New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Hey, did my wife create an account here? :eek:

 

[ramfan46]

I'd just like to point out that AEG trying to claim Inglewood's plans would be a "terrorism threat" shows how serious they are about getting this done. Now you are seeing weird and desperate moves such as this and the Carson stadium plan. Even Inglewood's target finish date of 2018 got STL push their proposal forward a full two years. When the initiative passed the city council it made the cover of the LA Times. If this is just a leverage ploy, it's the greatest I've ever seen.

 

[RamFan503]

I just did a little snooping around because I wanted to make my point a bit easier to understand.

These are the last several "franchise fees" paid to the NFL. See how the price has skyrocketed since 1995..........

Houston Texans $700 MIL in 2002
Cleveland Browns $560 MIL in 1999
Carolina Panthers and Jacksonville Jaguars $140 MIL in 1995
Seattle Seahawks and Tampa Bay Buccaneers $16 MIL in 1976

In 1995 the Rams paid $50 MIL to relocate if I recall correctly, the year the Jaguars and Panthers cost $140 MIL. The Jaguars sold almost 5 years ago for $760 MIL, the price went up that much in 16 years. The Browns were sold for $1 BIL almost three years ago, so that price nearly doubled in 12 years.

(The Panthers are currently valued at $1.25 billion, ten times what they sold for less than 20 years ago.)

In other words relocation fees were about a third of what a franchise fee was. And that's in much smaller and less desirable locations for the NFL than Los Angeles.

What are the top teams worth?

The Cowboys are valued at $3.25 BIL, the Patriots at $2.6 BIL, the Redskins at $2.4 BIL, the Giants $2.1 BIL, the Texans at $1.85 BIL. The Texans are worth almost 1.2 BILLION more than they were in 2002 when they were created/bought. By the end of 2016 they could be worth three times the original cost of $760 million. That would be less than 15 years later.

What will a team be worth in LA? We've heard a lot of numbers. The Clippers, yes the Clippers, just sold for 2 BILLION and they aren't even the most popular basketball team in town. We've heard numbers ranging from 2 BIL up to 2.5 BIL. What will the NFL want for that market in relocation fees based on it's history? The math isn't hard to do.

So again, do you think the NFL is going to let a team move into that market for $150 MIL? That would be like selling a franchise to a new owner for $300 MIL. It'll never happen. IMO there is no way the NFL lets a team move for less than half a billion. And honestly I am of the opinion they would much, much rather see expansion because they could get up to 4 times as much money, and I'd guess they would put a clause in the first contract with a team that they would be allowed to sell a second one into the market area.

This your way of running from a bet? Put up or shaddup mister.

 

[RamFan503]

I think other owners could afford it. Spanos is worth 1.3 BIL, Davis is worth 1.7 BIL.

The last time I heard anything about expansion was a few years ago, so that may be different now. But of course these conversations happen every time someone throws a computer generated stadium jpg up on the web LOL.

Someone worth 1.3 could spend what you estimate to be half his net worth on a relocation fee? What's he going to do, sell all his assets? How much of that net worth is his team itself?

It strikes me as funny that someone would argue that the excessive relocation fee would stop Stan from making money on his development yet Spanos and Davis would be fine even though without it, they are still underfinanced unless the NFL breaks its own rules on G4 funding - and maybe even with G4 dollars.

 

[blue4]

I think an excellent argument can be made that St Louis is not just a baseball town. Just look at attendance during the worst stretch of NFL play in recent history. This idea of STL being a baseball town is purely a media invention, and has been latched onto by everyone from LA enthusiasts to rabid baseball Cardinal fans desperate to believe themselves the greatest fans in history. It's simply not true. The fact that this team has any support after the Rams last ten years is a testament to this towns desire for NFL football. Can we please put this to bed now? It's as silly as the "LA won't support a team cause it's full of transients" nonsense. Put a halfway successful team in any larger town in America today and they will get supported. Football is that popular.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Sunday, March 1, 2015... today is the Measuring Date as set forth in the Amended and Restated St. Louis NFL Lease and the Edward Jones Dome officially, as of today, does not rank in the "First Tier" of NFL stadiums. The importance of this fact seems lost on some and dismissed by others, but it is at the center of the Rams position on their status with regard to staying in St. Louis or moving back to Los Angeles.

Whatever "good faith" arguments are thrown around, the fact of the matter is that providing a "First Tier" stadium was at the heart of St. Louis' proposal to lure the Rams to the Gateway City. Had such a "good faith" commitment by St. Louis interests not been made, it is unlikely that the Rams would have moved to St. Louis at all.

This comes down to a simple unarguable fact: the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority failed to provide a "First Tier" stadium for the Rams as they were contractually obligated to. This has now become a simple case of "Breach of Contract" and there is not a court in the country that would not side with the Rams, should this matter be litigated.

 

[Big Unit]

Come to think of it... How much tourism does the Arch really bring in? Can we just give that to L.A. too? Hmm... what else don't we "need"?

So you know, I totally agree - of all the options, I want an NFL team in St. Louis; and I think the new stadium project is a perfect fit for the river/arch/city redevelopment plan.
I also agree about St. Louis not being a "baseball city". Is Pittsburgh a football city because the Pirates seldom win? Is Dallas? Is Tampa? Is Cleveland? Is Wisconsin (admittedly, Green Bay AND Milwaukee)? The list goes on and on of NFL-dominant/MLB-secondary cities; the fact St. Louis has a good baseball franchise does NOT mean they shouldn't have an NFL team; they should. But it's unrealistic to anticipate St. Louis suddenly becoming NFL-mad, no-matter-what. Not like Indianapolis, or Nashville, or Buffalo, or...you get the idea; plenty of cities without ANY MLB.
I agree with you; St. Louis is a great sports town. It deserves an NFL franchise. I sure hope that's how it works out. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[RamFan503]

Sunday, March 1, 2015... today is the Measuring Date as set forth in the Amended and Restated St. Louis NFL Lease and the Edward Jones Dome officially, as of today, does not rank in the "First Tier" of NFL stadiums. The importance of this fact seems lost on some and dismissed by others, but it is at the center of the Rams position on their status with regard to staying in St. Louis or moving back to Los Angeles.

Whatever "good faith" arguments are thrown around, the fact of the matter is that providing a "First Tier" stadium was at the heart of St. Louis' proposal to lure the Rams to the Gateway City. Had such a "good faith" commitment by St. Louis interests not been made, it is unlikely that the Rams would have moved to St. Louis at all.

This comes down to a simple unarguable fact: the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority failed to provide a "First Tier" stadium for the Rams as they were contractually obligated to. This has now become a simple case of "Breach of Contract" and there is not a court in the country that would not side with the Rams, should this matter be litigated.

Sorry man - this is not breach of contract. If there was no opt out clause, I could see your point maybe. But it was an option and both sides exercised it. I do however agree that the top tier status will come into play when the final product is unveiled.

 

[Big Unit]

By the way, the Arch was, and is, brilliant! How many times have you seen the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Arch...included to cover ALL the flyover country in between? The concept of the new stadium isn't AS brilliant, but it's pretty damn cool! The thought of blimp views of the stadium, virtually overhanging the iconic "Father of Waters"; when you can do that AND fix the NFL problems in California and LA, makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Show anyone 20 city skylines, and the one they'll instantly recognize is St. Louis.

One other thing I forgot - Dave Peacock heading St. Louis's stadium efforts. His former job? CEO of Anheuser-Busch. I don't know that A-B InBev - one of the NFL's biggest advertisers - would be perturbed if St. Louis didn't have the NFL, but why should the NFL take that chance?

 

[Username]

So you know, I totally agree - of all the options, I want an NFL team in St. Louis; and I think the new stadium project is a perfect fit for the river/arch/city redevelopment plan.
I also agree about St. Louis not being a "baseball city". Is Pittsburgh a football city because the Pirates seldom win? Is Dallas? Is Tampa? Is Cleveland? Is Wisconsin (admittedly, Green Bay AND Milwaukee)? The list goes on and on of NFL-dominant/MLB-secondary cities; the fact St. Louis has a good baseball franchise does NOT mean they shouldn't have an NFL team; they should. But it's unrealistic to anticipate St. Louis suddenly becoming NFL-mad, no-matter-what. Not like Indianapolis, or Nashville, or Buffalo, or...you get the idea; plenty of cities without ANY MLB.
I agree with you; St. Louis is a great sports town. It deserves an NFL franchise. I sure hope that's how it works out. Sorry for the confusion.

Why is that unrealistic?

 

[RamFan503]

By the way, the Arch was, and is, brilliant! How many times have you seen the Statue of Liberty, the Golden Gate Bridge, and the Arch...included to cover ALL the flyover country in between? The concept of the new stadium isn't AS brilliant, but it's pretty damn cool! The thought of blimp views of the stadium, virtually overhanging the iconic "Father of Waters"; when you can do that AND fix the NFL problems in California and LA, makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Show anyone 20 city skylines, and the one they'll instantly recognize is St. Louis.

One other thing I forgot - Dave Peacock heading St. Louis's stadium efforts. His former job? CEO of Anheuser-Busch. I don't know that A-B InBev - one of the NFL's biggest advertisers - would be perturbed if St. Louis didn't have the NFL, but why should the NFL take that chance?

I don't think InBev would factor in but I totally agree on the Arch. It is one of the most recognizable and iconic structures in this country and maybe even the world.

 

[iced]

You guys really need to stop with this "baseball city" crap.

And what city does "NEED" a team? What city needs a museum? A zoo? Etc.?

Lol right, and it's hypocritical

3. St. Louis doesn't NEED a team; they've gotten along without one for years, and regardless which NFL franchise might be in St. Louis, it'll play second fiddle to the best organization in baseball, the Cardinals. Consequently, NFL support in St. Louis will be directly related to team success, maybe even more than in many other markets.

That pretty much sums up LA for the past 20 years

 

[Big Unit]

Why is that unrealistic?

Not saying it COULDN'T happen; it has, in the GSOT days. But now I see ten times as much Cardinal paraphernalia for sale as Rams in and around St. Louis. It CAN happen and HAS - just mean it's not a prerequisite for St. Louis to be an NFL city; and that it's unrealistic for the NFL to require it. That's all.

 

[Username]

Not saying it COULDN'T happen; it has, in the GSOT days. But now I see ten times as much Cardinal paraphernalia for sale as Rams in and around St. Louis. It CAN happen and HAS - just mean it's not a prerequisite for St. Louis to be an NFL city; and that it's unrealistic for the NFL to require it. That's all.

I wonder why?

 

[Username]

I don't think InBev would factor in but I totally agree on the Arch. It is one of the most recognizable and iconic structures in this country and maybe even the world.

We don't "need" it though. Too shiny with all this snow. Bad for Sunday hangovers. Give it to L.A. plz.

 

[RamFan503]

Not saying it COULDN'T happen; it has, in the GSOT days. But now I see ten times as much Cardinal paraphernalia for sale as Rams in and around St. Louis. It CAN happen and HAS - just mean it's not a prerequisite for St. Louis to be an NFL city; and that it's unrealistic for the NFL to require it. That's all.

I'd say the level of support demonstrated by St Louis fans considering the product on the field is all the prerequisite the NFL should need to see that St Louis is an NFL city. Building the stadium should put it over the top. I also think that if there is a new shining star next to the river and Arch, it will place football in St Louis at a fever pitch.

 

[RamFan503]

We don't "need" it though. Too shiny with all this snow. Bad for Sunday hangovers. Give it to L.A. plz.

Clearly you need better shades. Try some Costas or Maui Jims. They will tame that shiny hangover glow in a heart beat. And if you got some with rose color lenses ... well then....

 

[Username]

Clearly you need better shades. Try some Costas or Maui Jims. They will tame that shiny hangover glow in a heart beat. And if you got some with rose color lenses ... well then....

Maui Jims got shattered at Mardi Gras because some drunk chick tried to take beads off my neck. Struggle is real. Been wearing buddies safety glasses everywhere with no fucks given. At least they're obnoxious drunk chick proof.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Someone worth 1.3 could spend what you estimate to be half his net worth on a relocation fee? What's he going to do, sell all his assets? How much of that net worth is his team itself?

It strikes me as funny that someone would argue that the excessive relocation fee would stop Stan from making money on his development yet Spanos and Davis would be fine even though without it, they are still underfinanced unless the NFL breaks its own rules on G4 funding - and maybe even with G4 dollars.

Levi's stadium's naming rights brought them 220 million paid over 20 years (11 million per year), which is the third highest in all of sports. Metlife stadium and Citi Field (both for New York teams) both got 400 million over 20 (Citi Field) and 25 (Metlife) years, which comes to 20 and 16 million per year.

So you have to think the ceiling for Carson is 400 million at most, however Farmers field did go with 600 million over 30 years (20 million per year) for the AEG proposal.

So lets go with 600 million, which is realistically not going to happen, but for sake of arguments that's what they get. New York got about 800 million for PSL (which is what the New York teams got, but closer to 4-5 maybe 6 is more realistically), that gives them a total of 1.2 billion dollars. Say they NFL kicks in the G4 loan (which as of now isn't allowed) of 400 they'll have 2 billion dollars, assuming they both put in 200 million each, which DOES give them enough for the stadium, IF the relocation fees aren't something ridiculous like 500 million each. However that's being extremely optimistic, plus it's assuming the NFL changes the rules. If the relocation fees are 500 million each, that means between the two of them they need 2.7 billion, and they're well short. If the relocation fees are 200 million or so then they need 2.2 billion dollars total, which still might be too high for them.

It's not very realistic though, all would assuming the absolute best outcome.

Realistically you can expect about 400 million for naming rights, and 500 million for PSL's, giving them 900 total. Even if the NFL bends the rules, that gives them 1.6 billion, which is short of the 1.7-8 billion cost, not including relocation fees.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I wonder why?

I don't think he's saying St Louis is a bad football town or anything like that, I think he's saying it wouldn't be fair for the NFL to say that they need to be NFL first and foremost (which they did ask to "rank" the teams on the survey they sent out).