New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Big Unit]

Interesting article in this morning's Wall Street Journal. Shows which markets get the highest television ratings - regardless who is playing - by major sport. Top NBA market follows LeBron James - Miami, for the past three years; this year Cleveland. Top NHL market - Buffalo. Top NFL market - New Orleans. Top Major League Baseball market - St. Louis. I'd argue that that bodes well for the NFL in St. Louis as well; even if the NFL doesn't dominate the market. Find it interesting that neither the top NFL nor the top NHL markets have their own Major League teams.

More minor sports markets are as one would anticipate: College Football Birmingham, Alabama; College Basketball Louisville, KY; Nascar Greensboro, NC; Wimbledon Richmond, VA; Soccer Washington, DC; Summer Olympics Salt Lake City; Winter Olympics Minneapolis, MN; PGA Golf, Oklahoma City, OK.

St. Louis should have, and can support, 3 major league teams. That they are the best market in baseball enhances that, rather than diminishes it. I'd like it to be the Rams; but regardless, hope the stadium gets built, and that some NFL team locates there.

 

[JonRam99]

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

You guys haven't seen the half of it yet. The new 3D model is still just a schematic... Wait until they put the "icing on the cake"! i.e., I can tell they haven't begun work yet on the exterior envelope, & have just worked out the decks, levels, seating, structure, etc. There's still a LOT more design work to be done, including the club boxes, gates, locker rooms, food venues, etc., etc. ...

 

[blue4]

Just two things. Obvious support isn't a vote. And I don't think anyone has done any kind of polling, reliable polling anyway, to accurately gauge state support in Missouri. This isn't to disagree with you. Just to point out that in my opinion a person can't criticize or praise one without doing the same for the other. Not that you are. For the record, I think both Inglewood and Nixon are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, in this case speed is essential. Speaking in Missouri's case, there just isn't time to hard sell every anti tax anti government anti city rural republican into voting for something other than farm stuff. If LA wasn't involved, sure put it on a ballot even if we think the Governor has the authority. I'm sure Inglewood feels the same type of pressure to get started.

Edit: just went on my Facebook page and heard Randy Karriker saying some of the same things about Missouri and the Senate in regards to speed.

 

[ZigZagRam]

The City Coucil in Inglewood gave approval for the land at the old Hollywood Park site to be used for building a football stadium. It had nothing to do with how it will be paid for.

That statement is 100% false.

Read the section of the HP Initiative titled 'Tax-Increment Funding.'

It specifically outlines how it will be paid for. I can guarantee 80% of those people that signed their names never read that part of the Initiative, and that's probably too low of a percentage.

 

[ZigZagRam]

I understand you want to try and correlate the 2 situations, but they are different.

The City Coucil in Inglewood gave approval for the land at the old Hollywood Park site to be used for building a football stadium. It had nothing to do with how it will be paid for. They raised enough signatures by city statute to allow the City Council to make the decision.

In Missouri, the question being put forth is whether the Govorner can propose using public funds (tax money) to build a Football stadium in St Louis.

 

[ZigZagRam]

And? So you are saying that they would receive the same or more revenue with no stadium? And though you might be partially correct, I believe the mechanisms would put the revenues to the state and county first whereas the city will actually get some of the revenue streams from the stadium, the concert venue, and the Forum (already are) without them being divvied up by other entities. In the long run, by my understanding, the stadium is a huge boon to the Inglewood economy and gov't coffers. Again, I reserve the right to be dead wrong.

A stadium and bringing people to the site for 10 days in a season doesn't generate as much revenue for Inglewood as having a large shopping center with other retail in addition to extra housing

Naming rights, sponsorship deals and the like will bring a lot of money to Stan Kroenke, but not the surrounding community.

 

[12intheBox]

@nbcbayarea: JUST IN: Oakland Raiders and the JPA reach new short-term lease agreement to stay at the Oakland Coliseum. Developing.

 

[ZigZagRam]

The money for the infrastructure upgrades is already being spent, stadium or no stadium. It's an entirely separate thing really, its upgrades to the city infrastructure for the entire 300 acre project, not just the stadium, and thus the reimbursement is from the entire 300 acre project, not just what comes from the stadium.

A stadium just makes it faster and easier to make up the money they spent.

Until this initiative was passed, the Hollywood Park Land Company was building without the "reimbursements." They weren't changing the city layout and the developer was on the hook. That's why they had to write the "reimbursements" into this new Initiative which they would never see the ballot as long as they dangled a 'FREE STADIUM' in front of the uninformed citizens faces and asked them to sign a piece of paper.

 

[12intheBox]

It's a one year lease though .....

 

[ZigZagRam]

@nbcbayarea: JUST IN: Oakland Raiders and the JPA reach new short-term lease agreement to stay at the Oakland Coliseum. Developing.

This isn't surprising. Nobody was moving this season.

This is the same as the Chargers and Rams exercising their year-to-year lease options.

 

[RamFan503]

A stadium and bringing people to the site for 10 days in a season doesn't generate as much revenue for Inglewood as having a large shopping center with other retail in addition to extra housing

Naming rights, sponsorship deals and the like will bring a lot of money to Stan Kroenke, but not the surrounding community.

Then what the heck does it do for St Louis? Of course it does. The volumes of people coming to that game and shopping and eating and staying in hotels - the concerts, monster truck events, motocross events, etc... The list is long and varied.

If you are suggesting that this doesn't happen then why should the tax payers be asked to fund any part of it? I actually am against tax payer funding for these kinds of things anyway but it seems the only way the Rams stay in St Louis is if that happens. But if what you are saying is true, why hasn't the city figured out a way to match funds on a project that would build those kinds of projects on the riverfront? Is it all just about politicians patting themselves on the back and saying, "Look what WE built."?

 

[Goose]

Raiders owner Mark Davis on “The TK Show”: Explaining how the Carson plan came together with the Chargers, the Oakland discussions, and preparing the Brinks truck for free agency
Posted on March 6, 2015 by Tim Kawakami


I’m not sure if this is Raiders owner Mark Davis’ first long interview of this type, but I don’t remember him doing a conversation like this, unedited for a digital recording, no topics off-limits, taped yesterday and released… now.

It’s a good, lively talk–covering all the ground I could on the Raiders’ stadium efforts in Carson and Oakland, the approach to the free-agent period coming within days, and some other things.

Here’s the link to the full 25-minute conversation, including a second recommendation (after Jerry West’s two weeks ago) for Dan Tana’s in Hollywood.

(We’re taping another episode with another major figure later today and we’ll post that in the afternoon.)

Some highlights from the Davis appearance:

-Davis explains that he and Chargers owner Dean Spanos started talking about getting together on the Carson project six weeks ago, says he’s familiar with the site from past suggestions and says it’s a 50-50 proposal.
“I’ve never been against sharing one but we had to start at the same time and be able to market at the same time, and that’s what we have the opportunity to do in this situation,” Davis said.

-Davis said they’re working on the stadium’s design phase and: “I would say that the Carson site does have the pre-requisites that I’m most interested in,” Davis said, pointing to the freeway access and parking available.
-Davis talks about the irony of working on this with the Chargers, the Raiders’ AFC West rival.

“Once Dean and I started talking about the stadium, we realized we have very similar business principles–so it’s really working pretty good,” Davis said.
There’s more…

-Why he prefers sharing a stadium in Carson rather than sharing Levi’s Stadium in Santa Clara with the 49ers.
-What Davis would do if Spanos cuts his own deal with San Diego and pulls out of the Carson project.
-Whether other cities remain an option–St. Louis or San Antonio–for the Raiders.
-What he thinks about baseball commissioner Rob Manfred implicitly connecting the Raiders’ situation to the A’s possible project on the Coliseum site.

“I don’t know if people are aware of it or not, but Lew and I have sat down a couple times in the most recent past and have tried to figure out a way to possibly work together,” Davis said. “There’s been nothing that has come of that but at least we’re talking about it–we’ve talked about it. And it’s just a tough thing to do for both teams on that site.”

-A summary on his feelings about Oakland:

“We have to see what the sense of urgency is with Oakland and if they want to get anything done,” Davis said.

-Also Davis’ push for the NFL to take a stronger stance against domestic violence.

* Oh, that’s right, there’s NFL free agency, set to start next week, with the Raiders sitting on upwards of $70M in cap space and apparently willing to use it.
“Tomorrow I’m heading down to tank and picking up that Brink’s truck and getting it ready for free agency period,” Davis joked.
Davis said this has been a three-year process to get in position to sign players to long-term contracts.

“It’s really exciting and there are some players out there,” Davis said. “We’re going to see what we can do.”

Note: Davis also has a great favorite TV show. Listen to the end for that one.

http://blogs.mercurynews.com/kawaka...n-came-together-chargers-oakland-discussions/

 

[RamFan503]

Just two things. Obvious support isn't a vote. And I don't think anyone has done any kind of polling, reliable polling anyway, to accurately gauge state support in Missouri. This isn't to disagree with you. Just to point out that in my opinion a person can't criticize or praise one without doing the same for the other. Not that you are. For the record, I think both Inglewood and Nixon are absolutely correct. Unfortunately, in this case speed is essential. Speaking in Missouri's case, there just isn't time to hard sell every anti tax anti government anti city rural republican into voting for something other than farm stuff. If LA wasn't involved, sure put it on a ballot even if we think the Governor has the authority. I'm sure Inglewood feels the same type of pressure to get started.

No - I agree totally with what you are saying. My point wasn't that Missouri voters wouldn't vote in favor of the funding. I actually think it is trending toward a yes whereas a few months ago it wasn't looking as good. I am only saying that one is already passed and one still needs to either be unilaterally passed by the Governor (and it looks like he'll have a fight to do it), passed by the assembly, or passed by the voters.

No doubt the quickest way is for the Governor to be able to just get it done. And frankly, I think it has enough support anyway and all that would be cut out of the process is a bunch of grand standing by politicians while delaying it to the point that it casts doubt on the whole damn thing. Gee - how we would miss a bunch of wind bag politicians puffing their chests out "on behalf of the taxpayers". Some of them may be genuine but I have little trust in politicians in general. Funny but I think we see Nixon's true beliefs in this as I think he can't run again - right?

 

[RamFan503]

That statement is 100% false.

Read the section of the HP Initiative titled 'Tax-Increment Funding.'

It specifically outlines how it will be paid for. I can guarantee 80% of those people that signed their names never read that part of the Initiative, and that's probably too low of a percentage.

Your assertion about his statement is questionable at best.

As to if anyone read the initiative before signing, having gathered signatures before, I would say that is about 99.9% rather than your 80%. I don't think it would have changed much though.

 

[bluecoconuts]

A stadium and bringing people to the site for 10 days in a season doesn't generate as much revenue for Inglewood as having a large shopping center with other retail in addition to extra housing

Naming rights, sponsorship deals and the like will bring a lot of money to Stan Kroenke, but not the surrounding community.

They're essentially building a rival to LA Live, and that brings in a lot of money. The stadium is going to be used for more than just football, LA may be getting Comic Con sometime in the future, it could be held there, concerts, soccer games, etc etc. The entire project is huge. There are plenty of shopping centers in LA, the closest thing to the Champions Park project is LA Live, and they'll offer different things.

 

[RamFan503]

Until this initiative was passed, the Hollywood Park Land Company was building without the "reimbursements." They weren't changing the city layout and the developer was on the hook. That's why they had to write the "reimbursements" into this new Initiative which they would never see the ballot as long as they dangled a 'FREE STADIUM' in front of the uninformed citizens faces and asked them to sign a piece of paper.

What section are you referring to? I have the initiative up and would like to see the wording to which you refer.

In any case, I think your argument is a little thin. Are you really saying the costs to the city and area outweigh the revenues they will receive with a stadium being built and operating?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Random question, the Carson project said they don't start building until someone agrees to a 20 year lease. Do teams need to file for relocation before the lease can get signed? Could a team go rouge and just sign it whenever? Curious about how that works, it sounds like they won't start building until next Marchish, but you'd think they would try to get it done faster?

 

[ZigZagRam]

What section are you referring to? I have the initiative up and would like to see the wording to which you refer.

In any case, I think your argument is a little thin. Are you really saying the costs to the city and area outweigh the revenues they will receive with a stadium being built and operating?

Are you looking at the full Initiative which is nearly 200 pages? If so, do a search for 'tax increment' to find the section.

And no, that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that the city would likely come out further ahead if they had more housing/retail/entertainment to bring in revenues 24-7-365 without paying these "reimbursements" than they would with a limited-use stadium.

 

[drasconis]

It's a one year lease though .....

Assumed something like that was going to happen, the new stadium isn't even started (it may never be). It was between that and cutting a deal with one of the current LA stadiums that really do not want you there and on short notice to fans.

 

[drasconis]

Random question, the Carson project said they don't start building until someone agrees to a 20 year lease. Do teams need to file for relocation before the lease can get signed? Could a team go rouge and just sign it whenever? Curious about how that works, it sounds like they won't start building until next Marchish, but you'd think they would try to get it done faster?

I assume that they could sign a "conditional"...but much like Inglewood or STL construction will not get too far until the NFL votes (or it is decided in court). Even Kronke with his money can't let a project get too far before a decision is finalized (by league/courts)....the risk is too high, even if you think/believe you will win...there is that small chance you don't.