually the most foolish thing he can do.

The league has already told both entities considering stadiums that they cannot get part of the franchise from SK in exchange for building a stadium for him. It is against the charter, is is NOT allowed. This is a fact that is always overlooked when discussion about the two main locations are discussed.

As far as making money as I have said I know more about venues than anyone here, more than likely than anyone you know. I've rented out tons and tons of them. SK can actually make more money off a stadium complex than the revenues he is making now from the Rams. So having both will make him more, WAY MORE, than moving to LA and paying rent.

The dome is fucked. Period. When he builds they are going to lose a lot of events to the shiny new state of the art facility, that's always how it goes and I have seen this play out before and have been a part of the exodus from one place to the other.

I'm still taking wagers on the Rams staying is STL......not one person who has said the Rams are moving has placed a bet yet. Maybe my stakes are too high lol.

 

[EastRam]

http://www.101sports.com/2013/07/15/rams-stadium-and-relocation-prospects-not-as-they-seem/

Ok I'm getting slack. Said i would post this link everytime this subject comes up..Here ya go.

 

[max]

You may want to read it again, I will take a moment to explain a couple of things though.

SK cannot afford to pay a franchise fee for LA, then build a stadium, practice facilities and administrative offices. The league owns the rights to the market and will be selling them to at least one new team eventually. For him to spend over two billion, and more likely two and a half billion is out of the question if he wants to make money, that's not speculation, that's fact. That debt will take his and his sons lifetimes to erase and by then the stadium will be crumbling. This is actually the most foolish thing he can do.

The league has already told both entities considering stadiums that they cannot get part of the franchise from SK in exchange for building a stadium for him. It is against the charter, is is NOT allowed. This is a fact that is always overlooked when discussion about the two main locations are discussed.

As far as making money as I have said I know more about venues than anyone here, more than likely than anyone you know. I've rented out tons and tons of them. SK can actually make more money off a stadium complex than the revenues he is making now from the Rams. So having both will make him more, WAY MORE, than moving to LA and paying rent.

The dome is fucked. Period. When he builds they are going to lose a lot of events to the shiny new state of the art facility, that's always how it goes and I have seen this play out before and have been a part of the exodus from one place to the other.

I'm still taking wagers on the Rams staying is STL......not one person who has said the Rams are moving has placed a bet yet. Maybe my stakes are too high lol.

Les, I wasn't able to absorb everything you said but I agree that the Rams will end up staying in STL.

I did find it interesting that Demoff said yesterday that they have received 3 times the number of calls from the STL folks since the announcement of the land purchase in LA, then they had in the last 3 years. So if nothing else SK got them "energized". Maybe they were reading too many of those smug Bernie articles saying that SK ain't goin' nowhere.

 

[fearsomefour]

A long way to go to say next to nothing. Pointless rambling. If St Louis wants to make sure the Rams stay in St Louis (big assumption that Stan has any interest in leaving, he may very well not) then loose the arrogance. It is the same arrogance that contributed to the Rams leaving LA.
Dickersons' opinion is no more relevant than Frank Carral or Zac Stacys'
Bruce started his career in LA.
When I think of the St Louis Rams I think of the same short sighted, greedy, shitty ownership that ruined a proud franchise and moved the team. I do remember a beautiful too short period where ownership got out of the way and let a good HC and an OC with a vision do their thing. Outside of that it is delusional to call it anything beyond what it has been.

 

[RamFan503]

I think Stan is going to do what makes Stan the most money, regardless of personal geographic loyalties.

After all, if Stan getting his way = staying in St. Louis, he could do that right now. Call a press conference and announce "We're staying in St. Louis forever!" He's not doing that, because he cheats himself that way.

I think Stan is going to build something fitting his dreams. While it is always going to be about the money, it isn't ALL about the money. I just don't buy that he has done all this with the grand plan to move the team back to LA. He wants his dream to be realized where it all started for him. He is inextricably linked to MO and will do everything he can to keep the Rams here short of rolling over.

IMO - the ONLY way he moves the team back to LA is if St Louis and MO give him a big brush off.

 

[LesBaker]

From what I've heard, the Raiders were not charged a relocation fee to return to Oakland.

Goodell has been pretty clear that the NFL owns the rights to the market and they will be sold, not given away. Houston cost 700 million several years ago. LA will be a billion.

 

[RamFan503]

"arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog "

My dog is LA. He has no fleas.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Goodell has been pretty clear that the NFL owns the rights to the market and they will be sold, not given away. Houston cost 700 million several years ago. LA will be a billion.

I'm still not sure where the billion comes from?

 

[LesBaker]

Les, I wasn't able to absorb everything you said but I agree that the Rams will end up staying in STL.

I did find it interesting that Demoff said yesterday that they have received 3 times the number of calls from the STL folks since the announcement of the land purchase in LA, then they had in the last 3 years. So if nothing else SK got them "energized". Maybe they were reading too many of those smug Bernie articles saying that SK ain't goin' nowhere.

Max the gist of it is this.......for a shit ton less money to move to LA and pay rent and not get revenues from the venue he can build a palace in STL and make more money from the venue than he does off the Rams. In STL he gets both revenue streams.

He will make more money in STL, this isn't a thing that people want to grasp though because they assume things like "franchise value" and sales for luxury suites are going to line his pockets like nothing else. These people do not understand the money he WON'T get is larger than the money he will get in LA, and so he won't be moving there.

 

[EastRam]

They the (NFL) will make more money by using the LA market for an expansion team. Hence a Billion would be about the going rate based on what Houston paid. Either way. If another team moved there the NFL would exert a re-location fee upwards of 500 million.

 

[EastRam]

Max the gist of it is this.......for a shit ton less money to move to LA and pay rent and not get revenues from the venue he can build a palace in STL and make more money from the venue than he does off the Rams. In STL he gets both revenue streams.

He will make more money in STL, this isn't a thing that people want to grasp though because they assume things like "franchise value" and sales for luxury suites are going to line his pockets like nothing else. These people do not understand the money he WON'T get is larger than the money he will get in LA, and so he won't be moving there.

Exactly

 

[LesBaker]

I'm still not sure where the billion comes from?

Houston cost 700 million. LA is twice the market size and then some. LA is controlled by the NFL and they have been clear when they want to put a team there it's going to cost money, it won't be handed over.

It will a billion.

Hell 10 years ago CLE cost half a billion!

 

[RamFan503]

Max the gist of it is this.......for a shit ton less money to move to LA and pay rent and not get revenues from the venue he can build a palace in STL and make more money from the venue than he does off the Rams. In STL he gets both revenue streams.

He will make more money in STL, this isn't a thing that people want to grasp though because they assume things like "franchise value" and sales for luxury suites are going to line his pockets like nothing else. These people do not understand the money he WON'T get is larger than the money he will get in LA, and so he won't be moving there.

I'm not arguing with you because I actually agree with most of what you are saying. But why would Stan be renting if he built on HIS property? I know what you are saying about cost and recouping but someone is going to have to pay the piper in order to take the LA market. By what you are saying, it would make zero sense for ANYONE to put a team there.

The value of a revitalized Inglewood with the already remodeled Forum and a 320 acre jewel that not only could house a football team (or two), practice facilities, a soccer team, world class sporting events, the Superbowl, a possible return of the Olympics, etc... would potentially be a HUGE money maker and Stan and his associates have the background and rating to make it happen. Maybe you have a reason why you think Stan would not own the building/complex in LA but would in St Louis. I just don't see it.

Add to that the lure of Hollyweird, the price of those luxury suites for not only football but every other event that is sure to come there, the value of the hotels, retail space, condos, the potential HUGE tax base being generated for that region for everything including football and beyond, the future value for all of Stan's future heirs, etc... I can't see where there is not money to be made for many generations of Kroenkes.

It seems to me you are making a few assumptions that I would agree have little to no chance of paying off. 1 - that Stan wouldn't own the venue, 2 - that it would be pretty much a football only (with maybe soccer added) venue, and 3 - that it would only be on that 60 acres.

 

[iced]

I think this was a bad article and imo, this is growing into a wasted opportunity.. there are some LA fans that still love the team - we should be embracing them. They still love the Rams right? I do believe there are some fan bases that are known to be notorious for traveling well..

Bring the support back - at least it could help get some more Ram fans in the seats when we play at candle stick every year

 

[Boffo97]

You may want to read it again, I will take a moment to explain a couple of things though.

Thanks, but I need neither. If it was as black and white as all that, speculation wouldn't exist. That's just one of several possible ways that it could all go down.

And even though it wouldn't be easy to get there, an NFL franchise in Los Angeles is going to be more valuable than an NFL franchise in St. Louis. That's just basic math.

Nothing personally against you, but I never make or take bets on the Internet. It's way too easy for the loser of the bet to disappear.

 

[max]

Max the gist of it is this.......for a shit ton less money to move to LA and pay rent and not get revenues from the venue he can build a palace in STL and make more money from the venue than he does off the Rams. In STL he gets both revenue streams.

He will make more money in STL, this isn't a thing that people want to grasp though because they assume things like "franchise value" and sales for luxury suites are going to line his pockets like nothing else. These people do not understand the money he WON'T get is larger than the money he will get in LA, and so he won't be moving there.

Got it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Houston cost 700 million. LA is twice the market size and then some. LA is controlled by the NFL and they have been clear when they want to put a team there it's going to cost money, it won't be handed over.

It will a billion.

Hell 10 years ago CLE cost half a billion!

That's just speculation then, unless there's actual numbers put out there, you can't keep saying it like that's fact. We have no idea what will happen, the NFL may wave it, the city of LA may pay it, it may be less, we have no idea. Every city is different, why would they charge him an expansion fee over a relocation fee just because it's LA?

 

[iced]

Thanks, but I need neither. If it was as black and white as all that, speculation wouldn't exist. That's just one of several possible ways that it could all go down.

And even though it wouldn't be easy to get there, an NFL franchise in Los Angeles is going to be more valuable than an NFL franchise in St. Louis. That's just basic math.

Nothing personally against you, but I never make or take bets on the Internet. It's way too easy for the loser of the bet to disappear.

Actually this is totally irrelevant since the NFL shares the revenue