New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

I'm confused you post there is no way in hell they waive or reduce the fee, but than confirm that the Commissioner has discretion to adjust the fee...So why can't he adjust the fee based upon the agreement of an NFL Network Head Quarters that has been written and spoken about?

perhaps i should have reworded it - i don't see why the other owners would reduce it (i'm talking substantially), and the idea of owners budging when it comes to money in the pockets doesn't seem like a realistic one.

 

[den-the-coach]

perhaps i should have reworded it - i don't see why the other owners would reduce it (i'm talking substantially), and the idea of owners budging when it comes to money in the pockets doesn't seem like a realistic one.

Fair enough I understand they would not reduce it "substantially" just throwing something else out there that has been communicated about. In the end what matters is how much the franchise worth, I guess? Who knows?

Right now Rams are worth 930 million, if they move to Los Angeles the estimated value would be between 2.5-3.5 billion. So if you add 500 million to 930 you get a tad under 1.5 billion. Financially it still adds up to make the move and we're not taking into consideration the other revenue streams as well.

Like I posted I'm not into the dollars and cents, I'm more into the dollars and Sense (common sense), but it does not take a CPA from the Champaign college of business to figure out that the franchise would increase in value, however, with a new riverfront stadium and a commitment to the Gateway City and actually winning football games would increase the value of the franchise as well.

 

[iced]

Fair enough I understand they would not reduce it "substantially" just throwing something else out there that has been communicated about. In the end what matters is how much the franchise worth, I guess? Who knows?

Right now Rams are worth 930 million, if they move to Los Angeles the estimated value would be between 2.5-3.5 billion. So if you add 500 million to 930 you get a tad under 1.5 billion. Financially it still adds up to make the move and we're not taking into consideration the other revenue streams as well.

Like I posted I'm not into the dollars and cents, I'm more into the dollars and Sense (common sense), but it does not take a CPA from the Champaign college of business to figure out that the franchise would increase in value, however, with a new riverfront stadium and a commitment to the Gateway City and actually winning football games would increase the value of the franchise as well.

yea i understand that

the perspective i'm looking at it is that Teams might have different relocation fees, which wouldn't surprise me when you consider just some of the things about the other teams

-since SD And Oakland have been working forever to get theirs done
-a quarter of SD's fan base is already from the LA Market, etc.
-Raiders money and worth
-they have actually been exhausting in good faith for years to get a stadium done in their cities

The only team I think could get the most leniency for the Fee would be the Raiders - but even then I'm sure the owners would find a way to recoup some kind of fee over time

The NFL of course is gonna do what it wants in the end - but if a team is going to get a break on the fee, I don't believe for a second it'll be the Rams. I think SD and Oakland are still gonna be charged as well, possibly less than the Rams would be; no one is getting around that fee.

 

[den-the-coach]

The NFL of course is gonna do what it wants in the end - but if a team is going to get a break on the fee, I don't believe for a second it'll be the Rams. I think SD and Oakland are still gonna be charged as well, possibly less than the Rams would be; no one is getting around that fee.

Great points and if the Carson project goes through with Goldman Sachs totally backing the plan they you're correct, however, if the NFL has to put any money in the project I don't see a break for either franchise and the fact that Kroenke is going his project alone without any NFL money plus the opportunity for future Super Bowls (and there would be many) I could see a slight break in the fee or an opportunity to pay it off in intervals.

 

[RAMbler]

I'm just sad because I won't be able to afford to go to LA for games. Hotels, airfare and tickets are way too expensive. So I most likely will never be able to attend another Rams game.

I completely understand. I've never been to StLouis for a home game for the same reason (distance). For 20 years I've had to watch my team play in SF, OAK, or SD. And many of those SF & OAK fans are superturds (can't say the same thing about SD fans).

 

[iced]

Great points and if the Carson project goes through with Goldman Sachs totally backing the plan they you're correct, however, if the NFL has to put any money in the project I don't see a break for either franchise and the fact that Kroenke is going his project alone without any NFL money plus the opportunity for future Super Bowls (and there would be many) I could see a slight break in the fee or an opportunity to pay it off in intervals.

The NFL has already offered the G4 loans to both chargers and raiders - thats what, $400-$500 million off the top already for a joint stadium?

I'm holding off on Superbowls and all that because the only way in my mind that becomes part of the equation is if St.Louis can't build the Riverfront Stadium, giving him a free pass to leave. We already know the threat of no superbowls is something the NFL could hold in their back pocket as leverage/punishment if he went against their decision

Given the reasons of why they have the fee in place + the different scenarios for each team, I would be very shocked if Kroenke paid anything below $400 million for a relocation, if not the $500 figure that they're throwing around now.

 

[den-the-coach]

The NFL has already offered the G4 loans to both chargers and raiders - thats what, $400-$500 million off the top already for a joint stadium?

Exactly and I'm not in disagreement with you, but I would not be shocked if the NFL forgives some money for Kroenke because I have a feeling they really want his venue in Southern California regardless of their continuous statements of "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious."

 

[fearsomefour]

Fair enough I understand they would not reduce it "substantially" just throwing something else out there that has been communicated about. In the end what matters is how much the franchise worth, I guess? Who knows?

Right now Rams are worth 930 million, if they move to Los Angeles the estimated value would be between 2.5-3.5 billion. So if you add 500 million to 930 you get a tad under 1.5 billion. Financially it still adds up to make the move and we're not taking into consideration the other revenue streams as well.

Like I posted I'm not into the dollars and cents, I'm more into the dollars and Sense (common sense), but it does not take a CPA from the Champaign college of business to figure out that the franchise would increase in value, however, with a new riverfront stadium and a commitment to the Gateway City and actually winning football games would increase the value of the franchise as well.

The other revenue streams is major thing.
If a private owner pays for and owners the stadium the revenue from concerts, special events, NCAA final four, international soccer (first thing I would do is work a deal to bring the Mexico national team into the stadium several times a year) not to mention hosting a Superbowl every several years. As an owner the financial gain is way more than just being in a bigger city for the sake of being in a bigger city. It barely matters if fans show up to the actual game of that owners team.

 

[den-the-coach]

The other revenue streams is major thing.
If a private owner pays for and owners the stadium the revenue from concerts, special events, NCAA final four, international soccer (first thing I would do is work a deal to bring the Mexico national team into the stadium several times a year) not to mention hosting a Superbowl every several years. As an owner the financial gain is way more than just being in a bigger city for the sake of being in a bigger city. It barely matters if fans show up to the actual game of that owners team.

Very true @fearsomefour , however, winning is the end all cure all even for net worth of a franchise...The New England Patriots before Kraft were worth about two bits...Add in a new stadium and winning albeit cheating and thus your franchise is worth much more.

I remember the great debate that the Pats franchise would be worth much more in Boston, but because of politics Kraft kept in in Foxborough and thus his franchise now is worth much, much more because of their consistent winning. (God forgive me for posting this about the Patriots as the example).

 

[Hacksaw]

I get the history of the L.A. Rams, really I do. 49 years is more than 20, but we're not going to sit here and act like 20 years is just stopping for a cup a coffee. That's a long freaking time to be attached to a team.

It is and I didn't mean to undermine that. In 20 years they are ingrained. Kids below the age of 25 never heard of the Los Angeles Rams.
49 years is a lifetime though. Us older Rams fans who notched 45 seasons or better with the Rams remember those old glory days and deserve a fair measure of understanding too. Hard to agree on this point so I guess I will agree to disagree, , without prejudice .

 

[dieterbrock]

The NFL has already offered the G4 loans to both chargers and raiders - thats what, $400-$500 million off the top already for a joint stadium?

I'm holding off on Superbowls and all that because the only way in my mind that becomes part of the equation is if St.Louis can't build the Riverfront Stadium, giving him a free pass to leave. We already know the threat of no superbowls is something the NFL could hold in their back pocket as leverage/punishment if he went against their decision

Given the reasons of why they have the fee in place + the different scenarios for each team, I would be very shocked if Kroenke paid anything below $400 million for a relocation, if not the $500 figure that they're throwing around now.

The owners have to pony up 200+ million to get the G4. If they have to pay another 2-400 in relocation fee they may not have the liquid resources no?

 

[bluecoconuts]

So what if Kroenke informs the NFL that included in his stadium and the development is a west coach home for NFL Network, if they waive or reduce the transfer fee? Offices, studios, etc... Just a thought?

I don't think they would reduce the fee, I can't imagine they would waive it either.

also, some food for thought if push comes to shove..

I don't believe that means they can adjust based on each team in the current scenario. It gives them the ability to adjust as needed, but he's talking about what the bylaws state. They can adjust saying that "LA will cost X dollars" but if they were to say "Rams it will cost you 700 million, but the Chargers or Raiders only 200 million." I'm going to assume that opens them up to one hell of a lawsuit. I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine that they be able to pull that off.

yea i understand that

the perspective i'm looking at it is that Teams might have different relocation fees, which wouldn't surprise me when you consider just some of the things about the other teams

-since SD And Oakland have been working forever to get theirs done
-a quarter of SD's fan base is already from the LA Market, etc.
-Raiders money and worth
-they have actually been exhausting in good faith for years to get a stadium done in their cities

Have to keep in mind, the NFL has repeatedly stated that Kroenke has been exhausting efforts (just as much as Davis or Spanos really) and have stated that it's not a new situation in St Louis and they have known for a long time this was coming. The Rams already waived the requirement once, and the NFL seems to think they have been just fine in their efforts. They're working with St Louis, sending guys, giving feedback, and they're not making some smear campaign about the group or their efforts with outrageous demands. Kroenke has given himself plenty of argument if he wants, and the NFL has, at least publicly, said they're pleased with his actions with St Louis.

The NFL has already offered the G4 loans to both chargers and raiders - thats what, $400-$500 million off the top already for a joint stadium?

I believe you are mistaken, I've never seen anything that states the NFL has agreed to let the G4 loans be used by the Raiders/Chargers in Carson, let alone that they have offered it to them. The G4 loans specifically state it's for use in ones own market, so they would need to tweak those rules. Even with the loans, there have been tons of questions about if the Raiders and Chargers can afford the stadium (1.7 billion dollars, even down to 1.3 both teams are so cash strapped, it's questionable) and that's before relocation fees come into play. Added to the fact that it's not nearly as attractive as a venue, including in terms of likely revenue, well behind, it seems unlikely to be built, let alone selected and over Inglewood.

While it's probably more "ethical" to have the Carson project built, with the Rams staying in St Louis, that means the NFL is giving up more potential revenue, and having to pony up 600 million, and if they openly discourage and try to sink Kroenke, while assisting the others, possible litigation. Not a good business move.

*edit* I think they probably do have a relocation fee about 500 million, but that probably prices out everyone but Kroenke. I can see a relocation fee of 500 million, Kroenke pays that, then the Chargers go a year or more later and it's lower (because a team is already there) and they play in Inglewood, and then the Raiders move somewhere at an even lower rate, but I can't see them pricing Kroenke high, Spanos and Davis low for the same move.

 

[brokeu91]

Fair enough I understand they would not reduce it "substantially" just throwing something else out there that has been communicated about. In the end what matters is how much the franchise worth, I guess? Who knows?

Right now Rams are worth 930 million, if they move to Los Angeles the estimated value would be between 2.5-3.5 billion. So if you add 500 million to 930 you get a tad under 1.5 billion. Financially it still adds up to make the move and we're not taking into consideration the other revenue streams as well.

Like I posted I'm not into the dollars and cents, I'm more into the dollars and Sense (common sense), but it does not take a CPA from the Champaign college of business to figure out that the franchise would increase in value, however, with a new riverfront stadium and a commitment to the Gateway City and actually winning football games would increase the value of the franchise as well.

Well that's if you don't add in the 1.8 billion dollars it costs to build the stadium there

 

[den-the-coach]

Well that's if you don't add in the 1.8 billion dollars it costs to build the stadium there

Point well taken sir!

 

[bluecoconuts]

Point well taken sir!

Don't forget to subtract all the revenue from different events being held at the venue (that he collects) PSL's, Naming Rights, money generated from advertising, etc. The money behind these things is pretty complex. Kroenke is looking to spend more in LA, and he'll get more in return in LA.

 

[den-the-coach]

Don't forget to subtract all the revenue from different events being held at the venue (that he collects) PSL's, Naming Rights, money generated from advertising, etc. The money behind these things is pretty complex. Kroenke is looking to spend more in LA, and he'll get more in return in LA.

That's a given, that's why he's willing to put up as much "Jack" because now he's looking to take a lot of 'jack" out of the market.

"As I said earlier, I started in St. Louis, in one year from now, that will be 20 years, so I’ve been around here a long time,” Kroenke added. “Contrary to a lot of reports, I haven’t taken a lot of ‘jack’ out of the market. I think that’s what’s reported. I have put a lot of ‘jack’ into the market.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-opportunity-to-renew-commitment-to-st-louis/

 

[iced]

The owners have to pony up 200+ million to get the G4. If they have to pay another 2-400 in relocation fee they may not have the liquid resources no?

The loan comes from the NFL, not the owners.

I don't believe that means they can adjust based on each team in the current scenario. It gives them the ability to adjust as needed, but he's talking about what the bylaws state. They can adjust saying that "LA will cost X dollars" but if they were to say "Rams it will cost you 700 million, but the Chargers or Raiders only 200 million." I'm going to assume that opens them up to one hell of a lawsuit. I don't know for sure, but I can't imagine that they be able to pull that off.

^ Except that's the way its written - now I'm not saying its going to hold up in court, but you can definitely see the wiggle room the NFL has attached to it.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/05/l-a-transfer-fees-could-be-up-to-500-million/

The league’s relocation policy expressly states that a relocating team “will ordinarily be expected to pay a transfer fee to the League,” aimed at compensating other teams for the loss of the opportunity to move to the new market themselves and/or accounting for the enhanced value of the franchise arising from the move.

Chargers will probably have a lower relocation fee for one of these reasons - I would guess some of it due to part of their ticket holders are already in LA.

Have to keep in mind, the NFL has repeatedly stated that Kroenke has been exhausting efforts (just as much as Davis or Spanos really) and have stated that it's not a new situation in St Louis and they have known for a long time this was coming. The Rams already waived the requirement once, and the NFL seems to think they have been just fine in their efforts. They're working with St Louis, sending guys, giving feedback, and they're not making some smear campaign about the group or their efforts with outrageous demands. Kroenke has given himself plenty of argument if he wants, and the NFL has, at least publicly, said they're pleased with his actions with St Louis.

This is the exact opposite of what we've been hearing as far as Kroenke goes... The reoccuring theme has been that the Stadium Task force has been having trouble getting Kroenke on the phone - and was also again mentioned to Goodell at the Owners conference.

https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.co...press-conference-at-annual-meeting-final3.pdf

Q:Your level of concern in St. Louis that there has been virtually no communication between the owner Stan Kroenke and the city and the fans and you have a fan base that could lose their team and there really just hasn’t been any communication with the owner?

Well, we certainly have had that conversation with the governor on several occasions. Our staff has been there on a regular basis, as you know, making sure that we’re doing whatever we can do as a league and I think it’s a great deal, by the way. We’ve had a lot of experience in this and putting together a stadium plan that could be responsive not only for St. Louis but also could work for a franchise long-term. We’re trying to do our part as a league. Every management structure is going to deal with those issues differently. He has contact with his season ticket base, maybe not through him directly, but through the team and that’s something that he’s going to have to decide how he’s going to proceed on that basis.

I mean the whole very point of The taskforce initially working with the NFL was because Kroenke wasn't talking...

And I completely disagree with Kroenke making similar efforts to Davis and Spanos, although thats not something I particularly care enough to argue about lol

I believe you are mistaken, I've never seen anything that states the NFL has agreed to let the G4 loans be used by the Raiders/Chargers in Carson, let alone that they have offered it to them. The G4 loans specifically state it's for use in ones own market, so they would need to tweak those rules. Even with the loans, there have been tons of questions about if the Raiders and Chargers can afford the stadium (1.7 billion dollars, even down to 1.3 both teams are so cash strapped, it's questionable) and that's before relocation fees come into play. Added to the fact that it's not nearly as attractive as a venue, including in terms of likely revenue, well behind, it seems unlikely to be built, let alone selected and over Inglewood.

While it's probably more "ethical" to have the Carson project built, with the Rams staying in St Louis, that means the NFL is giving up more potential revenue, and having to pony up 600 million, and if they openly discourage and try to sink Kroenke, while assisting the others, possible litigation. Not a good business move.

*edit* I think they probably do have a relocation fee about 500 million, but that probably prices out everyone but Kroenke. I can see a relocation fee of 500 million, Kroenke pays that, then the Chargers go a year or more later and it's lower (because a team is already there) and they play in Inglewood, and then the Raiders move somewhere at an even lower rate, but I can't see them pricing Kroenke high, Spanos and Davis low for the same move.

I have seen a lot of articles that have been mentioning the NFL allowing the use of G4 Loans for the Carson stadium. I know they don't technically meet the criteria for the loan - but time and time again, we've seen the NFL do what they want...And so many times they have said "We're going to do whats best not for the owner but for all the owners."

By the way here is someone saying they both are allowed to use the G4 Loan program

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/stadium-651853-raiders-carson.html?page=2

“In our view, we’ve concluded that the financing of the stadium here in Carson is very viable and is doable.

The teams would be eligible to borrow $200 million each from the NFL’s G4 stadium fund, Fabiani said.

And I disagree about the markets - I think the NFL would get more revenue by having Chargers and Oakland in LA w/ St.Louis still a market than Chargers and Rams in LA w/ Oakland in California and no team in St.Louis. 4 teams in one state, 2 of them really close to each other with one team having 25% of their fan base already in LA now competing with the Rams?

I'm not an economist nor have I studied the markets but it seems to me there's more money by having teams in both LA and St.Louis vs just LA

 

[blue4]

That's a given, that's why he's willing to put up as much "Jack" because now he's looking to take a lot of 'jack" out of the market.

"As I said earlier, I started in St. Louis, in one year from now, that will be 20 years, so I’ve been around here a long time,” Kroenke added. “Contrary to a lot of reports, I haven’t taken a lot of ‘jack’ out of the market. I think that’s what’s reported. I have put a lot of ‘jack’ into the market.”

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-opportunity-to-renew-commitment-to-st-louis/

So Kroenke claims to have made no money while putting money back into STL? Am I reading that article right? If I am, that man -deleted . Absolutely deleted to think that someone believes that. Buying the team isn't investing Jack into STL, it's investing Jack into yourself. Any money he ponied up to get the Rams here, he's made back in spades.

 

[Jorgeh0605]

So Kroenke claims to have made no money while putting money back into STL? Am I reading that article right? If I am, that man is deleted. Absolutely deleted to think that someone believes that. Buying the team isn't investing Jack into STL, it's investing Jack into yourself. Any money he ponied up to get the Rams here, he's made back in spades.

How are you so sure?

 

[blue4]

How are you so sure?

Because he doesn't make mistakes like buying things that don't return on investment. Because owning a football team is about as sure of an investment as can be had outside of oil.
That statement was nothing but advanced propaganda of a move he had already started to plan.