New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Legatron4]

The Raiders will not be in St.Louis. I can guarantee that. Nobody would show up to games. They fucking blow.

 

[dieterbrock]

They damn well better support the fans that have continued to show up after all these losing seasons. People can give STL crap for being 3rd from the bottom in attendance, but who wouldn't be after the stretch we've had. Am I crazy to think that the NFL is taking that into consideration?

What's even more important is how well St Louis supported them upon arrival. They were terrible then too and the fans showed up in droves.

 

[bluecoconuts]

What's even more important is how well St Louis supported them upon arrival. They were terrible then too and the fans showed up in droves.

I think just about every city would support a new team on arrival, even if they were bad. They probably look to see how the support was as the years went on rather than when it was still the honeymoon phase.

 

[den-the-coach]

The last time they were remotely relevant was 10 years ago - and they only look like they are getting worse.

Agreed and I knew they were in trouble when I listened to Reggie McKenzie (when he was hired) their GM, he makes 49er Head Coach Jim Tomsula sound like a Rhode Scholar.

 

[Goose]

 

[BuiltRamTough]

IMO the Chargers will have a totally new stadium rendering. Something at least to compete with the Ingelwood stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

IMO the Chargers will have a totally new stadium rendering. Something at least to compete with the Ingelwood stadium.

Can they afford it though? I don't see how they can afford the current stadium, even with both teams splitting the cost.

 

[ZigZagRam]

Can they afford it though? I don't see how they can afford the current stadium, even with both teams splitting the cost.

Goldman Sachs is financing the stadium, upgrades to temporary facilities and covering any operating losses that may arise from the move in the first two years.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Goldman Sachs is financing the stadium, upgrades to temporary facilities and covering any operating losses that may arise from the move in the first two years.

They're not financing the stadium, they're helping them get financing with the stadium. They did the same thing with the 49ers and Levi's stadium, helped with naming rights and PSL sales, but they didn't put their own money into the construction. In fact I believe Stanta Clara had or will have to pay for some of the costs after initially being told they wouldn't.

The only difference here is that Goldman Sachs is willing to cover operating losses during the move.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Even if Stan can't can't move the Rams I just don't see how that stadium won't be build. The design of the stadium is pure awesomeness and we only seen parts of it. The 6,000 performance arts theater could probably host the NFL draft and we haven't even see that. There's lakes and parks all around the stadium, there's just too much positives for this stadium and we only know half of it. Carson has to step up. You need something to attract the real LA spenders. Just a simple stadium that's hosts the chargers and raiders? Idk about that. The thing that bugs me about the Carson stadium also is I feel like one side is for poor people and the other side is for rich "vip" people. That's just weird. Nothing jumps out to me expect the tailgating part. I like that part. If you compare the carson stadium to the new Vikings and Falcons stadium it doesn't even come close. I even think the riverfront stadium in STL is better then the Carson stadium.

 

[dbrooks25]

They're not financing the stadium, they're helping them get financing with the stadium. They did the same thing with the 49ers and Levi's stadium, helped with naming rights and PSL sales, but they didn't put their own money into the construction. In fact I believe Stanta Clara had or will have to pay for some of the costs after initially being told they wouldn't.

The only difference here is that Goldman Sachs is willing to cover operating losses during the move.

That's a pretty big difference, though. If Goldman Sachs is going to help them with financing, there's a good chance they will get be able to afford it at the end of the day.

 

[dbrooks25]

Even if Stan can't can't move the Rams I just don't see how that stadium won't be build. The design of the stadium is pure awesomeness and we only seen parts of it. The 6,000 performance arts theater could probably host the NFL draft and we haven't even see that. There's lakes and parks all around the stadium, there's just too much positives for this stadium and we only know half of it. Carson has to step up. You need something to attract the real LA spenders. Just a simple stadium that's hosts the chargers and raiders? Idk about that. The thing that bugs me about the Carson stadium also is I feel like one side is for poor people and the other side is for rich "vip" people. That's just weird. Nothing jumps out to me expect the tailgating part. I like that part. If you compare the carson stadium to the new Vikings and Falcons stadium it doesn't even come close. I even think the riverfront stadium in STL is better then the Carson stadium.

You think Stan will still build that stadium if he can't move the team? I guess, if that's part of his end game.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's a pretty big difference, though. If Goldman Sachs is going to help them with financing, there's a good chance they will get be able to afford it at the end of the day.

Helping with and helping get are two pretty different things. If Goldman Sachs came out and said they were going to help cover construction costs that would be one thing. I believe they have helped teams with financing for a quite a while, but never helped with construction costs.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but from the sounds of things, if the costs are going to go up, they'll need to get more money from the teams, PSLs, or naming rights.

 

[ChrisW]

Helping with and helping get are two pretty different things. If Goldman Sachs came out and said they were going to help cover construction costs that would be one thing. I believe they have helped teams with financing for a quite a while, but never helped with construction costs.
I'm not saying it can't be done, but from the sounds of things, if the costs are going to go up, they'll need to get more money from the teams, PSLs, or naming rights.

Looking for more, but Goldman Sachs is going to cover the Chargers' move and any renovations to a tempoary home.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/03/02/report-goldman-sachs-offers-to-finance-chargers-move-to-la/

Looking for more clarity on the stadium financing.

 

[dieterbrock]

I think just about every city would support a new team on arrival, even if they were bad. They probably look to see how the support was as the years went on rather than when it was still the honeymoon phase.

I don't know if every city would support a perennial loser out of the gate, suffer through terrible PR nightmares like Darryl Henley and Lawrence Phillips and continue to suck. But I know St Louis did

 

[tonyl711]

I think just about every city would support a new team on arrival, even if they were bad. They probably look to see how the support was as the years went on rather than when it was still the honeymoon phase.

we had about 10 years of straight sellouts, then the losing started the numbers dropped yearly for good reason, IRC the rams had the worst 10 year record in NFL history, and still we average 55 grand a game or so.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Looking for more, but Goldman Sachs is going to cover the Chargers' move and any renovations to a tempoary home.

http://fox5sandiego.com/2015/03/02/report-goldman-sachs-offers-to-finance-chargers-move-to-la/

Looking for more clarity on the stadium financing.

Yeah, but again that's not stadium construction costs. That's money they they'll loan to the team to be repaid later. It does give the (the Chargers) more initial cash to put into the stadium, but they still need to come up with it.

I don't know if every city would support a perennial loser out of the gate, suffer through terrible PR nightmares like Darryl Henley and Lawrence Phillips and continue to suck. But I know St Louis did

I think a lot will during the honeymoon phase. That's not a dig on St Louis or anything.

we had about 10 years of straight sellouts, then the losing started the numbers dropped yearly for good reason, IRC the rams had the worst 10 year record in NFL history, and still we average 55 grand a game or so.

Yeah I know all that. I'm not sure how much it'll factor into the NFL's decision anyway, but my point is they probably won't look at initial numbers right after the move as hard as more recent numbers. If they factor in team records or not, is anyone's guess.

 

[blue4]

I understand they have a great history....eons ago..

The last time they were remotely relevant was 10 years ago - and they only look like they are getting worse.

That sounds familiar, almost as if there was another barely relevant franchise being supported in STL. . It may take a year or two but I contend STL would step up.

 

[dieterbrock]

I think a lot will during the honeymoon phase. That's not a dig on St Louis or anything.
.

Well thinking what a town would do is opinion, where it is a fact that St Louis emphatically supported the Rams amongst a quite rocky start.
So yeah, minimizing that effort with "any team would have" is a dig IMO

 

[bluecoconuts]

Well thinking what a town would do is opinion, where it is a fact that St Louis emphatically supported the Rams amongst a quite rocky start.
So yeah, minimizing that effort with "any team would have" is a dig IMO

If that's a dig then saying only St Louis would do it is a dig as well.