New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

At a minimum, Coles said it's 500 million. That's the lowest number I've heard, the very lowest. Things have changed in 20 years.

relocation ex's out g4 loans - so its really losing that $200 or $250 million + the fee

 

[RamFan503]

At a minimum, Coles said it's 500 million. That's the lowest number I've heard, the very lowest. Things have changed in 20 years.

Um... Coles? And he knows how exactly? Does anyone really believe the NFL is looking to collect $1 billion dollars from the Chargers and Raiduhs moving to LA?

 

[RamFan503]

relocation ex's out g4 loans - so its really losing that $200 or $250 million + the fee

For any team moving to LA and that includes the Raiduhs and Chargers.

 

[iced]

For any team moving to LA and that includes the Raiduhs and Chargers.

yep, any team that relocates

 

[bluecoconuts]

At a minimum, Coles said it's 500 million. That's the lowest number I've heard, the very lowest. Things have changed in 20 years.

So then the Chargers and Raiders need to come up with 2.8 Billion to move. That ain't happening.

 

[Sum1]

I can see your point Sum. The thing I don't follow is the reasoning that Stan now has to enter into a deal on the new stadium that is substantially different than the deal he signed onto that got the team to St Louis. I also don't believe that KD is attending the meetings and sitting back and not saying anything. I still expect the Rams to stay in St Louis but I have to wonder under what kind of terms and what the final design ends up being. But I don't agree with the notion that Stan is bound to St Louis if they want to play hardball and force him into a contract that he doesn't like.

There are a lot of implied assumptions in what you're saying.

I don't understand why anyone would think the next stadium will have the same type of terms as the last one.

I also don't understand why anyone is ready to state that the terms of the teams venue is what binds a team to a market. The only thing the terms of the dome contract make clear are that the Rams no longer have a contract to play in the dome past 2015 if they chose to opt out. However, opting out of the dome lease doesn't necessarily mean that they can opt out of St. Louis if that isn't how the league sees it. If the league thinks there is considerable reason to believe the market hasn't failed they could just as easily say that the guidelines for relocation haven't been met, regardless if the team has a long term lease or not.

Obviously, it seems the league can interpret the guidelines how they see fit. But to assume one way or the other is just as wrong at this point as leaning toward the other side.

Again, for some reason people keep trying to insist that exhausting all possibilities to make a market work are solely tied to the stadium and the agreement with such stadium. Perhaps that is what the league uses as a basis for voting for relocation, but they just the same could say your market is still working with that stadium on a year-to-year lease and your market even has plans for a new stadium.

Simply, we all know this is going to come down to how the league wants to vote and how far they will subjectively decide to apply their guidelines. It won't simply be because...'Well, there isn't a long term lease at the dome...therefore your market is busted, go ahead and move".

 

[mr.stlouis]

Um... Coles? And he knows how exactly? Does anyone really believe the NFL is looking to collect $1 billion dollars from the Chargers and Raiduhs moving to LA?

That's not really moving, that's walking across the street.

At least when compare it to the Rams. I drive over three hours to watch the Rams. It's closer to drive to KC from Springfield MO. They're still in their markets far as I'm concerned. I don't see the big deal.

 

[RamFan503]

That's not really moving, that's walking across the street.

At least when compare it to the Rams. I drive over three hours to watch the Rams. It's closer to drive to KC from Springfield MO. They're still in their markets far as I'm concerned. I don't see the big deal.

Doesn't matter. It is a different NFL market.

I am not saying the Rams move but the idea that a relocation fee would be up in the plus $500 million range has no basis. And if the NFL were to tell the Raiduhs and Chargers their fee would be much lower than Stan's or any other team? I'm going to guess that would be just asking for a lawsuit.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's not really moving, that's walking across the street.

At least when compare it to the Rams. I drive over three hours to watch the Rams. It's closer to drive to KC from Springfield MO. They're still in their markets far as I'm concerned. I don't see the big deal.

Takes 3 hours between LA and SD. 5-6 to Oakland.

 

[LesBaker]

@bluecoconuts The Raiders or Chargers won't build a stadium, which is why I tossed out 2.8 billion, a stadium will be half of that. So moving would be a lot more affordable for them.

@RamFan503 the NFL is going to gouge anyone they let have the LA market. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be paying through the nose. HOU just cost 700 mil, the Browns/Lerner paid $590 the year before Houston/McNair ponied up 700 mil. So they aren't giving LA to anyone for less than that even if it's just a relocation fee. And again they have to cut a check, there is no lay-a-way LOL. If it's going to cost SK 700 mil or more to move and then 1.2-1.4 billion for a stadium (and that's just a guess all they have is a drawing and no more) that might be too steep of a price for him considering he can build in STL and not spend anything near that much.

 

[bluecoconuts]

@bluecoconuts The Raiders or Chargers won't build a stadium, which is why I tossed out 2.8 billion, a stadium will be half of that. So moving would be a lot more affordable for them.

@RamFan503 the NFL is going to gouge anyone they let have the LA market. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be paying through the nose. HOU just cost 700 mil, the Browns/Lerner paid $590 the year before Houston/McNair ponied up 700 mil. So they aren't giving LA to anyone for less than that even if it's just a relocation fee. And again they have to cut a check, there is no lay-a-way LOL. If it's going to cost SK 700 mil or more to move and then 1.2-1.4 billion for a stadium (and that's just a guess all they have is a drawing and no more) that might be too steep of a price for him considering he can build in STL and not spend anything near that much.

It's almost assured there's going to be a team in LA though, so if the Chargers and Raiders are priced out, then that just leaves the Rams left.

Again, Houston and the (new) Browns were paying expansion fees, not relocation fees. Expansion fees have historically been higher. Relocation fees are typically below 30M (in fact I'm not sure any have been more than 30M, but I haven't looked that up), so jumping up from 30M to 1billion is quite a bit of an increase when we're talking about relocation.


At any rate, Stan can afford that cost if that is truly what he wants to do. I wouldn't throw out a number, even if it's one as high as that, and then tell him that's what it costs. It's either going to be so high, that he can file lawsuits because it's unreasonable, or reasonable and he'll pay it. Between Stan and his wife, they have almost 12 billion dollars, Kroenke is the 77th richest man in the America, his wife is 95th. Good ol' cousin Jim sits at #7 with 39.8 Billion (which doesn't really factor, but it's not out of the question)... I wouldn't bet against that kind of money if they start talking numbers.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Um... Coles? And he knows how exactly? Does anyone really believe the NFL is looking to collect $1 billion dollars from the Chargers and Raiduhs moving to LA?

Sources say its a couple of trillion.

1st source - Jason Cole
2nd source - Bernie

 

[BuiltRamTough]

So then the Chargers and Raiders need to come up with 2.8 Billion to move. That ain't happening.

Lol

 

[iced]

It's almost assured there's going to be a team in LA though, so if the Chargers and Raiders are priced out, then that just leaves the Rams left.

Again, Houston and the (new) Browns were paying expansion fees, not relocation fees. Expansion fees have historically been higher. Relocation fees are typically below 30M (in fact I'm not sure any have been more than 30M, but I haven't looked that up), so jumping up from 30M to 1billion is quite a bit of an increase when we're talking about relocation.


At any rate, Stan can afford that cost if that is truly what he wants to do. I wouldn't throw out a number, even if it's one as high as that, and then tell him that's what it costs. It's either going to be so high, that he can file lawsuits because it's unreasonable, or reasonable and he'll pay it. Between Stan and his wife, they have almost 12 billion dollars, Kroenke is the 77th richest man in the America, his wife is 95th. Good ol' cousin Jim sits at #7 with 39.8 Billion (which doesn't really factor, but it's not out of the question)... I wouldn't bet against that kind of money if they start talking numbers.

Expansion fee's in '95 for the Rams to move was $47 - with inflation, that number today if it were exactly the same would be $72 million and some change.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/

That's probably a good floor for the number - I would expect it to be a little higher now a days...for arguments sake lets call it $100 million....Pretty much any team that needs to come up with an extra $300-$350 million (Fee + loss of G4 loan)

Whether or not stan can actually go to court and expect to win is another thing - Rooney seems to believe they can legally block a team from moving if voted no...

Not sure how far a lawsuit against the NFL would go - NFL could just force him to sell for being in violation of the cross ownership rule.He's had 4+ years and they've given him an extension as it is. Lawyer up against them? Look at it from the NFL's perspective - Why spend millions of dollars in litigation if you can avoid it?

 

[RamFan503]

There are a lot of implied assumptions in what you're saying.

I don't understand why anyone would think the next stadium will have the same type of terms as the last one.

I also don't understand why anyone is ready to state that the terms of the teams venue is what binds a team to a market. The only thing the terms of the dome contract make clear are that the Rams no longer have a contract to play in the dome past 2015 if they chose to opt out. However, opting out of the dome lease doesn't necessarily mean that they can opt out of St. Louis if that isn't how the league sees it. If the league thinks there is considerable reason to believe the market hasn't failed they could just as easily say that the guidelines for relocation haven't been met, regardless if the team has a long term lease or not.

Obviously, it seems the league can interpret the guidelines how they see fit. But to assume one way or the other is just as wrong at this point as leaning toward the other side.

Again, for some reason people keep trying to insist that exhausting all possibilities to make a market work are solely tied to the stadium and the agreement with such stadium. Perhaps that is what the league uses as a basis for voting for relocation, but they just the same could say your market is still working with that stadium on a year-to-year lease and your market even has plans for a new stadium.

Simply, we all know this is going to come down to how the league wants to vote and how far they will subjectively decide to apply their guidelines. It won't simply be because...'Well, there isn't a long term lease at the dome...therefore your market is busted, go ahead and move".

All I'm saying is that just because the league or the city says, "here's what you get." doesn't mean Stan can nor will be forced to take it. That is why I am guessing that there will be a lot of changes still to come before this thing is ironed out. The good thing about the Inglewood vote is that I'm guessing we see those things ironed out before December. But who really knows.

I haven't even heard the details of what new St Louis lease would look like but my guess is that there might be some added ugliness involved there. As KD had said, it is going to get uglier as it nears completion. The thing I wonder is if the Governor puts forth a stadium lease that is most friendly to the city/county/state, does that make Stan tell them to take a hike and if the Governor offers a lease that is even close to what he got with the Dome, are your local representatives and/or voters going to withhold funding.

I think as was mentioned earlier, it may end up being the best deal for the city if they were to offer up the land and some tax incentives and let Stan build his own project.

 

[blue4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Jones_Dome

Under the terms of the lease that the Rams signed, the Edward Jones Dome is required to be ranked in the top tier of NFL stadiums through the 2015 season. If it is not, the Rams are free to break the lease and either relocate without penalty or continue to lease the dome on a year to year basis.

The original 30 year lease was terminated. They have now gone with a yearly contract with the same terms. The CVC was required to meet the lease terms OR ELSE the Rams could break it and leave STL.



That's exactly what they did. They 'broke', or for a better term, terminated his contract.

But there's no breaking of trust. Each side had options. They used them. Breaking a contract would be to bar the entrance to the dome and not let the Rams in the building. Besides, under your definition, the Rams broke the lease. So using your reasoning, how can the city trust them? It's just not what you think it is.

 

[RamFan503]

@RamFan503 the NFL is going to gouge anyone they let have the LA market. It doesn't matter who it is, they will be paying through the nose. HOU just cost 700 mil, the Browns/Lerner paid $590 the year before Houston/McNair ponied up 700 mil. So they aren't giving LA to anyone for less than that even if it's just a relocation fee. And again they have to cut a check, there is no lay-a-way LOL. If it's going to cost SK 700 mil or more to move and then 1.2-1.4 billion for a stadium (and that's just a guess all they have is a drawing and no more) that might be too steep of a price for him considering he can build in STL and not spend anything near that much.

It's interesting. Read the G4 resolution and tell me that it is a sure thing that the NFL even owns or controls the LA market for the first team that moves there. The other thing you are doing is figuring inflated EXPANSION $s onto a team that already exists. We are not talking about the NFL expanding and all that goes with selling the spot to join the NFL. The teams in question already exist. None of them will be paying the kind of jack you are talking about whether you think the NFL wants to gouge anyone or not. Besides, the way the NFL gouges someone is to finally get a team into LA that crosses all the Ts and dots the Is. They want a team in LA and the revenue it will bring with it.

 

[TSFH Fan]

and to top it off, he also missed on a big point



Teams that relocate aren't eligible for the G4 loan

Just pointing out Neil deMause's apparent running G4 approach, fwiw, -- he seems to be playing, in print, with the possibility, left open by Grubman, that the G4 rules may have changed:

• Regarding the use of NFL G-4 funds for a Carson stadium, NFL VP Eric Grubman told the OC Register, “A stadium project can be eligible for league financing provided the project and its sponsors meet certain criteria. A Carson project would be eligible and could apply if it met those criteria.” Of course, one of the criteria of the G-4 fund is that “the project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club’s ‘home territory,'” so either Grubman is saying that the league has changed the criteria, or coyly saying that Carson wouldn’t be eligible, or just ducking the question because he doesn’t want to mess with the teams’ leverage.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/...dium-financing-but-its-not-quite-that-simple/

 

[LesBaker]

If anyone wants to wager some ROD bucks I'll offer up this.

I'll bet the fee is at or north of 500 million.

 

[LesBaker]

Just pointing out Neil deMause's apparent running G4 approach, fwiw, -- he seems to be playing, in print, with the possibility, left open by Grubman, that the G4 rules may have changed:

• Regarding the use of NFL G-4 funds for a Carson stadium, NFL VP Eric Grubman told the OC Register, “A stadium project can be eligible for league financing provided the project and its sponsors meet certain criteria. A Carson project would be eligible and could apply if it met those criteria.” Of course, one of the criteria of the G-4 fund is that “the project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club’s ‘home territory,'” so either Grubman is saying that the league has changed the criteria, or coyly saying that Carson wouldn’t be eligible, or just ducking the question because he doesn’t want to mess with the teams’ leverage.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/...dium-financing-but-its-not-quite-that-simple/

He's saying that stadium won't get G4 funds. There is no "coyly saying" about it. The rule is clear. and he said "if it met those criteria" which it doesn't.

@RamFan503 the NFL controls the market, they control when and where franchises are created. They are going to make someone pay, and my thinking is they'd prefer a new team over a team moving because they could get more money for it, and the owners get a piece of the fee so you know they want a big check written.