New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

Then the Chargers and Raiduhs have to come up with that money too. So how is it out of pocket money for Stan but not for Davis and Spanos. Not following your money trail here Les. The Carson project is supposed to be all privately funded as well. And though there would be two teams sharing it, that seems to be the consensus on if Stan goes forward with the Inglewood project. Add to that, the Inglewood project has all kinds of other money making developments as part of the overall project whereas the Carson project has zero.

With Stan being 3 - 4 times richer than either of the other two, I just don't follow the logic that it makes more sense for Davis/Spanos but it is a money loser for Stan. And if your numbers are even close to correct, do you really see Spanos/Davis tying up well over a $Billion in relocation fees alone? $1.7 Billion for the Carson project PLUS a billion? Not a chance.

I don't think it makes financial sense for anyone to move to LA if the relocation fees are that high. Too much out of pocket. Seems to me that sticking 200 million into STL and still developing Inglewood would bring the most return on money spent. If he ends up spending around 2 billion for stadium and relocation his kids will be dead before profits approach that level, and that's not counting maintenance and staffing since he would own the place. The net worth of the team would go up, but until you sell the team that's only potential money. Plus, it pains me to say this, but as far as the nation is concerned it's still just the Rams. The worth of the team still would not approach NY or Dallas. It would take years of actually winning playoff games for that to change. But the benefit of being that rich is you can do whatever you want.
Personally, I think it'll be be around 500 million for relocation. The NFL is going to want theirs.

 

[mr.stlouis]

How are things at a standstill? Just last week they approved the stadium to build.

Which would only be significant, and very surprising, f they had voted against it. Of course they want a free stadium and NFL team! There is no team committed to Inglewood. None.

And this may be just my opinion, but Stan can build that stadium and somebody can buy the rights to it later on. For example, the Chargers and Raiders if Carlson does not work out. There is a ton of money for him to be had without him moving the Rams. Shoot, that's just good biz. But until they get a team it's leverage.

LA times wrote an article just today about how abused Inglewood is currently being. It sympathized for the Ram fans that show up only to potentially get the hearts broken again. I feel bad for them.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Things in Inglewood are 'not' at a stand still, and anyone that's been paying attention knows that. The reason St. Louis seems to be 'movin' right along' is because they started out needing a boat load of boxes to check off (same goes for Carson), and were way behind.

Stan Kroenke, and Inglewood.... not so much.

Well they dont have a team and won't build a stadium without one so it looks like a solid Plan B solution. Relocation is nobody's plan A, nobody actually wants to go to LA unless the negotiations go south. STL is ahead of everybody.

 

[RamBill]

Governor Jay Nixon’s task force has released new renderings of the proposed NFL stadium to be built on St. Louis’ north riverfront. Global design, architecture, engineering and planning firm HOK is working with the Governor’s office the new stadium design. The design firm says the updated renderings include new details to reflect developments in the project over the past few weeks. Martin Kilcoyne has the renderings and the story.

Watch Stadium Story

 

[mr.stlouis]

Here's what Gil Brandt said recently for what it's worth. Not that this is the popular thing to say, either.

"Los Angeles is a stalking horse, it’s a leverage play, an option that teams have to get what they want out of their local jurisdictions. My sense is that’s what it will be. If it’s anything more than that, it’ll be a surprise."

 

[bluecoconuts]

Which would only be significant, and very surprising, f they had voted against it. Of course they want a free stadium and NFL team! There is no team committed to Inglewood. None.

And this may be just my opinion, but Stan can build that stadium and somebody can buy the rights to it later on. For example, the Chargers and Raiders if Carlson does not work out. There is a ton of money for him to be had without him moving the Rams. Shoot, that's just good biz. But until they get a team it's leverage.

LA times wrote an article just today about how abused Inglewood is currently being. It sympathized for the Ram fans that show up only to potentially get the hearts broken again. I feel bad for them.

There's no team committed to Carson in 2016 either, and if we're getting technical, there's also no team committed to St Louis in 2016. If the Chargers and Raiders can't make the Carson project work out, but Kroenke builds a stadium in Inglewood but for some reason decides not to move the Rams there, how do the Chargers and Raiders get Inglewood to work? It's more expensive (and cost seems to be the most likely obstacle for them) than the Carson project, plus they wont get as much of the profits.. For that matter, I cannot see the NFL being okay with Kroenke controlling the stadium with two other teams being tenants there. I don't think it's good business for Kroenke to drop that kind of cash and then have someone else enjoy the rewards. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure what article you were referring too, I did see one from last week from someone who wrote about the economics, he did say that he believes it's more of a leverage ploy, but he doesn't have any connections for any sports (he's an economist) or inside information, and he mostly discusses how he thinks the tricky wording has pulled one over on the citizens, how he doesn't think it's about making a profit, plus he doesn't agree with avoiding the environmental study. While I don't discount his take on the economic take, I'd say his guess about any of the owners motives have far less merit than sports writers.

Well they dont have a team and won't build a stadium without one so it looks like a solid Plan B solution. Relocation is nobody's plan A, nobody actually wants to go to LA unless the negotiations go south. STL is ahead of everybody.

They've been saying all along they're building the stadium regardless. I do agree that they're not likely to actually build a stadium without a team, but to me that says it's more likely they've been given assurance that he'll move there. I also don't think relocation is nobodies plan A, pretty much every reporter bluntly say that Kroenke wants to move. They could be wrong, but his actions all indicate he wants to move.

 

[LesBaker]

Then the Chargers and Raiduhs have to come up with that money too. So how is it out of pocket money for Stan but not for Davis and Spanos. Not following your money trail here Les. The Carson project is supposed to be all privately funded as well. And though there would be two teams sharing it, that seems to be the consensus on if Stan goes forward with the Inglewood project. Add to that, the Inglewood project has all kinds of other money making developments as part of the overall project whereas the Carson project has zero.

With Stan being 3 - 4 times richer than either of the other two, I just don't follow the logic that it makes more sense for Davis/Spanos but it is a money loser for Stan. And if your numbers are even close to correct, do you really see Spanos/Davis tying up well over a $Billion in relocation fees alone? $1.7 Billion for the Carson project PLUS a billion? Not a chance.

Jeez yer dense sometimes.

It's out of pocket for anyone, of course. What I said was that the number for SK is way higher because he is dropping a couple of billion on a stadium, where the Raiders and Chargers are just going to be tenants. His wealth in comparison to theirs doesn't matter. What matters is HOW FAST he can recover the expenditure. And according to a couple of articles that may be so long he could say "no thanks" whereas the other guys can recover what they have to spend in a few years or less.

 

[LesBaker]

Things in Inglewood are 'not' at a stand still, and anyone that's been paying attention knows that. The reason St. Louis seems to be 'movin' right along' is because they started out needing a boat load of boxes to check off (same goes for Carson), and were way behind.

Stan Kroenke, and Inglewood.... not so much.

How were they way behind?

 

[mr.stlouis]

There's no team committed to Carson in 2016 either, and if we're getting technical, there's also no team committed to St Louis in 2016. If the Chargers and Raiders can't make the Carson project work out, but Kroenke builds a stadium in Inglewood but for some reason decides not to move the Rams there, how do the Chargers and Raiders get Inglewood to work? It's more expensive (and cost seems to be the most likely obstacle for them) than the Carson project, plus they wont get as much of the profits.. For that matter, I cannot see the NFL being okay with Kroenke controlling the stadium with two other teams being tenants there. I don't think it's good business for Kroenke to drop that kind of cash and then have someone else enjoy the rewards. Doesn't make sense to me.

I'm not sure what article you were referring too, I did see one from last week from someone who wrote about the economics, he did say that he believes it's more of a leverage ploy, but he doesn't have any connections for any sports (he's an economist) or inside information, and he mostly discusses how he thinks the tricky wording has pulled one over on the citizens, how he doesn't think it's about making a profit, plus he doesn't agree with avoiding the environmental study. While I don't discount his take on the economic take, I'd say his guess about any of the owners motives have far less merit than sports writers.




They've been saying all along they're building the stadium regardless. I do agree that they're not likely to actually build a stadium without a team, but to me that says it's more likely they've been given assurance that he'll move there. I also don't think relocation is nobodies plan A, pretty much every reporter bluntly say that Kroenke wants to move. They could be wrong, but his actions all indicate he wants to move.

And the only thing you can find that isn't speculation is Kroneke stating he will do everything he can to keep the Rams in STL, his home state. Then you have Demoff stating "it will get worse before it gets better" and says this process will/can get ugly. Those statements from actual Ram representatives point to leverage.

And Mayor Butts has said "This is field of dreams stuff." He meant nobody in particular is slated to move there. In fact he said "it really doesn't matter" when asked about what team. He's a paid off puppet anyway. He got paid 90,000 by the stadium group.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Here's what Gil Brandt said recently for what it's worth. Not that this is the popular thing to say, either.

"Los Angeles is a stalking horse, it’s a leverage play, an option that teams have to get what they want out of their local jurisdictions. My sense is that’s what it will be. If it’s anything more than that, it’ll be a surprise."

That was Andrew Brandt, not Gil. He also said "historically" before that quote.

And the only thing you can find that isn't speculation is Kroneke stating he will do everything he can to keep the Rams in STL, his home state. Then you have Demoff stating "it will get worse before it gets better" and says this process will/can get ugly. Those statements from actual Ram representatives point to leverage.

And Mayor Butts has said "This is field of dreams stuff." He meant nobody in particular is slated to move there. In fact he said "it really doesn't matter" when asked about what team. He's a paid off puppet anyway. He got paid 90,000 by the stadium group.

The process is getting ugly, he's correct. I don't think they're really going to build a 2 billion dollar stadium and let it sit empty. I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than words, thus far Kroenke has put more work into LA than St Louis, which is why I lean towards the Rams leaving than staying. If he were to start putting work into St Louis then I would change my mind.

 

[ChrisW]

That was Andrew Brandt, not Gil. He also said "historically" before that quote.



The process is getting ugly, he's correct. I don't think they're really going to build a 2 billion dollar stadium and let it sit empty. I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than words, thus far Kroenke has put more work into LA than St Louis, which is why I lean towards the Rams leaving than staying. If he were to start putting work into St Louis then I would change my mind.

He can build a stadium all he wants. The League will try to tell him where he's going to play. We'll see if he abides, or goes rogue.

 

[mr.stlouis]

That was Andrew Brandt, not Gil. He also said "historically" before that quote.



The process is getting ugly, he's correct. I don't think they're really going to build a 2 billion dollar stadium and let it sit empty. I'm a firm believer that actions speak louder than words, thus far Kroenke has put more work into LA than St Louis, which is why I lean towards the Rams leaving than staying. If he were to start putting work into St Louis then I would change my mind.

Lol, Gil....

And that doesn't change the message because of how he finished it.

I'm also starting to think nobody is going to LA. Let me put it this way, I won't believe it until I see it. Guess that goes for all of us, huh. Until the moving vans show up to take them closer to the Mississippi or some magical, fairy tale, Inglewood stadium, I remain very skeptical( but pretty bias towards STL Lol. We all have the side we lean towards.)

 

[RamFan503]

Jeez yer dense sometimes.

It's out of pocket for anyone, of course. What I said was that the number for SK is way higher because he is dropping a couple of billion on a stadium, where the Raiders and Chargers are just going to be tenants. His wealth in comparison to theirs doesn't matter. What matters is HOW FAST he can recover the expenditure. And according to a couple of articles that may be so long he could say "no thanks" whereas the other guys can recover what they have to spend in a few years or less.

Tenants to whom? Are you saying someone has offered to build this stadium for the two teams? If that is true - which I don't believe is - how is that entity more able to make money on a $1.7 Billion stadium with no value added when Stan can't on $1.86 Billion with shitloads of value added projects? And can you point me to anything that says they will be tenants?

In both cases someone is dropping a couple billion on a stadium and any team is paying the same relocation fees. And if the Chargers and Raiduhs are only tenants, how in the hell are they going to make up that kind of money in a few years? They already receive the TV money no matter where they are. They stand to make an additional $20 million or so in ticket sales. I think you can double that figure for luxury boxes. So that's $60 million a year (and I think I'm being very generous) from things attributed to the stadium. If they are tenants only, they will not make money off parking or concessions or virtually anything else. Where is it you see them paying off that relocation fee if it's what you say it will be? Do you think they would be paying the same rent to a private stadium owner as they would to a public interest? There's no freaking way anyone is going to put out $1.7 Billion so they can get back a couple million in rent each year from a couple teams. So what then is their rent?

And yes - wealth and assets do matter. Who do you think is going to get the better financing options? Spanos/Davis or Kroenke? Whose experience rating do you think would be higher? That $1.86 Billion will cost Stan far less than it will cost Davis/Spanos.

Bottom line - two teams have to pay off their relocation fee plus a $2 Billion stadium with no additional revenues besides possible events they could get into the former refuse center known as Carson vs Stan with one team plus a tenant having to pay off its relocation fee plus a $2 Billion stadium with revenues from a 6,000 seat concert venue, 3,000 residential units, a luxury hotel, commercial space, obvious appearances by a European Soccer giant, parking, big name concerts, all concessions, Superbowls, etc...

Yep - guess I'm just dense because I see Stan's payoff coming MUCH faster.

I have to say that I also see Stan's plan as a real destination whereas the Carson project looks like somewhere you are only going to to watch a game.

I would go so far as to say that if Stan's plan doesn't go through, neither of them do. And the way it's looking, I wouldn't be surprised if all three teams stay put.

 

[LesBaker]

Tenants to whom? Are you saying someone has offered to build this stadium for the two teams? If that is true - which I don't believe is - how is that entity more able to make money on a $1.7 Billion stadium with no value added when Stan can't on $1.86 Billion with shitloads of value added projects? And can you point me to anything that says they will be tenants?

In both cases someone is dropping a couple billion on a stadium and any team is paying the same relocation fees. And if the Chargers and Raiduhs are only tenants, how in the hell are they going to make up that kind of money in a few years? They already receive the TV money no matter where they are. They stand to make an additional $20 million or so in ticket sales. I think you can double that figure for luxury boxes. So that's $60 million a year (and I think I'm being very generous) from things attributed to the stadium. If they are tenants only, they will not make money off parking or concessions or virtually anything else. Where is it you see them paying off that relocation fee if it's what you say it will be? Do you think they would be paying the same rent to a private stadium owner as they would to a public interest? There's no freaking way anyone is going to put out $1.7 Billion so they can get back a couple million in rent each year from a couple teams. So what then is their rent?

And yes - wealth and assets do matter. Who do you think is going to get the better financing options? Spanos/Davis or Kroenke? Whose experience rating do you think would be higher? That $1.86 Billion will cost Stan far less than it will cost Davis/Spanos.

Bottom line - two teams have to pay off their relocation fee plus a $2 Billion stadium with no additional revenues besides possible events they could get into the former refuse center known as Carson vs Stan with one team plus a tenant having to pay off its relocation fee plus a $2 Billion stadium with revenues from a 6,000 seat concert venue, 3,000 residential units, a luxury hotel, commercial space, obvious appearances by a European Soccer giant, parking, big name concerts, all concessions, Superbowls, etc...

Yep - guess I'm just dense because I see Stan's payoff coming MUCH faster.

I have to say that I also see Stan's plan as a real destination whereas the Carson project looks like somewhere you are only going to to watch a game.

I would go so far as to say that if Stan's plan doesn't go through, neither of them do. And the way it's looking, I wouldn't be surprised if all three teams stay put.

Carson is a pipe dream IMO to begin with.

So anyway. if it did get built than how does the owner recover his money, and how do the teams recoup the relocation fee, whatever that might be.

Well SK has to pay the fee to move, and build the stadium. He has himself to pay rent and no other team, and one team to sell PSL's and sponsorships.

The guy (meaning moron lol) who builds Carson has two teams to pay rent, and twice as many games for concessions/parking/other stuff it to so he can recover costs at a faster rate. And both of those teams can sell PSL's and sponsorships to recover the relocation fees they paid. Then they are making money because they don't have to recoup money spent on the stadium, some other jackass has to worry about that. I'm not advocating this model as a good idea, but SD and OAK would have to spend WAY less money and could recover it WAY faster. So if in s fantasy world this place did get built and those two teams did move in they could recover the $$$ before they were in the grave.

SK if he builds and moves and ends up spending 2.5 billion may not be able to recover that. You can't count the other parts of the development because most likely it'll be a different company/LLC or whatever with different accounting and everything.

There is an article several pages back that talks about the cost to move to LA, specifically for SK and it even says that between the cost of the stadium and if there is a big fee it isn't worth it for him..........I commented that it's one of the few that mention relocation costs. It's worth reading.

Building a stadium and paying a huge relocation fee is a large amount of cash outflow and I don't know if SK likes that idea.

IMO it's most likely that all three teams stay put, so we agree on that. I've said for the longest time SK will build his own place in STL.

Wanna bet on that or something?

 

[8to12]

Well they dont have a team and won't build a stadium without one so it looks like a solid Plan B solution. Relocation is nobody's plan A, nobody actually wants to go to LA unless the negotiations go south. STL is ahead of everybody.

"They" ? Are you speaking of the City of Inglewood? If so, they have nothing to do with it. The Land is privately held. The stadium will be built by the partner ship of Kroenke and Stockbridge Capital. You read about the City Council granting permission for the land to be zoned or used for the purpose of a sports stadium. The owners will start building as soon as the permits are issued and final plans drawn ( 7 - 8 months). And, yes, they will start building even without an announcement of a team relocating.
Regarding your second point ; I have to laugh out how presumptuous you sound. You're telling me you know what Kroenke's plans are?

 

[den-the-coach]

IMO it's most likely that all three teams stay put, so we agree on that. I've said for the longest time SK will build his own place in STL.

Wanna bet on that or something?

Les IMO if St.. Louis allows Stan to develop the land around the stadium I think you're on to something, however, IMO, he will need assurances from the people of St. Louis to do that. In the end you could be right, but it's not just the stadium it's the ability to make money with everything around the stadium IMHO.

Not doubting he stays, but IMO, the land around the stadium is not the icing on the cake, it's the cake, the stadium is the icing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Lol, Gil....

And that doesn't change the message because of how he finished it.

I'm also starting to think nobody is going to LA. Let me put it this way, I won't believe it until I see it. Guess that goes for all of us, huh. Until the moving vans show up to take them closer to the Mississippi or some magical, fairy tale, Inglewood stadium, I remain very skeptical( but pretty bias towards STL Lol. We all have the side we lean towards.)

I'll believe it when I see it, but I think it's foolish to just write off Inglewood as if it has no chance. At this point in time the Inglewood plan has a better chance than the riverfront plan, because it has the financing to do it. The riverfront plan requires Kroenke to pay for at a minimum half of it, and the other half still needs the financing figured out. Inglewood has the financing figured out, they just need to finalize the stadium concepts. Until that changes (I.E Kroenke says he's going to fund a stadium in St Louis, as he has in Los Angeles) I am of the opinion it is a very real option, and what he prefers at this point in time. That may change, but I'm waiting for the riverfront stadium to get out of stadium limbo.

He has himself to pay rent and no other team

I don't get it, he's going to pay rent to himself? Or do you mean operating costs?

The guy (meaning moron lol) who builds Carson has two teams to pay rent, and twice as many games for concessions/parking/other stuff it to so he can recover costs at a faster rate

I also don't get this, did someone else say they were going to fund the Carson project? From my understanding it was supposed to be split between the Chargers and Raiders, using PSL, naming rights, their own money, and G4 money (which they'll need to get those rules changed)... Which is why there's the big issue of the numbers not adding up.

Building a stadium and paying a huge relocation fee is a large amount of cash outflow and I don't know if SK likes that idea.

I don't know if he does either, but you'd have to think it was something he thought about years ago when he started putting the plan into motion, it's not like he doesn't know the cost.

 

[LesBaker]

I'll believe it when I see it, but I think it's foolish to just write off Inglewood as if it has no chance. At this point in time the Inglewood plan has a better chance than the riverfront plan, because it has the financing to do it. The riverfront plan requires Kroenke to pay for at a minimum half of it, and the other half still needs the financing figured out. Inglewood has the financing figured out, they just need to finalize the stadium concepts. Until that changes (I.E Kroenke says he's going to fund a stadium in St Louis, as he has in Los Angeles) I am of the opinion it is a very real option, and what he prefers at this point in time. That may change, but I'm waiting for the riverfront stadium to get out of stadium limbo.



I don't get it, he's going to pay rent to himself? Or do you mean operating costs?

The team will pay rent to the company that is set up as ownership of the building. SK would own both obviously. But there is still only one NFL team in it.



I also don't get this, did someone else say they were going to fund the Carson project? From my understanding it was supposed to be split between the Chargers and Raiders, using PSL, naming rights, their own money, and G4 money (which they'll need to get those rules changed)... Which is why there's the big issue of the numbers not adding up.

The Carson stadium was being built by private funds, I assumed it wouldn't be the Raiders and Chargers sharing the cost. Even if it was money would be recouped at a faster rate than by one team. This plan is going nowhere, the NFL would never allow a stadium to be built on a dump after what has happened at a couple of shopping locations have been built on dumps. It never works. This is almost a moot point.


I don't know if he does either, but you'd have to think it was something he thought about years ago when he started putting the plan into motion, it's not like he doesn't know the cost.

That's a big leap in logic to assume he put some "plan" in motion years ago. Did he help move the team to STL to move it back later? I'm not buying that.

I did this wrong but I hope you can see my thoughts are in bold text.

I effed up the multi thing or something. 503's fault, he should be put in time out right

 

[RamFan503]

Carson is a pipe dream IMO to begin with.

So anyway. if it did get built than how does the owner recover his money, and how do the teams recoup the relocation fee, whatever that might be.

Well SK has to pay the fee to move, and build the stadium. He has himself to pay rent and no other team, and one team to sell PSL's and sponsorships.

The guy (meaning moron lol) who builds Carson has two teams to pay rent, and twice as many games for concessions/parking/other stuff it to so he can recover costs at a faster rate. And both of those teams can sell PSL's and sponsorships to recover the relocation fees they paid. Then they are making money because they don't have to recoup money spent on the stadium, some other jackass has to worry about that. I'm not advocating this model as a good idea, but SD and OAK would have to spend WAY less money and could recover it WAY faster. So if in s fantasy world this place did get built and those two teams did move in they could recover the $$$ before they were in the grave.

SK if he builds and moves and ends up spending 2.5 billion may not be able to recover that. You can't count the other parts of the development because most likely it'll be a different company/LLC or whatever with different accounting and everything.

There is an article several pages back that talks about the cost to move to LA, specifically for SK and it even says that between the cost of the stadium and if there is a big fee it isn't worth it for him..........I commented that it's one of the few that mention relocation costs. It's worth reading.

Building a stadium and paying a huge relocation fee is a large amount of cash outflow and I don't know if SK likes that idea.

IMO it's most likely that all three teams stay put, so we agree on that. I've said for the longest time SK will build his own place in STL.

Wanna bet on that or something?

Come on man. You're making up stadium developers now. There is no moron ready to build the Carson project for Davis/Spanos to rent from. He is as fictitious as your relocation fee. :fighting:

I've seen estimates that the housing units alone would be worth an ADDITIONAL $300 million with a stadium as part of the project. How many millions more is the hotel and retail/commercial worth? Who else has a partnership with an outfit that manages $9 Billion in properties? What other stadium project is 300 acres with concert venue and lakes, upscale housing, shopping, lodging, restaurants......? It's a huge undertaking with the potential to make Stan and his partners vast sums of money.

Sorry man but by your logic, there is no reason to even think some team might relocate. No team is going to pay a billion to relocate and then pay it off with increased ticket values alone.

I think the thing that gives Stan the most leverage out of all of this is that he actually has a workable plan that CAN be a money maker. I think most people that have actually looked at it recognize that. If not, where is the real threat? I just hope for the St Louis fan base that no one with power over the negotiations views the Inglewood project the same way you do. If they do, I fear we are going to find out just how much money is to be made by Stan et al with this project.

 

[LesBaker]

Les IMO if St.. Louis allows Stan to develop the land around the stadium I think you're on to something, however, IMO, he will need assurances from the people of St. Louis to do that. In the end you could be right, but it's not just the stadium it's the ability to make money with everything around the stadium IMHO.

Not doubting he stays, but IMO, the land around the stadium is not the icing on the cake, it's the cake, the stadium is the icing.

It's the stadium. I've rented enough venues in my life and talked to enough people that manage them to know exactly why guys who own pro sports teams have rushed to build stadiums in the last 15 or so years. If you think about it that's been the trend in pro sports around the globe. Owning the venue makes more money than owning the team.

I don't know of any football or baseball or hockey or basketball teams that are situated in areas with the type of retail/office space square footage that is being discussed in LA. I don't know of anything CLOSE to that, in fact I think STL has the largest attached retail/entertainment complex to a pro sports stadium and it's 30,000 square feet. How do they plan to rent out nearly a million square feet? I call bullshit.

Are there any others around the country? I think this is all puffery, pipe dreams. I've heard all this stuff before, I've seen the pretty pictures too, no sale here.

SK builds in STL.