New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Dagonet]

The songs above represent the way I feel.. I didn't feel this way at first when I thought the Rams may move to LA. I didn't want them to move, but was figuring I've met enough LA people on these boards that they should move there besides elsewhere. Many Cali people I've met here and on another board have been cool. That was before I've seen the reaction of Cali people on Facebook and the PD.. Talk about aresholes.. Just saying. Don't go dissing the Lou folks. We're decent people around here..

The main factor that has whizzed me off is Stanley.. He seems not to care about anything but himself and his own greed. I sincerely hope karma catches up with the cat. I agree with @Username on the League right now.. They don't give a flying fook about their customers.. It's sad. You have people that buy into a team as shiitie as they are and poof.. They're gone.. I'm thinking Mark Cuban is correct on what he said about the NFL..

That said, St. Louis is a damn good sports town and I'm rooting for Mr. Peacock and Blitz just to screw good ole Stanley over.. I hope we sell out this year and I'll be a part of it. I've lived in this area most of my life and we're just not a baseball town. Believe me.. Look at the baseball Cards attendance in the 70's and early 90's..

 

[LesBaker]

Yes and yes. Are you saying that office and retail won't be sold/occupied right next to a completely new development in Inglewood with an 80,000 seat stadium, a 6,000 seat concert hall, the newly renovated Forum, a renovated casino, 2,500 - 3,000 new residences, a park with lakes, all within walking distance and 3 miles from LAX? Really? And some guy writing an article is supposed to sway me more than guys who actually do this for a living?

I don't remember the article in particular as there have been 136 pages and dozens of articles. But seeing as you are hanging your hat on it, maybe you could find it and provide a link.

I've read every post in this thread so I can say that I have read the article. Who is it from? What is his background? What points are he building his premise upon. Those are things I would generally look at.

I have done a lot of this stuff albeit on a much smaller scale. I managed a $30 million property that in the early stages I could not see how the place could expect any kind of return on investment. We had to build a sewage treatment plant and drill the deepest fresh water well in Oregon while building new roads, re-establishing a 9 hole golf course, and building 80 new home sites to add to the existing 280. It was insanity from my view at the time. But the owner was pretty experienced on how these things play out. I couldn't stand the guy but he knew how to work these deals. And amazingly what he had me do, penciled out when you looked at the long term. In fact, it worked out so well, he sold the damn place and cleared almost $5 million for his investors.

So I have a hard time now looking at this kind of project and even fathoming how Stan couldn't make money on it. He has 50 times the wherewithal that my old boss did. He has a project sitting in front of him that only money would keep anyone in the business from wanting to do. The thing I don't know is what he wants to do most. Is the football team more important to him? Is the combination of owning a team in a kick ass venue in his native state (as I suspect) most important to him? Is an endless chase for more money and bigger projects more important to him? I don't know. But I suspect we are going to find out.

It seems like a lot fo the "new stadium plans" have all this other "stuff" around them, I've yet to see one built. That is a bunch of office/retail space. Do any of these kinds of things exist in the US?

I'm not buying this. When I have some time I will dig up the article.

 

[den-the-coach]

SK builds in STL.

I don't doubt that and like I posted IMO, he want to develop something, but I could be wrong. When men of this magnitude and fortune get to where they are at this point of their lives, it's all about legacy and that has to factor in as well.

 

[Thordaddy]

Not even close - the dome is not unusuable. Notice they are still using it.... (a closer example to what you are claiming would be if the metrodome had not repaired the roof years ago when it caved in).

Both side exercised options provided for within the contract. The lease is still binding and valid, the rams exercised an option allowing them to go year to year, but it is still the same lease....the rams will pay the CVC for the dome this year.

Blue4 has it correct.

A good example would be you lease an office in the tallest office building in the city since you want the prestige. Your lease states that if the building does not remain the tallest in the city you MAY change the lease to month to month from yearly. A taller builing is built. The current owner determines the cost of making his building even taller is prohibitive or not even possible. You inform him you are making the lease month to month. It isn't his fault, he did not break the contract, and neither did you, you both had options you could use.

I may be getting prickly on some language used in this thread, but it touches on what I do for a living. In contract law a broken promise is huge (like the constructive eviction above). We do not have that here, no promises are broken (no one can sue), just options allowed to both sides.

Sorry I took so long to reply to this but when any landlord fails to perform according to the any provisions to the lease it is "optional " so
most of this is subject to interpretation .



Wex

• ALL PAGES
• ARTICLES
• ESPAÑOL
• INBOX PROJECT
• SEARCH
• FAQ

Constructive Eviction
Occurs when a landlord does not physically or legally evict a tenant, but takes actions that interfere with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises significantly. Constructive eviction can occur as a result of the landlord's breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment if (1) the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises by his actions or failure to act to resolve a problem; (2) the tenant gives the landlord notice of the problem and the landlord fails to respond and resolve the problem; and (3) the tenant vacates the premises in a reasonable amount of time after the landlord fails to resolve the problem.

Now although I am not a practicing lawyer I did graduate undergrad with a degree in accounting and was required more than just a little education in law to get that degree . I would submit that the wording IS there that permitted the Rams to move immediately after the arbitration ,did not move then and it was thier decision to renew the lease at all . so it was an eviction SINCE it was not an action by the tenant that set the circumstances where the provisions of the lease were not being met.
A SUBSTANTIAL failure in the dome was that there was a constant complaint that the place was dark, I've been on the playing surface there and it looks dirty and darker than any natural grass, contributing to those complaints.

We CAN argue terms until our retainers are exhausted here , but in the end the CVC'x failure to live up to their responsibilities as landlord that has made the original lease in default and only by the desire not to move immediately by the tenant does it continue ,I hope we can agree on that.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...wners-represented-on-forbes-billionaire-list/

Over half the NFL owners represented on Forbes billionaire list
Posted by Darin Gantt on March 3, 2015

Apparently, the NFL is a good place to get rich, or at least to play once you’re already rich.

A look at the Forbes list of the world’s billionaires shows plenty of familiar football names.

The list is topped by Seahawks owner Paul Allen (who was Microsoft rich with $17.5 billion, 51st in the world, before he decided to dabble in sports).

But he’s not alone, as more than half the NFL is owned by billionaires, with 16 other owners making the chart.

Forbes lists 1,826 people with a net worth of $1 billion or more (though they obviously left out Florio).

The other NFL names to make the list, with their net worth and rank:
Dolphins owner Stephen Ross ($6.5 billion, 216th)
Rams owner Stan Kroenke ($6.3 billion, 225th)
Jaguars owner Shad Khan ($4.5 billion, 360th)
Patriots owner Robert Kraft ($4.3 billion,381st)
Cowboys owner Jerry Jones ($4.2 billion, 393rd)
Bills owner Terry Pegula ($3.8 billion, 452nd)
Browns owner Jimmy Haslam ($2.8 billion, 663rd)
Ravens owner Steve Bisciotti ($2.7 billion, 690th)
Falcons owner Arthur Blank ($2.5 billion, 737th)
Texans owner Bob McNair ($2.4 billion, 782nd)
Saints owner Tom Benson ($1.9 billion, 1,006th)
Colts owner Jim Irsay ($1.75 billion, 1,105th)
Washington owner Daniel Snyder ($1.7 billion, 1,118th)
Lions owner Martha Ford ($1.5 billion, 1,250th)
Chargers owner Alex Spanos ($1.25 billion, 1,500th)
Eagles owner Jeffrey Lurie ($1.1 billion, 1,638th).

 

[mr.stlouis]

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?



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.



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.

I'm over it. Until a team commits to the Riverfront stadium, there is no stadium. Stan has alienated STL and has teamed up with Inglewood. Idk if it's leverage or not. But I dont blame STL for voting down a stadium If it comes to that. The dome isn't even paid for and the guy terminated the 30 years lease. My heart is with the STL Rams, but the team is Stan's. And Stan has is far from an honorable guy in my opinion. He still has a lot of time to come to the table but it's ugly until then. He is playing dirty.

 

[drasconis]

Sorry I took so long to reply to this but when any landlord fails to perform according to the any provisions to the lease it is "optional " so
most of this is subject to interpretation .



Wex

• ALL PAGES
• ARTICLES
• ESPAÑOL
• INBOX PROJECT
• SEARCH
• FAQ

Constructive Eviction
Occurs when a landlord does not physically or legally evict a tenant, but takes actions that interfere with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises significantly. Constructive eviction can occur as a result of the landlord's breach of the implied covenant of quiet enjoyment if (1) the landlord substantially interferes with the tenant's use and enjoyment of the premises by his actions or failure to act to resolve a problem; (2) the tenant gives the landlord notice of the problem and the landlord fails to respond and resolve the problem; and (3) the tenant vacates the premises in a reasonable amount of time after the landlord fails to resolve the problem.

Now although I am not a practicing lawyer I did graduate undergrad with a degree in accounting and was required more than just a little education in law to get that degree . I would submit that the wording IS there that permitted the Rams to move immediately after the arbitration ,did not move then and it was thier decision to renew the lease at all . so it was an eviction SINCE it was not an action by the tenant that set the circumstances where the provisions of the lease were not being met.
A SUBSTANTIAL failure in the dome was that there was a constant complaint that the place was dark, I've been on the playing surface there and it looks dirty and darker than any natural grass, contributing to those complaints.

We CAN argue terms until our retainers are exhausted here , but in the end the CVC'x failure to live up to their responsibilities as landlord that has made the original lease in default and only by the desire not to move immediately by the tenant does it continue ,I hope we can agree on that.

While I diagree with your reading on constructive evicition as applied to this situation, I do agree that the current tenancy by the rams is based upon their desire not to move immediately and that the failure of the CVC to upgrade the dome now gives the Rams the power to end the lease EVERY year, thus the tenancy this year was purely up to and done by the Rams. I will also say that the CVC has no way to force or keep the rams renewing that lease in the future and the Rams are under no obligation to do so. I do believe though, every year they renew the lease they are obligated to stay and do NOT have grounds to break that yearly lease (i.e. they can not currently move in 2015, 2016 is fully up to them though)


I want to be clear where my issue is on this, the arguments put forth on constructive eviction or a broken contract (broken promise) are legal actions that would be intiated by the party at any time to end a lease. Thesee would be outside actions not speciifed by the contract (the arbitration - the timeline for it, the way it was done, and the results of it were all part of the lease agreement). That would be the Rams going to a court and filing an action (note the arbitration was NOT a court action) and they could file such actions at any time if they had the grounds for it. They would not go through the lease designed system as they did.
I can't figure out why people are going down the broken contract/constructive eviction path since the Rams themselves have NOT - is the goal 1) to claim the Rams could break the 1 year lease they just signed and move in 2015; or 2) are you trying to make the CVC into the "Bad guy" such that the Rams are rightfully moving in the future (which I do not feel is correct - neither side CVC or Rams is good or bad in the current situation, both sides are businesses making desicions based upon option that are provided for in a contract - no one is breaking the contracts rules).

 

[NateTheRam]

Much simpler way of what I was trying to say. If Stan builds it, he pays operating expenses. If someone rents out the Carson project, SD/Oak pay enough for the owner to make a profit on that rent. Huge difference.

Exactly.

BTW - how much more money will Stan supposedly make by paying his portion of the St Louis Stadium? We don't know if his rent would go up though I think we all assume it will. We can only assume he won't get any additional monies from parking or concessions, etc... Will ticket prices go up? If so, will people pay them? Will they go up enough to cover the $450 million they expect Stan to come up with? ($250 million out of pocket and $200 million G4 that will eventually have to be paid back)

The high risk higher reward deal is in Inglewood. But Stan brought the team to St Louis and hasn't said anything that he is moving to LA. I'm going with him pushing the limits of what he can get in St Louis and staying in his native state.

And he also has not spoken to St. Louis regarding staying either, Stan has not said he is moving to LA, but his actions are saying that he is moving to LA

 

[Goose]

 

[bluecoconuts]

Does that mean that the Rams asked for those changes to the new stadium, or did they look over at the CVC proposal from years back and change some things? It sounds like the second when they talk about the dome.

Either way, encouraging to see them change things around as needed.

 

[Goose]

This could be some major foreshadowing.

 

[den-the-coach]

This could be some major foreshadowing.

Which has me concerned unless David Peacock becomes owner or COO.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Does that mean that the Rams asked for those changes to the new stadium, or did they look over at the CVC proposal from years back and change some things? It sounds like the second when they talk about the dome.

Either way, encouraging to see them change things around as needed.

The context was that the NFL and the Rams have been giving input as to what has worked elsewhere and what hasn't worked elsewhere, as well as what they'd like to see going forward.

 

[RamFan503]

And he also has not spoken to St. Louis regarding staying either, Stan has not said he is moving to LA, but his actions are saying that he is moving to LA

I think Stan's actions are a more effective leverage ploy as he actually could do it if he can't get something to his liking done in St Louis. I can say this till I'm blue in the face but I just don't buy that someone like Stan did all that work to get the NFL in St Louis with any kind of intent to just take the team back to LA.

 

[mr.stlouis]

This could be some major foreshadowing.

Yes, very, very interesting.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I think Stan's actions are a more effective leverage ploy as he actually could do it if he can't get something to his liking done in St Louis. I can say this till I'm blue in the face but I just don't buy that someone like Stan did all that work to get the NFL in St Louis with any kind of intent to just take the team back to LA.

I'm in the same boat but I do believe he'd bolt if things don't get settled in St. Louis, and I can't say I'd blame him.

The reason why the Rams were low-balled in arbitration is because the City didn't think Stan would move, or had the bullets to move.

If he didn't create the threat with the L.A. land acquisition move, there would still be a belief that he wouldn't pull the trigger. Now as a result, things are progressing faster in St. Louis than they ever do, and he's afforded himself a backup plan as well as a solid property for TKG in L.A. even if the Rams stadium gets built here rather than L.A.

This is why he's a billionaire. Stan wins no matter what, but he had to convince locals that L.A. was a very, very real option.

 

[Goose]

Which has me concerned unless David Peacock becomes owner or COO.

Den,
I know that Peacock has been very hard at work to put together an ownership group so if a new ownership group were to come in I am confident it will be a good group. At this point I am not sure if Dave would be part of the group or not. He seems to have more of an interesting to community development than running a football team but is just speculation on my part.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Which has me concerned unless David Peacock becomes owner or COO.

I hate that kind of talk personally, to me it seems like poking Kroenke. He's a private man, so if he's thinking about selling would he want that out there? And if he's not thinking about selling and its a shot about forcing the team away from him, that might make him mad because its a bit of a threat.

 

[RamFan503]

(the arbitration - the timeline for it, the way it was done, and the results of it were all part of the lease agreement). That would be the Rams going to a court and filing an action (note the arbitration was NOT a court action) and they could file such actions at any time if they had the grounds for it. They would not go through the lease designed system as they did.

I was thinking about this again (Yikes!). The only question I would have is if this is actually the way it is worded in the lease. I had assumed it was but in thinking about it, I'm not so sure. In many similar documents, there is a provision that if the two parties disagree on something substantial within the contract they both agree the next course of action is to go through an approved arbitrator.

Why that would matter is that if the Rams requested arbitration due to a perceived failure to perform - the 25% clause - that could potentially be considered breach. Even if there is a clause for the Rams to go year to year, there is a month to month clause in many leases to protect the tenant from having to just pack his shit and leave. A failure on the landlord's part is still considered a failure to perform even though the tenant is now on month to month and could leave at any time. In that case also, good luck to the landlord if he were to try to evict the tenant. He'd end up paying triple damages.

Where this might come in is that the Rams could argue that the CVC twice failed to bring the dome in line with the lease. Not sure how this would fly with the league and the progress on the new St Louis stadium but I'm thinking that if Stan IS intent on moving the team, he could potentially say that after the CVC failed twice to live up to their end of the lease and by many accounts getting the cold shoulder from city reps, he headed down the road of finding an alternative. He could then argue that only after he bought the land and had planned out his Inglewood strategy did the Governor take over and rev up the engines in St Louis. But by then, he had already bought the property in Inglewood and had likely forged a relationship with Stockbridge that would become their partnership toward a new stadium plan.

Does anyone have the wording of the actual lease? I don't recall if it has been posted here.

Keep in mind that I am only throwing this out there for discussion. I don't proclaim to know what Stan is thinking nor do I know exactly what kind of discussions he or his people had with the CVC or city reps over the years.

 

[tahoe]

I can see Peacock being the President of the Rams if the local ownership group does indeed buy this team. It was a great interview and Peacock was pretty forthcoming. I firmly believe that the ball is in St Louis' court as long as they continue with the new stadium the Rams will stay.