New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dhaab]

I grew up an L.A. Rams fan and when they moved to St. Louis I remember wondering if I'd remain a fan of a team halfway across the country from me. When games started that first season in St. Louis I immediately realized I had zero doubt about where my allegiances were. My fandom never diminished and any animosity or anger was 100% directed at that old bag GF. (Nevertheless RIP). I’ve even flown out to St. Louis to see games over the years.

The Rams are the ONLY pro sports team I root for outside of L.A. I’m also a Dodgers, Lakers, and Kings (NHL) fan.


If they do move back to L.A. it will be the very definition of bittersweet for me. I’ll be happy they’re back and happy they may have picked up some lifelong fans however I’ll be sad at the St. Louis fans who are experiencing what many L.A. Rams fans experienced so many years ago.

I really appreciate hearing from LA Rams fans like you and Isiah58. Thanks for those comments. However, I do want to make you both aware that this will be the 2nd time St. Louis football fans will lose an NFL franchise in the past 30 years, so it's a little bit different for us. We've experienced this before and while I tried to follow the Arizona Cardinals when they left in the late 80's, I found it too difficult to do that. The billionaires who run the NFL need to realize that when you continuously screw around with your customers, they'll eventually stop caring about your product.

 

[MrMotes]

You have to wonder if the riverfront property was offered to him for purchase, if he wouldn't do just that. But I believe the gov't has to take possession of the property under eminent domain which would mean the gov't has to not only purchase the properties from the owners but also either hold onto it for a period of time before selling it or trade it for similar use land. I haven't looked into those laws in over a decade but that is what I recall.

I had heard a couple years ago that there was interest by Kroenke's group in buying the old Chrysler property but that not only had mass clean-up to do but was slated for some other project and is already being built.

I would think that for a property to be attractive, it would have to be easily obtained and built upon and have very good infrastructure for massive traffic flows.

First Kroenke tried to buy the Dodgers (which is also a prime location for a football stadium in L.A.) and then he bought the Inglewood land and notified the league it was suitable for building an NFL stadium. Now he's partnered up with Stockbridge and they are going ahead with plans to build an NFL stadium.

He's been pretty methodical about this for some time now, and only in Los Angeles. Maybe it's a giant head fake but to me it looks like SK has been quietly and steadily going about this particular business for some time now...

 

[MrMotes]

Because at this point, the city, state and county are stepping up to put it together. You could ask the same question 20 yrs ago? Why did he let the city, state and county pay for the Dome? He also didnt set out to build the Inglewood stadium on his own,, He joined and existing development project that now includes a plan for a stadium.

Apples and oranges.

The math of stadium funding has changed a lot over the last 20 years. That's why we're seeing so many privately funded stadiums. They've become profitable. It's a business people now want to be in...

 

[RamBill]

From the NFL owners meetings, Nick Wagoner calls into The Turn with the latest on Stan Kroenke’s L.A. stadium plans, the commissioner and owners discussing adjusting the relocation guidelines, and what it all means for the Rams’ future in St. Louis.

Listen to Wagoner Talk Stadium Issues

 

[ChrisW]

The math of stadium funding has changed a lot over the last 20 years. That's why we're seeing so many privately funded stadiums. They've become profitable. It's a business people now want to be in...

Can you source this? Or is it just an observation you have?

 

[CoachO]

The math of stadium funding has changed a lot over the last 20 years. That's why we're seeing so many privately funded stadiums. They've become profitable. It's a business people now want to be in...

So many privately funded stadiums?

I must have missed that list. Care to share the MANY with the rest of us?

 

[dbrooks25]

One thing that Stl football fans can lean on is the fact that Dave Peacock is the lead man in the stadium efforts here and he is BIG TIME. Dude has some major pull and he flat gets stuff done. I was listening to the Kevin Wheeler show this morning and he had Bernie on. Bernie was joking about how Dave Peacock sent him a text asking him why he was so down. Anyway, the point was that Peacock is as confident as ever when it comes to the Stl stadium plan and he also spoke about how Peacock is really good friends with Goodell and how their relationship goes way back.

Who knows what's going on behind closed doors, but I'm sure there's an end game to this that only a select few are in on.

 

[dbrooks25]

So many privately funded stadiums?

I must have missed that list. Care to share the MANY with the rest of us?

I don't think he will be able to because there aren't many, just a few.

 

[MrMotes]

So many privately funded stadiums?

I must have missed that list. Care to share the MANY with the rest of us?

NY, SF, two privately funded stadiums currently proposed in L.A..

You can argue semantics but the trend and math are clear. Where it once made no sense to privately fund an NFL stadium (like when Georgia moved the Rams to St. Louis) it now makes good business sense. That's one reason the possibility of the Rams moving is so real...

 

[CoachO]

NY, SF, two privately funded stadiums currently proposed in L.A..

You can argue semantics but the trend and math are clear. Where it once made no sense to privately fund an NFL stadium (like when Georgia moved the Rams to St. Louis) it now makes good business sense. That's one reason the possibility of the Rams moving is so real...

Huge difference in a PROPOSED stadium in a city who hasn't built a football stadium in almost a century, and it being done.

And because I am so out of the loop about this list,, could you refresh my memory who owns the privately funded stadium in NY?

Here I will answer it for you:

MetLife Stadium, located in East Rutherford New Jersey: Owner: New Jersey Sports and Exposition Authority Operator: MetLife Stadium Company, LLC Tenant: New York Giants, New York Jets

Owners of NFL franchises understand its not in their best interest to OWN AND OPERATE an NFL Stadium. Which brings me back to my original point. Why is it that Kroenke won't invest in the STL project if he isn't going to own it, but it makes sense for him to invest his share of $1.86B in Inglewood so he will?

 

[MrMotes]

Huge difference in a PROPOSED stadium in a city who hasn't built a football stadium in almost a century, and it being done.

And because I am so out of the loop about this list,, could you refresh my memory who owns the privately funded stadium in NY?

You're the one who asked me why Kroenke didn't build the dome himself 20 years ago. Besides the fact he was minority owner, building your own simply wasn't as feasible or lucrative as it is today. Things have changed in the last 20 years.

That's a simple fact and a driving force behind the possible move to L.A.

I take it you disagree?

 

[RamBill]

Bernie Miklasz joined Kevin Wheeler to compare and contrast an owner like Dewitt to an owner like Stan Kroenke, he talks about why DeWitt has found success in St. Louis, the city as a sports town, a football city, and the way the NFL is handling LA was a hot topic.

Listen to Bernie Talk STL as A Sports Town

 

[CoachO]

You're the one who asked me why Kroenke didn't build the dome himself 20 years ago. Besides the fact he was minority owner, building your own simply wasn't as feasible or lucrative as it is today. Things have changed in the last 20 years.

That's a simple fact and a driving force behind the possible move to L.A.

I take it you disagree?

My original point was to question why it seems that most people seem to think he wouldn't be willing to put up his share in the STL if he isn't going to own it, but he is more than willing to pay his share of the PROPOSED $1.86B in Inglewood, when in fact no one knows what his ownership or contribution in that project would actually be.

And to my point, NFL owners don't OWN and OPERATE their stadiums. It doesn't make financial sense. All I am trying to point out, is he would have plenty of incentive to stay in STL if the deal made sense and gets done. Owning or not owning it won't impact his decision IMO.

 

[MrMotes]

My original point was to question why it seems that most people seem to think he wouldn't be willing to put up his share in the STL if he isn't going to own it, but he is more than willing to pay his share of the PROPOSED $1.86B in Inglewood, when in fact no one knows what his ownership or contiribution in that project would actually be.

And to my point, NFL owners don't OWN and OPERATE their stadiums. It doesn't make financial sense. All I am trying to point out, is he would have plenty of incentive to stay in STL if the deal made sense and gets done. Owning or not owning it won't impact his decision IMO.

I agree there's nothing bad about the Rams staying in St. Louis. The problem, so it seems, is that for Stan Kroenke, moving to L.A. is better. So much so that he's willing to build his own stadium. And he's been methodically working on his plan for quite some time now.

This isn't some media hype story.

Stan really did buy the land in Inglewood. He really did partner up with Stockbridge to build a stadium. The City of Inglewood really did approve the project. Kroenke really is lobbying and presenting his plans to owners. These things are really happening.

How it turns out, we'll have to wait and see...

 

[Isiah58]

I think the obvious answer to the question of why LA and not St. Louis, is simple.

Two years ago the Clippers were valued at about $600M. They recently sold for $2B. The Dodgers were valued at about $900M, and sold for $2B and are now valued north of $3B. The Rams value in St. Louis, like it or not, is currently valued at $950M, give or take. If Kroenke moved the Rams to LA, I am guessing it would be worth $3B conservatively if the Clippers are worth $2B. Under that scenario, it makes financial sense to invest in a billion dollar new stadium because it still nets you a billion+ dollar return. If you consider that crazy advertising rights scheme, and possibly hosting 4 - 6 Superbowls, that value is considerably higher. That kind of return is not available in St. Louis, even with a new stadium. At least, that is my guess.

I doubt Stan Kroenke gives a hoot about the Dome or the outdoor stadium. He cares about the prestige and cache that would come with owning an NFL team in LA. And the fact that instead of the being at the bottom of Forbes' list, his franchise would be near the top of the most valuable franchises. I see that as what is driving him, not the fact that his players and fans get to play and watch football in a new stadium.

 

[PowayRamFan]

As a life long resident of Southern California, I had been a die hard Rams fan for 25 years when they "left" for St. Louis. During the months before they announced the move, there were the same discussions going on that are happening here and elsewhere on the net with respect to this new, proposed move. It is so reminiscent of what I and my fellow Rams fans went through back in the mid-90s. There was a lot of whistling in the dark, "they would never let the Rams move" discussions, and Georgia was vilified like no other public figure I know. I can't tell you how many times people have stopped me on the street, complete strangers, who notice my Rams' gear and say "I was a Rams fan, but Georgia ruined the NFL for me."

I honestly didn't know if I could follow them again after they moved. None of the people I hung around with cared one bit about the Rams once they left. I had not missed a game since 1970, either on tv or on the radio. I remember telling my girlfriend (now my wife) that I was going to a sports bar in Santa Monica to watch the first St. Louis Rams game. It was a 10 am game in So Cal, and it was sparsely populated at that time of day. The Rams game (against the Packers I believe) was televised on one small tv in the back, and I didn't have to fight anyone to see the screen. As soon as I saw them, saw the same guys I had been rooting for just 10 months earlier in Anaheim, still wearing the same uniform, I knew nothing changed as far as my devotion to the Rams. There was Ike Bruce blocking a punt to help the Rams win, and I knew they were still "my" team. I haven't missed a single game that they have played in St. Louis.

If the Rams move, most of you will be like my friends, turning your back on the NFL, citing "greed" and corruption and the utter disregard for the fans. All true. But some of you will see the horns and maintain that connection, as if you can't help it. People now ask me if I am excited about the prospects of the Rams coming back. It is hard for me to be excited, knowing what my St. Louis brethren are going through. I have met so many fans thanks to the Internet who share my passion for the Rams, many of whom live in the Midwest. The thought of having some replacement team like the Raiders come there would be appalling to most of them, and I would feel the same way.

Now the purpose of this post. While I have been trying to read as many of the articles that have been coming out recently, I have not been able to find the answers to 2 questions. Perhaps someone here who knows the answers can respond and clear this up for me.

First, what are the repercussions of SK "going rogue"? In other words, it is unclear to me what exactly Kroenke can and cannot do if the league denies him permission to move to LA. My very cloudy understanding is that he can move them anyways against the league's wishes. However, in addition to alienating most of the owners what consequences would he suffer? Yes, he would forfeit getting any Super Bowls in LA, but he is not getting any Super Bowls in St. Louis either. He would still have his shiny new stadium, his franchise would triple in value overnight, and he would seem to be able to accomplish what the League wants anyways, a high profile team in Los Angeles. Can anyone explain what deterrent the League could impose that would be so draconian that this "nuclear" option would be unthinkable? Because it seems like SK is not someone who will take no for an answer.

Second, if the new St. Louis stadium financing plan relies on a contribution from Kroenke, what if he refuses to pay? Can he say that he doesn't want to spend any of his $$$ to construct a St. Louis stadium, and if so does that scuttle the plan? Can he be forced to write a check for $300M for a stadium he won't own and doesn't want? My very limited understanding is that the NFL would also have to pony up a significant contribution for the new STL riverfront stadium. Which means the owners have to decide between reaching into their own pockets to help St. Louis build their stadium, or let Stan foot the whole bill for his LA stadium. Am I correct about this?

St. Louis does not deserve to lose its team. But I don't see how the Inglewood stadium is not getting built, one way or another. And if that happens, I think this move is fait accompli regardless of what things Missouri does to prevent it.

Fantastic post, describes how I felt in '95 exactly. I couldn't NOT follow my Rams, impossible.

 

[rams2050]

I just wish that Dave Peacock is besties with someone like Jack Taylor's son, Andrew, who runs Executive Leasing now that Jack is 'out of the biz' at age 93.

The Taylors are absolutely loaded with dough; and they are diehard St. Louisans. It would be wonderful if they would step up to the plate and make something happen when it comes to the Stadium and/or the Rams.

 

[RAMbler]

Sure, he can say that. But if the NFL puts the kabosh on his plans in LA and keeps him in STL, his options are to play in the dome year to year, or pony up 250 mil to play in a brand new stadium.

I can't see any of that happening. Just no way the NFL can force someone like SK to stay in the dome, or force him to pay what will amount to more like $450M once he has to pay off that G4 loan. And IMO, putting the "kabosh" on him is probably the furthest thing from their minds......

 

[den-the-coach]

Labor, Developers Reach Deal on Proposed NFL Stadium

Labor leaders announced Thursday that they have resolved a dispute with developers that threatened to delay construction of a proposed 80,000-seat stadium near Los Angeles that could become home for an NFL team.

Earlier this month, labor leaders became alarmed after concluding that certain jobs connected to the nearly $2 billion project backed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke might be awarded to non-unionized workers. Labor trouble could make a stadium project less appealing to the NFL and its owners, who ultimately decide on possible team moves.

In a statement Thursday, Los Angeles County Federation of Labor Executive Secretary Rusty Hicks said agreements have been reached on those jobs for the project in Inglewood, about 10 miles from downtown Los Angeles.

Hicks said the federation has "reached its goal — 100 percent of our unions have signed agreements for the proposed Inglewood stadium development. The promise of good jobs — both for the project's construction and for ongoing operations — is now a guarantee."

"We now have certainty that the project will be an economic engine for the entire region and help turn the tide against poverty-level jobs in Los Angeles," Hicks added.

The politically powerful unions had been quietly gathering petition signatures in Inglewood that could have led to a local vote on the plan, potentially delaying development of the project and forcing organizers to invest additional time and money.

Any delays could be costly, with a rival stadium plan proposed by the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders moving ahead in nearby Carson.

In San Diego on Thursday, the county and city announced they have joined forces in a bid to keep its NFL franchise. Mayor Kevin Faulconer and county supervisors will together spend up to $500,000 on consultants, attorneys, bankers and other experts. Voters will eventually decide whether to back a new stadium for the Chargers.

The mayor's stadium task force is expected to announce a financing plan by May 20 in San Diego's Mission Valley area.

Under current NFL rules, the next opportunity for a team to file to relocate would be in January 2016. State and local officials in Missouri have been maneuvering to keep the Rams.

http://news.yahoo.com/labor-developers-reach-deal-proposed-inglewood-stadium-001407998--spt.html

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think you are assuming that what has been speculated is the only route they will get financing. Also, that bill still has to pass. Let's assume it will, what stops Nixon from using his power before that happens?

There have been people in the know saying that Peacock hasn't flinched at all with that senator's bill. Seems reasonable to speculate that the task force hasn't put all of their eggs into the bonds basket so to speak.

Something I think is a possibility is that there might be some other investors involved.

I would assume if he were to rush it now, then there would be blowback. It passed the senate already afterall. I don't know the process though. I think that even if the bill passes, the financing for the St Louis half will get figured out, it's more the Kroenke half.

If there's another invester coming in to cover the Kroenke half, I would wonder what he is getting in return for his investments though. I don't discount there are other things, nor do I think you're making up things, I just think that it sound very optimistic to say it's 99% a done deal. Maybe 99% a done deal on their end (and even then it seems too high). I think if we were that close, there would be far more about it.

That being said, the Peacock group hasn't flinched, but they cant afford to either. I do think they are confident they will get their half figured out, and I expect they will.

My original point was to question why it seems that most people seem to think he wouldn't be willing to put up his share in the STL if he isn't going to own it, but he is more than willing to pay his share of the PROPOSED $1.86B in Inglewood, when in fact no one knows what his ownership or contribution in that project would actually be.

And to my point, NFL owners don't OWN and OPERATE their stadiums. It doesn't make financial sense. All I am trying to point out, is he would have plenty of incentive to stay in STL if the deal made sense and gets done. Owning or not owning it won't impact his decision IMO.

Kroenke is a land developer though, he typically owns the land, owns the building, owns the team.

Kroenke, or his group Kroenke Sports Enterprises, owns the Nuggets, Avalanche, Mammoths, and Rapids all in Colorado, as well as the Rams in St Louis and the Arsenal in the UK.

Nuggets, Avs, and Mammoths all play in the Pepsi Center. Who owns the Pepsi Center? Stan Kroenke. Who operates the Pepsi Center? Stan Kroenke.

Rapids, Rams, and Arsenal all play in stadiums not owned by Kroenke. What's the common aspect? They all got their current stadiums before Kroenke became owner (or majority owner in the case of the Arsenal). However even then, the Rapids play at the Dicks Sporting Goods Park, owned part by Kroenke and part by the City of Commerce City. Who operates the stadium? Stan Kroenke.

So while that doesn't mean that Kroenke will definitely own and operate the Inglewood project, every stadium he has built for his team he has owned and operated. That's not just something pulled out of thin air, that is what he has done in the past. You have to expect he'd do it with the Inglewood project as well. How much of a sticking point that is for him in St Louis, I don't know, but he can certainly use it as a reason why it's not viable for him if he wanted to.

*Edit* I believe the majority of the stadium is also on his 60 Acres.