New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Goose]

NFL source: NFL has mishandled Los Angeles. But can St. Louis save the day?

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

It’s no secret the NFL has used Los Angeles over the last 20 years as leverage to get stadium deals done in current cities.

But has the league overplayed it’s hand this time by creating a situation in which three teams aren’t just using Los Angeles as leverage, they literally might need the City of Angeles as their new home?

Think about it, when training camp opens next summer the St. Louis Rams,San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders could be entering their final seasons in their current homes.

Meanwhile, all three might have approved stadium deals in place in Inglewood and Carson and the ability to file for relocation in early 2016.

Imagine how that might play in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland?

And that, according to a high-level NFL executive, is proof the league not only isn’t on top of the situation, it’s bungled it badly.

“Why would the league want this to happen?” asked the NFL executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “You’ve now created three lame-duck situations. It’s incompetent, to let it get to this point.”

According to the league executive, the NFL is holding out hope that Missouri and St. Louis leaders step up and save the day by approving a stadium plan that will help finance a new home for the Rams.

“I believe they think St. Louis is going to come up with a lot of money,” the source said. “I believe that’s their trump card.”

But that might open another can of worms for the NFL.

What if Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants so badly to be in Los Angeles he goes rogue and moves without approval?

“Stan’s trump card is ‘screw you I’m going to move anyway.’ the NFL executive said. “Meanwhile, the league says you can’t move and we have policy and procedures in place. So we’ll see you in court. And then you have an ugly court battle. So how is that good for anybody?”

With Kroenke on mute these days, it’s impossible to get a handle on what his true end game is – whether he really wants to be in Los Angeles or is simply using L.A. to get a new home in St. Louis.

But with the Raiders and Chargers fighting uphill battles getting new stadiums built locally, they might need Los Angeles more than the Rams.

If the NFL gives the nod to the Chargers and Raiders to build a shared stadium in Carson – what will Kroenke’s response be?

Especially if L.A. is his desired destination.

Would he risk challenging the NFL in court, and abandon any chance of a G-4 loan, the possibility of hosting future Super Bowls and the near certainty the NFL would demand he relinquish ownership of the Denver Nuggets – for which they’ve granted him waivers to skirt the league’s cross-ownership rules?

“Here is the big question for me,” the NFL executive said. “If the league approves the Chargers and Raiders and the league loans them $400 million for Carson, would Stan feel his project is viable anymore?

“If he’s now dividing up his revenues that he once thought was, maybe not 100 percent of but definitely 50 percent, and now he’s dividing it up three separate ways. He’s not getting any loans from the NFL, he’s not getting any Super Bowls forever because he’ll be a pariah, does that make sense for him anymore? Or does the project now become no longer feasible for him? That’s a real question.

“Because your revenue estimates get slashed, you have no Super Bowls and you’ve also be in violation of the league’s cross-ownership rules for years, for which he’s been getting waivers on all these years. Presumably if they got in a court battle the league would say ‘OK, you must divest yourself of the Nuggets immediately, no more waivers.’ So it’s not so easy as Stan saying I’m going to move no matter what.”

One other angle to consider: With NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell still wobbly after some high-profile mishaps last year, can he afford the bad press of letting the Rams leave St. Louis despite Missouri offering a sizable chunk of money to build them new stadium?

“I can’t see (Goodell) turning down $500 million dollars of public money and have those senators and the governor and the mayor come after him,” the NFL executive said. “That’s the last thing he needs.”


http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...ing_wp_cron=1425564614.6113131046295166015625

 

[blue4]

They already voted the city council approved it 5-0 so it does not have to go up for vote in the city. That's why Inglewood is so far ahead of everyone else.

I think the reference was to people around the Web who take issue with the MO governor authorizing funds by himself, yet applauding a 5 man vote in Inglewood which isn't a lot better. Myself, I think both the 5 man vote and the governor's action to be justified. Speaking just of where I live in Missouri, it's too important to the city and the region to rely on the state senate. Their hatred of STL and to some extent KC is irrational.

 

[den-the-coach]

But can St. Louis save the day?

 

[den-the-coach]

I think the reference was to people around the Web who take issue with the MO governor authorizing funds by himself, yet applauding a 5 man vote in Inglewood which isn't a lot better. Myself, I think both the 5 man vote and the governor's action to be justified. Speaking just of where I live in Missouri, it's too important to the city and the region to rely on the state senate. Their hatred of STL and to some extent KC is irrational.

My bad, thanks.

 

[blue4]

NFL source: NFL has mishandled Los Angeles. But can St. Louis save the day?

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

It’s no secret the NFL has used Los Angeles over the last 20 years as leverage to get stadium deals done in current cities.

But has the league overplayed it’s hand this time by creating a situation in which three teams aren’t just using Los Angeles as leverage, they literally might need the City of Angeles as their new home?

Think about it, when training camp opens next summer the St. Louis Rams,San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders could be entering their final seasons in their current homes.

Meanwhile, all three might have approved stadium deals in place in Inglewood and Carson and the ability to file for relocation in early 2016.

Imagine how that might play in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland?

And that, according to a high-level NFL executive, is proof the league not only isn’t on top of the situation, it’s bungled it badly.

“Why would the league want this to happen?” asked the NFL executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “You’ve now created three lame-duck situations. It’s incompetent, to let it get to this point.”

According to the league executive, the NFL is holding out hope that Missouri and St. Louis leaders step up and save the day by approving a stadium plan that will help finance a new home for the Rams.

“I believe they think St. Louis is going to come up with a lot of money,” the source said. “I believe that’s their trump card.”

But that might open another can of worms for the NFL.

What if Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants so badly to be in Los Angeles he goes rogue and moves without approval?

“Stan’s trump card is ‘screw you I’m going to move anyway.’ the NFL executive said. “Meanwhile, the league says you can’t move and we have policy and procedures in place. So we’ll see you in court. And then you have an ugly court battle. So how is that good for anybody?”

With Kroenke on mute these days, it’s impossible to get a handle on what his true end game is – whether he really wants to be in Los Angeles or is simply using L.A. to get a new home in St. Louis.

But with the Raiders and Chargers fighting uphill battles getting new stadiums built locally, they might need Los Angeles more than the Rams.

If the NFL gives the nod to the Chargers and Raiders to build a shared stadium in Carson – what will Kroenke’s response be?

Especially if L.A. is his desired destination.

Would he risk challenging the NFL in court, and abandon any chance of a G-4 loan, the possibility of hosting future Super Bowls and the near certainty the NFL would demand he relinquish ownership of the Denver Nuggets – for which they’ve granted him waivers to skirt the league’s cross-ownership rules?

“Here is the big question for me,” the NFL executive said. “If the league approves the Chargers and Raiders and the league loans them $400 million for Carson, would Stan feel his project is viable anymore?

“If he’s now dividing up his revenues that he once thought was, maybe not 100 percent of but definitely 50 percent, and now he’s dividing it up three separate ways. He’s not getting any loans from the NFL, he’s not getting any Super Bowls forever because he’ll be a pariah, does that make sense for him anymore? Or does the project now become no longer feasible for him? That’s a real question.

“Because your revenue estimates get slashed, you have no Super Bowls and you’ve also be in violation of the league’s cross-ownership rules for years, for which he’s been getting waivers on all these years. Presumably if they got in a court battle the league would say ‘OK, you must divest yourself of the Nuggets immediately, no more waivers.’ So it’s not so easy as Stan saying I’m going to move no matter what.”

One other angle to consider: With NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell still wobbly after some high-profile mishaps last year, can he afford the bad press of letting the Rams leave St. Louis despite Missouri offering a sizable chunk of money to build them new stadium?

“I can’t see (Goodell) turning down $500 million dollars of public money and have those senators and the governor and the mayor come after him,” the NFL executive said. “That’s the last thing he needs.”


http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...ing_wp_cron=1425564614.6113131046295166015625

This ties into the question I was asking the other day about how some people think any rogue action or court case by Stan translates into an easy victory.

 

[Goose]

This ties into the question I was asking the other day about how some people think any rogue action or court case by Stan translates into an easy victory.

Blue people look at what Al did and what Georgia threatened and they believe that the NFL can't stop an owner from moving. In some aspects they are correct but what the NFL did do was make the penalties for relocation so massive that it is going to deter anyone from going rogue. They got caught with their pants down once. They aren't going to let it happen again.

 

[den-the-coach]

Blue people look at what Al did and what Georgia threatened and they believe that the NFL can't stop an owner from moving. In some aspects they are correct but what the NFL did do was make the penalties for relocation so massive that it is going to deter anyone from going rogue. They got caught with their pants down once. They aren't going to let it happen again.

Goose and @blue4 we all know everything will be worked out and it will take some time before we know and the dust settles, but I'm thankful on this board that we have some cool heads and in the end we all want what is best for the Rams, but one thing that has to be put to bed is the passion for football in the Gateway City...This Stadium proves otherwise regardless of the outcome.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Goose and @blue4 we all know everything will be worked out and it will take some time before we know and the dust settles, but I'm thankful on this board that we have some cool heads and in the end we all want what is best for the Rams, but one thing that has to be put to bed is the passion for football in the Gateway City...This Stadium proves otherwise regardless of the outcome.

That stadium is beautiful. If it never gets built, I'll feel sick to my stomach thinking of what might've been.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Oh boy.

The developers carefully crafted the Initiative so that they could say no taxpayer money would be used "on the stadium."

But according to the Initiative, do you know what taxpayer money goes to? Infrastructure costs for the rest of the project as a "reimbursement" to the developers for up to $100M per year!

Clever huh?

You didn't think this was just a free stadium for Inglewood, did ya?

Yeah, that's kind of exactly what I said. It comes after the stadium is built. The difference is it comes from the additional revenue the city makes, and it's only after the city makes a certain amount. Essentially it's "I'm going to build you this sweet new playground, after you make 25 bucks on it, I'll start taking a little cut, for each dollar you make, but only up to 100 bucks, until a little bit is paid off. If you don't make 25 bucks that year, then don't have to give me anything."

Not really the same as a tax increase.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Yeah, that's kind of exactly what I said. It comes after the stadium is built. The difference is it comes from the additional revenue the city makes, and it's only after the city makes a certain amount. Essentially it's "I'm going to build you this sweet new playground, after you make 25 bucks on it, I'll start taking a little cut, for each dollar you make, but only up to 100 bucks, until a little bit is paid off. If you don't make 25 bucks that year, then don't have to give me anything."

Not really the same as a tax increase.

A little cut? As in 4x what the city would be earning. And no, it's not until a little bit is paid off. It can go on for a long, long time. 2034 to be exact.

Say what you want, but taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars are now funding the development. But it's not being used "on the stadium" so I guess that's OK then? Come on.

You know what else could make the city $25M? Property/sales/income taxes on more retail/housing/entertainment. But now the Hollywood Land Company is building their development as planned, AND they're getting paid to do it. Pretty sweet deal.

Either you're for taxpayer dollars being used or you're against it. In this particular case, Inglewood taxpayers would be funding much, much more per year than the St. Louis City/County and State would be funding.

Funny how we change our tune when taxpayer dollars are used on something we want.

 

[blue4]

Yeah, that's kind of exactly what I said. It comes after the stadium is built. The difference is it comes from the additional revenue the city makes, and it's only after the city makes a certain amount. Essentially it's "I'm going to build you this sweet new playground, after you make 25 bucks on it, I'll start taking a little cut, for each dollar you make, but only up to 100 bucks, until a little bit is paid off. If you don't make 25 bucks that year, then don't have to give me anything."

Not really the same as a tax increase.

But it is a fee. And it's billed in the media as a private enterprise. If it's that, why does Inglewood have to pay? Essentially it's, "I'm going to build a sweet new playground and make a fortune. I'm going to do it on land I purchased like any other business or citizen. But I'm going to charge you for any money you may make in revenue from fans being here until my playground is paid off. I know your standard movie theater or other entertainment enterprise doesn't have to do this, but oh well. I'm a football owner."

That's how I understand it as being.


Note that I'm not shooting holes in Inglewood's decision or excitement. As far as ways to get screwed on a stadium go, it's very mild.

 

[ZigZagRam]

But it is a fee. And it's billed in the media as a private enterprise. If it's that, why does Inglewood have to pay? Essentially it's, "I'm going to build a sweet new playground and make a fortune. I'm going to do it on land I purchased like any other business or citizen. But I'm going to charge you for any money you may make in revenue from fans being here until my playground is paid off. I know your standard movie theater or other entertainment enterprise doesn't have to do this, but oh well. I'm a football owner."

That's how I understand it as being.


Note that I'm not shooting holes in Inglewood's decision or excitement. As far as ways to get screwed on a stadium go, it's very mild.

It essentially caps the amount of money Inglewood could make off of the development. And if they reach the maximum threshold for one year, prior year infrastructure costs accrue and are paid in future years.

This basically caps the money Inglewood could make.

 

[blue4]

It essentially caps the amount of money Inglewood could make off of the development. And if they reach the maximum threshold for one year, prior year infrastructure costs accrue and are paid in future years.

This basically caps the money Inglewood could make.

The tax number per person I've seen thrown around for the STL project is $5 per person per year. Quite frankly, I think if that's correct we're getting off easier. And we're getting an area fixed in the middle of downtown along with a fantastic skyline with the arch.

As far as Inglewood, that doesn't sound like any private enterprise I've ever heard of. That sound like tax money, only fancier.

Again, this is not meant as a criticism of their city. I would vote yes on that to get a football team as well.

 

[den-the-coach]

That stadium is beautiful. If it never gets built, I'll feel sick to my stomach thinking of what might've been.

Throw a few Riverboats on a Sunday Night telecast and it will be the envy around the league.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Throw a few Riverboats on a Sunday Night telecast and it will be the envy around the league.

I heard on the news that one of the riverboats that left the area is ready to return. So we've got one!

 

[den-the-coach]

I heard on the news that one of the riverboats that left the area is ready to return. So we've got one!

 

[tahoe]

That stadium is beautiful. If it never gets built, I'll feel sick to my stomach thinking of what might've been.

The stadium and area surrounding are going to be awesome! Its going to be a game changer.

 

[bluecoconuts]

A little cut? As in 4x what the city would be earning. And no, it's not until a little bit is paid off. It can go on for a long, long time. 2034 to be exact.

Say what you want, but taxpayer dollars are taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars are now funding the development. But it's not being used "on the stadium" so I guess that's OK then? Come on.

You know what else could make the city $25M? Property/sales/income taxes on more retail/housing/entertainment. But now the Hollywood Land Company is building their development as planned, AND they're getting paid to do it. Pretty sweet deal.

Either you're for taxpayer dollars being used or you're against it. In this particular case, Inglewood taxpayers would be funding much, much more per year than the St. Louis City/County and State would be funding.

Funny how we change our tune when taxpayer dollars are used on something we want.

First, they're taking a percentage of profits that the city makes, and its to pay for the upgrades to the city infrastructure. Meaning that the city would need to pay for those items, even if the stadium was publically financed. That's a detail most of these stadium things overlook, the stadium might get X amount of dollars from the public/private and there they go. Except that water, streets, sidewalks, etc all need to be paid for. Its the city that typically does.

Kroenke is paying for it in this case, at least the upfront costs. Then with the profits they make, they pay some back to them. However there is a minimum amount of profits that needs to be made before they start funneling some back, and there is a maximum they will take, until it is paid off.

So equating that to a tax that comes from the individual pockets of different people is not a good comparison. If I build you a playground and say "now you give me a dollar every month" its not the same as me building you a playground and saying "okay only after you make 25 dollars then you give me a dollar". If they don't make the minimum amount then they don't have to pay anything. Different from a tax that you have to pay off no matter what happens. The dome still needs to be paid for even though the Rams are likely to play elsewhere (LA or the riverfront stadium, etc) and that's stupid.

However my tune hasn't changed, because frankly I don't give two shits about it, I don't care if the Missouri Gov extends the taxes, I was just saying its not the same as what's going on in Inglewood.

But it is a fee. And it's billed in the media as a private enterprise. If it's that, why does Inglewood have to pay? Essentially it's, "I'm going to build a sweet new playground and make a fortune. I'm going to do it on land I purchased like any other business or citizen. But I'm going to charge you for any money you may make in revenue from fans being here until my playground is paid off. I know your standard movie theater or other entertainment enterprise doesn't have to do this, but oh well. I'm a football owner."

That's how I understand it as being.


Note that I'm not shooting holes in Inglewood's decision or excitement. As far as ways to get screwed on a stadium go, it's very mild.

Because the cities typically pay for city infrastructure costs. I'd be interested in knowing who pays for it in St Louis for example. A lot of times its not in the budget.

 

[Angry Ram]

Throw a few Riverboats on a Sunday Night telecast and it will be the envy around the league.

Not if the NFL wants to show Cowboys/Eagles for the umpteenth time.

 

[ZigZagRam]

First, they're taking a percentage of profits that the city makes, and its to pay for the upgrades to the city infrastructure. Meaning that the city would need to pay for those items, even if the stadium was publically financed. That's a detail most of these stadium things overlook, the stadium might get X amount of dollars from the public/private and there they go. Except that water, streets, sidewalks, etc all need to be paid for. Its the city that typically does.

Kroenke is paying for it in this case, at least the upfront costs. Then with the profits they make, they pay some back to them. However there is a minimum amount of profits that needs to be made before they start funneling some back, and there is a maximum they will take, until it is paid off.

So equating that to a tax that comes from the individual pockets of different people is not a good comparison. If I build you a playground and say "now you give me a dollar every month" its not the same as me building you a playground and saying "okay only after you make 25 dollars then you give me a dollar". If they don't make the minimum amount then they don't have to pay anything. Different from a tax that you have to pay off no matter what happens. The dome still needs to be paid for even though the Rams are likely to play elsewhere (LA or the riverfront stadium, etc) and that's stupid.

However my tune hasn't changed, because frankly I don't give two shits about it, I don't care if the Missouri Gov extends the taxes, I was just saying its not the same as what's going on in Inglewood.

It comes down to this. Either you're for public money being used on stadiums or you're against it.

If a private investor is funding everything up front and being reimbursed, it's no different than paying over time without a private investor paying up front. Either way there's a public/private split.

I'm simply pointing out the double-standard between Inglewood and St. Louis. Both require community investment, yet there are people all over right now approving what was done in Inglewood who are saying this needs to go to vote in Missouri.

If you're not one of those, then I applaud you. But when you've spend multiple lengthy posts trying to justify Inglewood, it seems to suggest otherwise.