New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

Stadium plans guarantee nothing in St. Louis or L.A.
By Nick Wagoner

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...um-plans-guarantee-nothing-in-st-louis-or-l-a

ST. LOUIS -- It's been a week of pretty pictures revealing elaborate plans not only for new NFL-sized stadiums in Los Angeles and St. Louis but also for trendy developments in and around those new venues. Those pictures sitting on an easel, coming across a wide-screen television, or printed on heavy stock as a handout look great but they don't mean much more than the paper they're printed on.

The intentions of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke are clear. The intentions of Dave Peacock, Bob Blitz and the city of St. Louis are also clear. There will be plenty of negotiations and conversations had over the next, well, who knows how long it will all take? But there are still many difficult questions that need to be asked and answered.

In the grand scheme of things, though, the future of the Rams in St. Louis could ultimately fall in the hands of the people who reside at 345 Park Avenue in New York City. That's home of the NFL offices, and if we've learned anything about the league in the past few years, it's that it will do what it believes is best for the league.

Los Angeles NFL stadium
Los Angeles (pictured) and St. Louis have stadium proposals ready. Now the waiting game begins.
Considering that, it's no coincidence that as Peacock presented the St. Louis plan on Friday afternoon, he consistently referred to having an understanding of the bylaws and rules that dictate relocation in the NFL. He cited the league rules that say a team must exhaust all opportunities in its current city and referred to the rule that a team owner cannot move simply to enrich himself further.

There are other important to note provisions that say things like a team must put forth a "good faith" effort to negotiate with its current city before it can leave. That falls in line with the "exhaust all opportunities" portion of the rulebook.

To that end, Peacock, who has been working on the project for more than a year and putting in long hours for the past three months, emphasized the expedient efforts with which the St. Louis plan has come together.

"If we were moving in ’16 or ’17 on a new stadium, based on when this process started, I think that would be half the time a lot of other teams did," Peacock said. "I don’t necessarily buy the 'too little, too late.' ... I believe those NFL bylaws have been governing actions of the league for a while now and I have faith."

Of course, Kroenke's counter to that would point to the failed arbitration process to revamp the Edward Jones Dome as well as the time after that in which St. Louis made no real offers to keep the team. Even in the statement the Rams issued Friday afternoon, there were subtle hints of a team implying that it's been "good faith negotiating" well before Friday's reveal.

"The St. Louis Rams have worked for many years, with several agencies and commissions, and their senior management, responsible for stadium facilities in St. Louis," the statement read. "This includes multiple discussions with the Governor's recently formed NFL Task Force. We received the Task Force materials shortly before the press conference. We will review them and speak with the Task Force representatives."

The argument that the city didn't negotiate much during and after the arbitration process rings true but it also doesn't mean that all options were exhausted. Pointing to the differences in required public money and the idea of retrofitting the Edward Jones Dome to guarantee 10 more years rather than a long-term solution, Peacock doesn't see negotiations for a new stadium and arbitration for the old one as the same thing.

"Trying to compare that to our proposal is a little bit of apples and oranges," Peacock said.

When all is said and done, through the many permutations of what could happen, the NFL and its owners will be the ones to decide on what it values most. Kroenke offers the most tangible Los Angeles plan in two decades, and the league has made no bones about its desire to return to that market.

St. Louis offers a real, seemingly feasible plan to continue as an NFL city. And while the league has rules and bylaws, it's also showed plenty of willingness to alter direction toward what most benefits the overall health of the league.

For that reason, Peacock has been sure to keep the league in the loop every step of the way. He met with NFL executives in November and with the Rams and more league executives later on.

"We’ve had great discussions with the league," Peacock said. "The NFL is extremely engaged in this."

Meanwhile, some around the league were taken aback by the reveal of the Los Angeles plans on Monday but that doesn't make Kroenke's offer any less appealing.

It's highly unlikely that there will be a resolution to any of this anytime soon. In the meantime, at least now we know where Kroenke and St. Louis stand. Unless Kroenke and the Rams surprise by simply agreeing to St. Louis' plan, it's up to the NFL to determine what happens next.

 

[Dxmissile]

Spending a billion dollars for a TBD tenant that's not yourself? I don't know, there's plenty of potential options for stadiums that would be financed that the NFL could take if that was their goal. The biggest issue is that the city doesn't want to go ahead and start building without a team that is ready to go, so why would proposal change that? I don't think anything has changed in that sense, so I don't see the thing getting built without a team committed. If Stan is working and then another team were to step in to take control, and then finance part of it, that would be one thing, but building it for a TBD tenant? I just don't see it. Especially since the NFL has said they're not really looking at expansion right now because it throws the balance off. If that was the case then yeah, Stan is definitely a good choice to spearhead it, but I don't think that is a very realistic scenario.

Also someone who is more familiar with G4 loans can comment, but is it true that Stan would need to pay that back as well? If that's the case then the proposal asks him to pony up 400+ million and he doesn't get to own it himself, I don't think he'll be too thrilled with it. However it would probably be very attractive to another potential owner, if Stan does truly want to own everything, and truly is against putting up his own money, then he might not be very thrilled.

No the g4 loan does not have to be repaid.

Spending a billion dollars for a TBD tenant that's not yourself? I don't know, there's plenty of potential options for stadiums that would be financed that the NFL could take if that was their goal. The biggest issue is that the city doesn't want to go ahead and start building without a team that is ready to go, so why would proposal change that? I don't think anything has changed in that sense, so I don't see the thing getting built without a team committed. If Stan is working and then another team were to step in to take control, and then finance part of it, that would be one thing, but building it for a TBD tenant? I just don't see it. Especially since the NFL has said they're not really looking at expansion right now because it throws the balance off. If that was the case then yeah, Stan is definitely a good choice to spearhead it, but I don't think that is a very realistic scenario.

Also someone who is more familiar with G4 loans can comment, but is it true that Stan would need to pay that back as well? If that's the case then the proposal asks him to pony up 400+ million and he doesn't get to own it himself, I don't think he'll be too thrilled with it. However it would probably be very attractive to another potential owner, if Stan does truly want to own everything, and truly is against putting up his own money, then he might not be very thrilled.

Well building the stadium isn't just about football, yes that's the main focus but they want the stadium on the riverfront for a reason. 1 being able to renovate the riverfront which is basically desolate. There are already plans to add white water rafting and rock climbing on the riverfront. The city is using the Rams new stadium as a building block to put st louis on the map as a big city player. Yes the g4 loan does has to be repaid but it's with little to no interest in fact the standard time frame is 15 yrs but a waiver can be placed to extend it to 25 yrs. We basically have only received a blueprint of what could actually be I believe that Kroneke is going to receive some of that land and he will be able to develop it. Now we just wait.. as usual

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's my initial reaction, but I do have another take on it. Peacock knows the NFL has the final say on if a teams stays or goes. The attempt is to try one-up Kroneke by going straight to the boss and saying "Hey, my manager wants this to happen but it's not right. It needs to go this particular way for the various reasons... etc."

But it's not a good move financially because we need Stan to pony up some of his many millions. But it's the only way to go if he really is lobbying STL to the LA market.

There's just too many variables to pin this one down. Obviously we're just gonna see what Kroneke does next. It's clearly his move unless money from a private source arrises to pay Stan's part. This is hard to imagine, but it is also possible.

One thing is sure, Stan is gonna keep being Stan to the media.

(Thanks again, ROD. I've been dying for a civil discussion that sheds light on the subject for true Rams fans everywhere.)

Seeing the next move will certainly be telling with what Stan wants, I'm really interested in it. There's a lot of questions about this stadium proposal though, like how does it get into the top 8 stadiums? What specifically other than its new? Will the public be okay with extending the taxes from the Dome, will Stan be okay with the small size (will be one of the smallest in the league) and not owning enough even though they want him to front essentially 45% of the costs, other than looks, what does it offer, etc.

I'm hoping they can detail that stuff soon, after so long to work on it, I'm shocked they didn't already, unless I missed it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

No the g4 loan does not have to be repaid.

Yes it does, even if it's at little interest and over a long period of time, it still needs to be repaid. 1.5% of 200 million is still 3 million, over the course of 25 years, it starts to ad up. There's ways to offset it, but it still requires repayment, which Stan will know to take as hes putting up nearly half the bill.

 

[Dxmissile]

Yes it does, even if it's at little interest and over a long period of time, it still needs to be repaid. 1.5% of 200 million is still 3 million, over the course of 25 years, it starts to ad up. There's ways to offset it, but it still requires repayment, which Stan will know to take as hes putting up nearly half the bill.

I don't how that got posted but yes the g4 loan does have to be repaid 15 yrs or up too 25 if you put a waiver in. It's in the rest of my post

 

[8to12]

Yes, it is.

https://twitter.com/JjenkzLockdown

"lockdown" ....he must be a legend in his own mind Until he starts making more plays than he gives up, I won't be referring to him as that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't how that got posted but yes the g4 loan does have to be repaid 15 yrs or up too 25 if you put a waiver in. It's in the rest of my post

Yeah I saw that, I'm just trying to look at things from Stan's perspective, because that's who needs to be impressed in order to the team to stay put. There seems to be quite a few issues the stadium needs to address for it to really be a viable option that the Stan can't brush off and the NFL disagree with him. The stadium is very simple and clean, and I like that, but it's not hit you in the face beautiful, and isn't a realistic candidate for a Super Bowl at this point. Every little thing that Stan can point to and say "See? That's not even realistic" gives him more reason to pack up and not have to worry about the NFL saying he didn't exhaust all options. After he won arbitration, the city needed to really wow him and do it fast, but they sat on it for political reasons, and have put fourth something that, again while I personally like, was a little underwhelming vs recent stadiums we've seen. If Stan is really serious about moving, then there's a lot more that needs to be done, and if they were starting out negotiations then this could be a decent start, but with everything else that's gone on, and with the appearance that Stan has one foot out the door, it looks like it's far too little far too late.

 

[RamBill]

Support, timing key to Rams plan
• By Jim Thomas

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_7e2fb1d3-e88c-5e7d-8317-60fc286b74dc.html

The St. Louis stadium/Rams relocation saga reached another milepost Friday with the unveiling of a stadium project on the north edge of downtown that would cost between $860 million and $985 million.

For now, the proposal presented at Union Station by Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz is the life raft that’s keeping NFL football afloat in St. Louis.

“I think to the degree that we progress on a plan and demonstrate the viability of it, we’re in good shape — the community — because the NFL bylaws have certain stipulations that relate to moving and relocation that we will have met in the local community,” said Peacock, who with Blitz was appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to develop a plan to keep professional football in St. Louis.

But if the situation reaches the level where the Rams are lobbying with the league to move to Los Angeles, two areas are almost certain to be discussed:

• Is the St. Louis effort to address its stadium situation a case of too little, too late?

• Is there sufficient support in the business community and corporate sector to keep the Rams profitable and viable in St. Louis?

Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive, seemed almost eager to address both topics during an hour-long presentation and news conference.

“We have a sense of urgency,” Peacock said. “But I can tell you, San Diego’s been slogging away for years trying to get a stadium and has not been able to achieve it. The Minneapolis project took several years. Atlanta. San Francisco.

“If we are actually able to raise the financing and start a project in 2016 based on where we started, this would be lightning speed in the stadium world relative to what’s been done at other places.

“So I don’t necessarily buy the too little, too late. Because if you also read the NFL bylaws, they’re very clear that they don’t have a time parameter associated with them. They basically say that the team has to exhaust all of its opportunities in the local market before it can move, and that no team can move just for the opportunity to make more money. I believe in those NFL bylaws.”

Although the Rams have said next to nothing during the entire stadium process, the team’s statement in response to Friday’s unveiling of the stadium plan spoke volumes. It read in part:

“The St. Louis Rams have worked for many years, with several agencies and commissions, and their senior management, responsible for stadium facilities in St. Louis. This includes multiple discussions with the Governor (Jay Nixon)’s recently formed NFL Task Force (Peacock and Blitz) ...”

It may sound like bureaucratic jibberish at face value, but the underlying point is that the Rams want it known that they’ve been working hard at a stadium solution for “many years” with no success. While also pointing out that the task force is “recently formed.”

It’s a message designed as much for the league office and the 31 other franchise owners as it is for St. Louis. And those franchise owners could be voting on relocation as early as spring 2016.

Meanwhile, as of Monday, Rams owner Stan Kroenke has already reached an agreement to build a stadium in Inglewood, Calif., not far from the Los Angeles airport.

As this scenario unfolds, the Rams’ argument at league meetings and behind the scenes is expected to include questions about the “sense of urgency” by St. Louis. One question that may have already been posed by the Rams in league circles: Why wasn’t this task force formed after the arbitration decision in January 2013?

(That decision favored the Rams’ estimated $700 million proposal to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome.)

Peacock said Friday he has been working on the stadium project “off and on” for more than a year, and has been doing intensive work over the past three months.

Providing examples of the level of activity, Peacock said there was a meeting with league officials in November shortly after the formation of the task force. He said there have also been meetings that involved both Rams and NFL officials together, as well as what he called “constant contact” with both entities.

Peacock also confirmed what previously had been reported through sources, namely, that Kroenke had yet to meet directly with the task force.

“I have not met, nor has Bob met Stan,” Peacock said. “I’m sure he’s seen these (stadium plans) because they’ve been shared early on in the process. I don’t know the impact or his reaction, because we haven’t met with him.”

It should be noted that Peacock said he has yet to meet formally with NFL commissioner Roger Goodell so far in this process.

“I’m sure we’ll meet with Stan Kroenke when the time is right,” Peacock said. “His representatives have represented him well. At the same time we’re dealing with the right people at the league and we’ve been given, I’d say, the right level of support to continue on our path.”

As for the question of business and corporate support, the NFL relocation guidelines specify that a team requesting to move must demonstrate it has exhausted all opportunities to be successful in its market. A perceived lack of corporate support is an area the Rams are expected to attack as battle lines are drawn in the team’s increasingly apparent attempts to relocate.

“I like to deal in fact and data,” Peacock said. “The facts are half of the NFL teams play in cities with less Fortune 1000 companies than St. Louis has. We have seven of the top 200 private companies in the country.

“From just an economic standpoint, about 13 teams play in cities with a smaller GDP, if you will, or economy, than St. Louis. So it’s hard for me to say we don’t have the business support or the capability of business support.”

 

[Rams and Gators]

It's easier to build these stadiums in soccer. Having your jersey say Emirates is worth like 30 million a year.

Not to mention being one of the most followed teams in all of the Premiere League.

The site for the stadium was chosen in 1999 at which point they started looking for finance, they eventually secured enough money to start building in 2004, I'm not sure I'd describe it as easy. The best part was Arsenal looking for public financing for it and effectively being laughed out of the building.

And whilst the stadium looks quite pretty it was criticised on mass for the atmosphere being completely dead, I'm not sure if that's changed any, but if you'd asked an Arsenal fan in the first few years of the stadium they'd much rather return to Highbury.

 

[ChrisW]

The site for the stadium was chosen in 1999 at which point they started looking for finance, they eventually secured enough money to start building in 2004, I'm not sure I'd describe it as easy. The best part was Arsenal looking for public financing for it and effectively being laughed out of the building.

And whilst the stadium looks quite pretty it was criticised on mass for the atmosphere being completely dead, I'm not sure if that's changed any, but if you'd asked an Arsenal fan in the first few years of the stadium they'd much rather return to Highbury.

Right, but having the Emirates on the building as well as the kit helped them pay the deal off.

Edit: Forgot to mention. I know Emirates wasn't their sponsor until their O2 deal ran out.

 

[LesBaker]

Here's what I think;

I like the design. Open air is nice. A retractable roof could land a Superbowl, so the incremental cost could be offset by an agreement to get one.

But, truthfully... what today accomplished is a starting point toward funding something. The city just made a proposal to spend *$950MM.

How the design ends up could be very different once this goes back and forth.

* Yes, I realize that's a combination of all monies

I think it's important to note that a city doesn't really make money on a Super Bowl, the impact on the local economy is pretty well offset by the costs of hosting, so having a SB won't provide any funds towards a retractable roof.

I am with you on the design, it can/will be different when the shovels hit the dirt.

 

[Teran]

I like that the proposal has a parking lot where tailgating can occur, if it ever occurs.

 

[LetsGoRams]

It would appear to me that the Rams have the opportunity to deliver a counterproposal on the look and layout of the stadium now that the city has officially made a proposal. If so, they could feasibly propose a stadium that looks dramatically different or that has a retractable roof, or looks like the one proposed in LA county. Is that viewpoint feasible?

Now...my conspiracy theory. Perhaps the Goddell commissioned Kroenke to get the LA market active and get a stadium deal approved by city leaders (for future occupancy by TBD tenants). Kroenke is a real estate mogul, and who better to put together a plan and gain the support to build a stadium in LA. Kroenke wins in that he could sell his land in LA county and his stake in the partnership to the two teams that will ultimately reside in the stadium for hundreds of millions. The NFL wins in that they finally get a stadium in The LA market. Worst case scenario, the Chargers and Raiders move there. Best case, both those teams get new stadiums based on the leverage the LA stadium development provides, the league expands by two teams in LA....and all of this gets done around the time a new TV deal gets negotiated. Thoughts?

Regardless, I'm sure silent Stan is set up to make a shitload of money and / or get his way....

 

[blue4]

Couple of points from my perspective.

1. Chargers and Raiders have been at the stadium game far longer than the Rams. There's no way anyone could say that all options have been exhausted.

2. St Louis needs to build this no matter what Kroenke wants. The economic boost to downtown, removal of blighted buildings, etc.

3. MLS would be awesome for the city.

4. It's weird to say this on a Rams based website, but from what I have seen out in the real world here in STL, people love the NFL and truly want a football team. We support well, even in bad times. But at this point, the name of the NFL team is optional for a lot of people.

 

[RamBill]

Dave Peacock talks with Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr on 101ESPN about the new Stadium Plans.

Listen to Peacock Talk Stadium Plans

 

[STL-Rams]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...FL-Venue-Makes-Little-Sense-for-St-Louis.aspx

Retractable Roof NFL Venue Makes Little Sense for St. Louis
Shane Gray

Of late, I have heard from or read of a lot of St. Louis Rams fans and NFL fans in general who have shared their opinions on whether they would prefer a new open air NFL venue or a retractable roof stadium.

Although the argument will not determine what type of facility ultimately comes to pass, it is interesting to look at why retractable roof venues may not be as appealing as many would assume, particularly when considering the situation at hand in the Gateway City.

Roofs Staying Closed More Often

According to this report via Tim Tucker of the Atlanta Journal Constitution, 66 percent of all games played within retractable roofed NFL facilities through the 2012 season were played indoors.

In short, teams with retractable roofed home fields chose to play two of every three contests inside when they had the option of playing them in an outdoor setting.

During the past two NFL seasons, however, the four teams with retractable roof stadiums -- the Arizona Cardinals, Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans and Indianapolis Colts -- have collectively chosen to keep their respective lids closed for 81 percent of their regular season and postseason home dates, up from the aforementioned 66 percent figure through the 2012 docket.

In the desert of Arizona, the Cardinals kept the University of Phoenix Stadium's roof shut 80 percent of the time during the past two years. The Big Red did not remove the roof a single time this season after having opened it twice during the preceding campaign.

In Dallas, the Cowboys kept the top of AT&T Stadium closed for nearly 95 percent of home contests during the the last two seasons. In 2013, America's Team did not open the roof a single time. This year, the Cowboys have allowed the beautiful outdoors of Texas to shine forth onto their gridiron on just one occasion.

In Indianapolis, the Colts closed the roof of Lucas Oil Stadium for nearly 73% of all home games during the past two years. They opened the roof just twice in 2013 before pulling the top back on three occasions in 2014.

Finally, the Texans kept the ceiling of NRG Stadium closed in Houston for nearly 69 percent of their home match-ups during the past two campaigns after keeping their roof shut during all of their home regular season/postseason affairs in 2012.

Retractable Roofs Add Significant Expenses

According to Mark Waggoner of the Houston-headquartered Walter P. Moore engineering firm -- the firm who designed the roofs of all four of the NFL's current retractable stadiums --a retractable roofed edifice costs $100 to $150 million more than an open air venue and $25 to $40 million more than a domed football facility.

When considering the fact that these structures are being opened less and less frequently as evidenced by the above section, one would have to ask if the fees that come with such a roof are worthwhile, especially in St. Louis where their is already a dome in place that could be utilized year round for all indoor/fall/winter sporting events and conventions if the Rams - or another NFL club - were playing elsewhere in a complementary outdoor venue.

Loudest Venues in NFL Do Not Have Roofs

(For two other full sections including how loudest NFL venues do not have roofs and the answer for St. Louis, please check below for the full read. Thanks for reading and I hope you all enjoy it. Also, thanks for being the best Rams board anywhere. I don't even begin to know how to reply to all the comments on the last piece. Thank you all):

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...FL-Venue-Makes-Little-Sense-for-St-Louis.aspx

 

[blue4]

Excellent article. I've been confused as to all the fuss over a retractable roof myself.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I just wanted to emphasize one of the messages Peacock said yesterday.

The NFL controls relocation, not the owner.

"This is our team."

With that said, I can't stop thinking about this topic. I'm buzzing with this proposal, I love it. I'm very excited to see how this plays out. His message was clear, but it sucks we need Stan to pony up big bucks for it to happen. Construction is not set until next year if it does become a reality. That's a lot of time for Stan to put his stamp on this proposal and jump on board.

And another thing, if Stan wanted to crush the momentum of this proposal then he would have announced the LA stadium progressions after STL's proposal.

But anyway, there are clearly two sides to the story and I prefer STL's, of course. LA makes a convincing case, too. I've never been a part of anything like this in my life and it's crazy.

At the end of the day, we have more details but we are far from knowing the outcome. This is one heck of a story.

 

[den-the-coach]

The only reason I would prefer a Retractable Roof is because IMO, it's the best of both worlds and if the Gateway City ever had hope to host a Super Bowl the Retractable Roof would give them at the very minimum half a chance.

I concur with Shane in every other area with the exception that being born in 1966 I'm not getting any younger and it seems I'm getting colder and would have trepidation attending a game in cold weather. But then again if the Rams were to finally make post season I might just run naked in St. Louis in January, much to the chagrin of many!

 

[Corbin]

L.A. stadium comments in 3 2 1....