New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

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.

It's about leverage....

he was also in the middle of arbitration when that statement was made....

 

[bluecoconuts]

^ 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/

It's written that they have wiggle room, it doesn't say that they can or plan on making the relocation fee different if teams are trying to do the exact same thing (I.E. be the first team to set up shop in LA)... Now they can reduce the fee if say a team wanted to be the second team to set up shop (therefore a relocation fee to LA would be less for team B than team A) or have a different fee if a team were to move elsewhere to another city. That's where they have specific wiggle room that they defined in their constitution. So if they were to approach Kroenke and say "Well we want you to pay X amount of dollars to set up shop in LA" and it's a pretty unreasonable number but then tell Spanos that if he wanted to go there (again under the same circumstances, I.E. be the first guy to go and set up shop) for far less money, I get the feeling that Kroenke would have a good case. Other owners probably don't like that type of precedent being set either. I can see them giving Kroenke a slightly higher relocation fee, because he's planning on letting his stadium get rented out, but I don't see them trying to price out Kroenke, and make it very easy for Spanos. The constitution doesn't read that way.

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.

Look at the end of the paragraph you quoted.

He has contact with his season ticket base, maybe not through him directly, but through the team

Given the question was pretty much "How concerned are you that Kroenke hasn't said anything to St Louis and isn't working with them, that's essentially the commissioner correcting him and saying "No, he has had contact with the city and has been working with them." Demoff has been there for the entire thing, he was even there for the focus groups, there for meetings, and it's well known he is Kroenke's eyes and ears. While the city and state have tried to push the narrative that Kroenke isn't giving them crap, the NFL doesn't appear to buy it. They've said before they're pleased, they've said before that what is going on in St Louis isn't a new issue. Kroenke doesn't personally need to sit his ass down there, he has someone to do that for him. Demoff knows what Kroenke wants, that's why he's there, that's his job.

Essentially Goodell has said he's pleased with everyone's progress (St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, Kroenke, Spanos, Davis), and that everyone needs to just keep working. Meaning he hasn't really said anything at all.

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

The article first states they can do it, from Fabiani, who works for Spanos, which of course he says that. Then Grubman says that a Carson project could get the loan if they met certain criteria.

According to the Field of Schemes website, which is all about stadium:

"The project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club's 'home territory.'" That's in keeping with the old G-3 plan's goal of aiding teams in building new stadiums in their existing hometowns (to avoid the kind of city-hopping that gave us the St. Louis Rams and Tennessee Titans). Still, it's worth noting that this means the Minnesota Vikings, for example, can access $200 million in G-4 loans for a new stadium in Minnesota, but not for one in, say, Los Angeles.

Now they could change the rules to give them the loan, or they can rule the Chargers may use it if they decided that LA is part of their 'home territory', which honestly is pretty dumb because LA and San Diego aren't... However you said that the NFL has already given them the go ahead, which it's wrong. They could give them the okay, which means they change the rules, allowing anyone to use the G-4 program for relocating help.

In terms of financing, of course Goldman Sachs say it's viable, that is literally their job. The doubts have come from the outside. Going back to Field of Schemes editor:

Neil deMause, editor of Field of Schemes, a website that tracks stadium subsidies, said that while he’s skeptical of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s ability to finance a stadium in Inglewood, he’s even more skeptical that the Chargers and Raiders will be able to find $1.7 billion for one in Carson.

“This seems extremely dubious,” he said. “That’s a crazy amount of money.”

He estimated the two teams could raise $400 million to $500 million selling personal seat licenses, and that while two teams might get more than one on naming rights and other in-stadium revenue, they wouldn't get double. And league bylaws say teams can’t tap the NFL’s G4 stadium loan program – which could provide $200 million – if they’re relocating. That could change, but a majority of owners would have to agree.

“It makes way more sense that this is a bluff,” he said.

These two teams need to essentially raise at least 2 billion dollars (1.7 with the stadium, 150 million for relocation, which is being very friendly if they're thinking 500 million), the financing just doesn't make sense from two very cash strapped teams. They probably need to sell of sizable portions of their team to make it work, and I just don't really see it. Maybe they do manage it, but I'm not seeing it. Especially since these projects tend to get more expensive as they develop.

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

I've never said the NFL should leave the St Louis market, in fact I've stated they should really do everything they can to ensure they keep the market. I've always said that if one market is left without a team it should be Oakland.

If we're talking about pure TV market size, then LA is obviously the most attractive. St Louis is the least attractive (again in terms of TV market size) but that doesn't necessarily matter to the NFL, and Oakland is most likely below St Louis if not for the fact that they lump Oakland, San Joe, and San Francisco all in one as the Bay Area. However what this means is that area already has a team, the 49ers, there to fill the gap lost. While it's not a perfect solution, at least the NFL has something there already.

However if you look at Carson, the project at face value, offers far less than the Inglewood project, and that translates to pure dollar potential. Kroenke is also going about it without needing to borrow any money from the league, and they have more incentive to work there given the various different venues that can hold different events.

Naturally if the Inglewood project happens, then the Rams leave St Louis, which is why I think it's in the best interest in the league to see if they can't get Davis to move to St Louis. Again, this isn't a perfect solution, especially to Rams fans in St Louis who don't want the Raiders, but it does get a team in that market, and gets the more attractive LA project built.

The NFL has stated they want to make 25 billion dollars annually by 2027, which they are behind on that mark. The Inglewood project helps them reach that goal much easier than Carson does. Plain and simple it's a more attractive venue.

Now that doesn't mean that it's definitely going to happen, but I don't think that the NFL is going to try to tank the project, especially because it may open them up court cases.

 

[drasconis]

It's written that they have wiggle room, it doesn't say that they can or plan on making the relocation fee different if teams are trying to do the exact same thing (I.E. be the first team to set up shop in LA)... Now they can reduce the fee if say a team wanted to be the second team to set up shop (therefore a relocation fee to LA would be less for team B than team A) or have a different fee if a team were to move elsewhere to another city. That's where they have specific wiggle room that they defined in their constitution. So if they were to approach Kroenke and say "Well we want you to pay X amount of dollars to set up shop in LA" and it's a pretty unreasonable number but then tell Spanos that if he wanted to go there (again under the same circumstances, I.E. be the first guy to go and set up shop) for far less money, I get the feeling that Kroenke would have a good case. Other owners probably don't like that type of precedent being set either. I can see them giving Kroenke a slightly higher relocation fee, because he's planning on letting his stadium get rented out, but I don't see them trying to price out Kroenke, and make it very easy for Spanos. The constitution doesn't read that way.
.

The full list is here:
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/webcontent/lrl/issues/FootballStadium/NFLFranchiseRelocationRules.pdf

based on the list the relocation fee can be very different for two different teams trying to relocate to the same location. Consider the factors such as 7 and 8 where the Raiders would NOT be leaving a vacuum and it could be argued their relcoation would have limited negative revenue effect on the league (i.e. Rams leave STL +25K ticket sales - loss 1/2 STL TV ratings vs. Raiders leaving OAK +50K sales (this assumes some ticket holder switch to SF) minimal local TV ratings lose...not saying this is case or even how league would see it, but this is the sort of evgaluation that would allow them to charge the Rams a much larger relocation fee). I agree it can be argued in court, not sure how that would turn out.

Now they could change the rules to give them the loan, or they can rule the Chargers may use it if they decided that LA is part of their 'home territory', which honestly is pretty dumb because LA and San Diego aren't... However you said that the NFL has already given them the go ahead, which it's wrong. They could give them the okay, which means they change the rules, allowing anyone to use the G-4 program for relocating help..

It really depends on how the league views the teams arguments, both Chargers and Raiders have made a case that LA is a "home" market for them. I agree that it is up to the league if they agree with that argument, but both have gone out of their way to make such an argument, both in public statements and actions (note that the Rams can make no argument here that I can see...the argument that they were based there 20 years ago isn't viable. Their move was express abandonment and there relocation documents make this clear.)

The NFL has stated they want to make 25 billion dollars annually by 2027, which they are behind on that mark. The Inglewood project helps them reach that goal much easier than Carson does. Plain and simple it's a more attractive venue.

Why would Inglewood help them reach that goal better than Carson? I get that Kronenke can make more on his project than the other owners would make on Carson, but those are due to revenue streams that are not part of the league (local development). NFL revenues are going to be based off of tickets sold and TV revenues. The stadium seating would be about equal so that is a wash, and not sure how Inglewood would provide better TV ratings than Carson? Both can hold similar events (SB and such). I see it as a wash between the two venues.


On another note, I guess as a fan the irksome thing about Kroenke is the silence (while I know it his style). Compare him to every other stadium situation...has the team even publicly said they want/need a new venue. I realize their actions all point that way (but they really make no public statements). Every other similar situation the owners make it clear about needing a new stadium and how the community needs to step up. Look at Raiders, SD, Vikings, Falcons, even Miami. The teams make this need public and clear and do it repeatedly. That is the difference here, the ownership has been sooo quiet...yes we all knew there was this undercurrent, but based on recent history it seemed like we would have time as fans to work on it. I realize that things/conversations may have happened behind the scenes but when those go poorly owners always go public with the need. It feels like Kroenke skipped straight through that to the nuclear option. Honestly that is what makes this feel like Kroenke hasn't acted in good faith. Once again not saying things did not go on in background, it just seems like he is playing by different rules than other owners/teams. part of me applauds him for going outside the box and not being limited to doing what others do, the other part of me is feels like he is violating the heart of the rules if not their exact wording (ala the pats).

 

[dieterbrock]

The loan comes from the NFL, not the owners.

I didn't say otherwise. The NFL doesn't give the loan unless the owner puts skin in the game. To get the full 200 mill loan, the owner needs to put up at least 200 mill of his own. If said owner also has to pony up relocation fee, that's a lot of dough

 

[bluecoconuts]

It really depends on how the league views the teams arguments, both Chargers and Raiders have made a case that LA is a "home" market for them. I agree that it is up to the league if they agree with that argument, but both have gone out of their way to make such an argument, both in public statements and actions (note that the Rams can make no argument here that I can see...the argument that they were based there 20 years ago isn't viable. Their move was express abandonment and there relocation documents make this clear.)

If the Raiders could, so could Stan. I can see the Chargers trying to to make that argument based on season ticket holders, but no way the Raiders can, not anymore than the Rams could. They did the same exact thing, and spent far less time there.

Why would Inglewood help them reach that goal better than Carson? I get that Kronenke can make more on his project than the other owners would make on Carson, but those are due to revenue streams that are not part of the league (local development). NFL revenues are going to be based off of tickets sold and TV revenues. The stadium seating would be about equal so that is a wash, and not sure how Inglewood would provide better TV ratings than Carson? Both can hold similar events (SB and such). I see it as a wash between the two venues.

The Inglewood project, by pure looks is nicer, but the fact its part of a larger project and not just a stadium is what puts it over the edge. They have a venue that is perfect to host the NFL draft, far easier for Super Bowl events with the large park, and with that roof advertising (which I personally don't care for) screams big bucks for a Super Bowl. Plus they don't need to drop in any cash to help get the thing built. They have expressed they want to do LA "right" and this definitely does it right. Plus there's no worry about building or extra preventive measures as Carson has to undergo due to being built on a former dump. They need take extra steps so there's not toxic air. Not a huge concern overall though.

On another note, I guess as a fan the irksome thing about Kroenke is the silence (while I know it his style). Compare him to every other stadium situation...has the team even publicly said they want/need a new venue. I realize their actions all point that way (but they really make no public statements). Every other similar situation the owners make it clear about needing a new stadium and how the community needs to step up. Look at Raiders, SD, Vikings, Falcons, even Miami. The teams make this need public and clear and do it repeatedly. That is the difference here, the ownership has been sooo quiet...yes we all knew there was this undercurrent, but based on recent history it seemed like we would have time as fans to work on it. I realize that things/conversations may have happened behind the scenes but when those go poorly owners always go public with the need. It feels like Kroenke skipped straight through that to the nuclear option. Honestly that is what makes this feel like Kroenke hasn't acted in good faith. Once again not saying things did not go on in background, it just seems like he is playing by different rules than other owners/teams. part of me applauds him for going outside the box and not being limited to doing what others do, the other part of me is feels like he is violating the heart of the rules if not their exact wording (ala the pats).

Kroenke has always been silent, so its not new. The Rams already waived the top ten requirement in 2005, so its not like the city didn't know it was coming up. Everyone knew that it was coming in 2015, I mean back after the lease was initially signed you had to have known you'd need to work at it. Maybe the city didn't think he would leave, but they didn't hold up their end of the deal and the Rams already gave them a pass 10 years ago, so how can they seriously act like its a huge shock when after 10 years they still haven't upheld their end of the deal? I get its a bit unreasonable, but that was the deal the city offered, and then they failed to live up to it. That's how these things go. There was time, the city just decided to sit around instead of work. Now it could very well be too late. There was signs years ago, and the city kind of farted around, and finally got serious recently, after Kroenke was already making his moves.

But Kroenke has still worked with the task force, maybe its just for appearances, but he's not having Demoff trash talk the project, which is good. I don't think he needs to sit there personally or officially announce anything. Everyone knows they need a new place to live, the Dome is among the 10 worst venues in the US. Everyone knows he's looking at LA. Why does he need to officially say it?

 

[Hacksaw]

Interesting discussion, but does anyone here really think the Stan Kroenke hasn't already done all the math?

 

[Legatron4]

Interesting discussion, but does anyone here really think the Stan Kroenke hasn't already done all the math?

No, he's obviously very intelligent. That's why he's a billionaire. But I don't think its wrong to question why he's doing this with the above being true. The guy has so much money that his great grandchildren won't have to work a day in their life. Stan is 65 years old. Theres nothing left to him to gain in life. Idk about you, but I don't wanna die knowing hundreds of thousands of people hate me where I made a living and grew up. Something about having morals is more important to me.

 

[drasconis]

If the Raiders could, so could Stan. I can see the Chargers trying to to make that argument based on season ticket holders, but no way the Raiders can, not anymore than the Rams could. They did the same exact thing, and spent far less time there.

I am not saying it isa winning argument, but it could be made. The Raiders move was made with out any resolution (the rams were the 1995 G-4 resolution) and have publicly kept a line of ownership (though they did lose a 1991 case). Like I say not saying it is a winning argument, just saying they have at least done things to keep the connection...

The Inglewood project, by pure looks is nicer, but the fact its part of a larger project and not just a stadium is what puts it over the edge. They have a venue that is perfect to host the NFL draft, far easier for Super Bowl events with the large park, and with that roof advertising (which I personally don't care for) screams big bucks for a Super Bowl. Plus they don't need to drop in any cash to help get the thing built. They have expressed they want to do LA "right" and this definitely does it right. Plus there's no worry about building or extra preventive measures as Carson has to undergo due to being built on a former dump. They need take extra steps so there's not toxic air. Not a huge concern overall though.

Still not sure how this is making the NFL more money....the NFL draft is going out for bid and getting all sort of freebies from communities including the theater for the event so not sure how they can make more in Kroenke's place unless the city is going to kick in serious help (note that this is what Chicago did). Superbowls will happen anyway and make huge bucks, not certain that LA ones will make them more money. The fact is it is unlikely to host more than 2 in 10 years (which is the current trend) as they will continue to use this a carrot for stadium improvements around the league. Once again they get tons of freebies form the local communities for this event so not sure how they will make more at this location than others without help form the city/county. Yes the staidum is a bit larger so more tickets sold, but at the end of the day that isn't going to be significant in hitting their goals, for comparision how often are they going to Dallas (which is the largest stadium)?

The roof advertising is nice, but not sure the NFL gets a cut of that (i know there share TV revenue, but I did not think they shared stadium naming money or internal advertising money), or in the end how much that is worth, I guess it makes for a nice blimp shot but not sure anyone knows what the real $ that will make.

As far as doing it right, hard to believe that the Carson project with its budget wouldn't be doing it "right".

 

[bluecoconuts]

I am not saying it isa winning argument, but it could be made. The Raiders move was made with out any resolution (the rams were the 1995 G-4 resolution) and have publicly kept a line of ownership (though they did lose a 1991 case). Like I say not saying it is a winning argument, just saying they have at least done things to keep the connection...

What have they done to keep a connection to LA? I don't see that argument, and if the NFL were to claim that the Rams abandoned tjr market, therefore don't deserve it, but the Raiders didn't, my guess is Kroenke counters with, "I'm just doing right by what YOU wanted, therefore I'm just as entitled."

I just can't imagine the argument bring made let alone flying. Right now the LA market is empty, no the has a claim to it, and I don't see the NFL backing away and saying suddenly someone does.

Still not sure how this is making the NFL more money....the NFL draft is going out for bid and getting all sort of freebies from communities including the theater for the event so not sure how they can make more in Kroenke's place unless the city is going to kick in serious help (note that this is what Chicago did). Superbowls will happen anyway and make huge bucks, not certain that LA ones will make them more money. The fact is it is unlikely to host more than 2 in 10 years (which is the current trend) as they will continue to use this a carrot for stadium improvements around the league. Once again they get tons of freebies form the local communities for this event so not sure how they will make more at this location than others without help form the city/county. Yes the staidum is a bit larger so more tickets sold, but at the end of the day that isn't going to be significant in hitting their goals, for comparision how often are they going to Dallas (which is the largest stadium)?

The roof advertising is nice, but not sure the NFL gets a cut of that (i know there share TV revenue, but I did not think they shared stadium naming money or internal advertising money), or in the end how much that is worth, I guess it makes for a nice blimp shot but not sure anyone knows what the real $ that will make.

He can throw in extra incentive in terms of dollars if he wanted, cut of the ad revenue, etc. Plus just more exposure, but the fact that he's part of the venue, means they can hold different events without needing to set up a million different things with a million different people. I don't know the details of how it all works, but I'm sure it's complicated, so having less people to work with probably simplifies things a little. Extra seats does mean extra money though, and I do think that sponsorships and other things do go back to the NFL. Again, not needing to pony up 400 million also helps.

As far as doing it right, hard to believe that the Carson project with its budget wouldn't be doing it "right".

Well Carson is just a stadium, Inglewood is much more. Very similar to LA Live, which has been huge in LA and makes it a far better fan and team experience. Restaurants, shops, etc, it draws crowds better. So yeah, Carson can work, but Inglewood probably does it better. Nicer venue, more things to do around it, it all makes for a better fan experience. That's what draws crowds out instead of staying home. That's what draws away fans to the games more, how you attract the casual fan, or the nonfan. Offer more than just a stadium, offer an experience.

 

[iced]

Look at the end of the paragraph you quoted.

Yet you skipped over the obvious.. Directly from Goodell "Well, we certainly have had that conversation with the governor on several occasions."

If Kroenke was really acting in the good faith that you're suggesting, then I don't see how having any of those conversations let alone multiple times would be necessary.

The article first states they can do it, from Fabiani, who works for Spanos, which of course he says that.

Well then I guess we shouldn't believe anything Demoff says since he works for Kroenke?

Now they could change the rules to give them the loan, or they can rule the Chargers may use it if they decided that LA is part of their 'home territory', which honestly is pretty dumb because LA and San Diego aren't... However you said that the NFL has already given them the go ahead, which it's wrong. They could give them the okay, which means they change the rules, allowing anyone to use the G-4 program for relocating help.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a change - and I could easily see the argument for San Diego since they've been trying for 14 years to get a stadium done

I've never said the NFL should leave the St Louis market, in fact I've stated they should really do everything they can to ensure they keep the market. I've always said that if one market is left without a team it should be Oakland.

Understandable - but the idea of the Chargers or Raiders relocating to St.Louis doesn't at any point truly sound like a realistic option. (Especially with how broke those 2 teams are - hard for them to imagine moving here if they can't even move to Carson as some suggest).. So yea, if the Rams are removed, you would be pulling them out of the market. I agree with you in that if anyone should lose a team it's Oakland - but any equation that removes a team from St.Louis would be stupid to the NFL..Would be an untapped market that obviously supports shitty teams, but I would imagine most of their money comes the TV contracts and advertising.

If we're talking about pure TV market size, then LA is obviously the most attractive. St Louis is the least attractive (again in terms of TV market size) but that doesn't necessarily matter to the NFL, and Oakland is most likely below St Louis if not for the fact that they lump Oakland, San Joe, and San Francisco all in one as the Bay Area. However what this means is that area already has a team, the 49ers, there to fill the gap lost. While it's not a perfect solution, at least the NFL has something there already.

It's not about pure market size or one owner. It's about how much money, all of the owners, collectively can make. Which is why I think the Riverfront stadium and Carson stadium will yield more money than the Inglewood stadium. 2 markets means 2 different stadiums, ticket prices, television Revenue, advertising, etc. everything that goes in with having a team in one market and a team in another market.

Naturally if the Inglewood project happens, then the Rams leave St Louis, which is why I think it's in the best interest in the league to see if they can't get Davis to move to St Louis. Again, this isn't a perfect solution, especially to Rams fans in St Louis who don't want the Raiders, but it does get a team in that market, and gets the more attractive LA project built.

Would Davis even want to move to St.Louis? He flirted with moving to San Antonio and nothing ever came of that.

Now that doesn't mean that it's definitely going to happen, but I don't think that the NFL is going to try to tank the project, especially because it may open them up court cases.

I don't know about tank the project but the NFL has made it pretty clear that they want to be the ones in control and continually have their thumped chest about it. But if the NFL feels the Rams are best off in St.Louis (really only if the Riverfront plan comes through) and Raiders/Chargers in LA, thats where I could see them making it difficult/more expensive for them to move vs anyone else...I also think this is the scenario where the NFL makes the most money..you got two teams in a giant market and maintain the St.Louis market

The funny part about this part of the conversation? This is all contingent on Stan even getting all the votes to move the team. I'd rather cross that bridge first and see what happens with the stadium - which according to the NFL and other owners if we can get that done we shouldn't have to worry about losing our team

 

[drasconis]

What have they done to keep a connection to LA? I don't see that argument, and if the NFL were to claim that the Rams abandoned tjr market, therefore don't deserve it, but the Raiders didn't, my guess is Kroenke counters with, "I'm just doing right by what YOU wanted, therefore I'm just as entitled."
I just can't imagine the argument bring made let alone flying. Right now the LA market is empty, no the has a claim to it, and I don't see the NFL backing away and saying suddenly someone does..

I didn't say it would fly, just that it at lest gets off the ground. If (and this a BIG if) the NFL decided to waive the relocation fee for Raider but not the Rams...the league and the could argue that the Raiders did keep contact there and never revoked there attachment (everything the Raiders have done since moving makes this claim). Going down the path of "doing right by you" is irrelavent argument to this...he would need to prove their reasoning is completely illogical (arbitrary and capricous would be more exact term).
Now if it was the Raiders suing to avoid paying relocation fee I doubt they would win...it likely would not get thorugh out of court...but it seems like a lossing effort (especially based on the 91 case...not that set president since it wasn't appealed up).

He can throw in extra incentive in terms of dollars if he wanted, cut of the ad revenue, etc. Plus just more exposure, but the fact that he's part of the venue, means they can hold different events without needing to set up a million different things with a million different people. I don't know the details of how it all works, but I'm sure it's complicated, so having less people to work with probably simplifies things a little. .

Your missing what is being tossed in, it goes way beyond the venue...it is everything from hotels rooms and restaurant reservations to private access to tourist sites and police presence during the event. That certainly that isn't something he can just do...I guess he can offer to spearhead it...but everything the NFL has done for years says that they believe bidding these things out makes them the most money (they don't actually do much work, the bidding communities do).

Extra seats does mean extra money though, and I do think that sponsorships and other things do go back to the NFL. Again, not needing to pony up 400 million also helps.

If it was just aobut the seat # only the largest stadiums would hold the events, the NFL will continue to rotate the events aorund to get communities to spend money, nothing they have done implies they want to or will make a single venue default if they can avoid it. Heck they want to make the pro-bowl a rotational bidd event, the NFLPA has fought with them over this.

In stadium revenue such as advertising and refreshments are NOT shared - I guess he can if he wants...but if he does that then he makes less....sooooo

The 400 million may be factor not sure, the NFL would have to figure that, but it is a loan to themselves...so the only cost is opportunity lost cost...depending on what that is or what that balances out with (note that stadium construction cost to the NFL was a factor owners used in negotiations with the union in slary cap...so maybe that 400mil actually helps the league keep salary cap lower depending how it goes into the books).
I agree though this is a big factor for the NFL to consider.

Well Carson is just a stadium, Inglewood is much more. Very similar to LA Live, which has been huge in LA and makes it a far better fan and team experience. Restaurants, shops, etc, it draws crowds better. So yeah, Carson can work, but Inglewood probably does it better. Nicer venue, more things to do around it, it all makes for a better fan experience. That's what draws crowds out instead of staying home. That's what draws away fans to the games more, how you attract the casual fan, or the nonfan. Offer more than just a stadium, offer an experience.

Not sure I agree with this. The stadiums have nearly equal cost so they should in theory be equal. I get that Inglewood has plans to do things around the stadium, but the fact is a new stadium will automatically draw in such businesses. Fans will be drawn into the stadium experience but that will/should be equal (since cost is same). What will be around Inglewood that won't be around Carson? I know they may have plans for businesses but those will come to both locations. At this point it would actually be more viable at Carson, since as thing stand NOW it can be assumed both sites can hold the same events (final 4/concerts - once agian we are spending same on both stadiums) and as it stands Carson is planning on 2 teams which means 20 dates a year (plus double your post season chances) vs. Inlewood which is only 10.

 

[RAMbler]

I didn't say otherwise. The NFL doesn't give the loan unless the owner puts skin in the game. To get the full 200 mill loan, the owner needs to put up at least 200 mill of his own. If said owner also has to pony up relocation fee, that's a lot of dough

.....and who is on the hook for the "loan" amount? The owner. So now his "skin in the game" is not just 200 mil, but the additional 200 mil which can be paid off over 15 years (IIRC).

 

[dieterbrock]

.....and who is on the hook for the "loan" amount? The owner. So now his "skin in the game" is not just 200 mil, but the additional 200 mil which can be paid off over 15 years (IIRC).

Point being that if Raiders are cash strapped, on top of 200 mill needed for G4 eligibility, they may need significant relocation $$.

 

[ChrisW]

.....and who is on the hook for the "loan" amount? The owner. So now his "skin in the game" is not just 200 mil, but the additional 200 mil which can be paid off over 15 years (IIRC).

In 1999 the NFL launched a loan program for teams to help them fund stadium renovation and new construction projects. Loans made through the program carried a 15-year term, Spector said, adding that the loans were made at the market interest rate. The teams either repay the loans or the league can forgive a prorated portion of a team's loan each year in exchange for the team not moving to another city or being sold to other owners, he said.

http://www.taxanalysts.com/www/features.nsf/Articles/F0E1DC440C69E6A785257C2E006AEE33?OpenDocument

 

[RamFan503]

I think it's interesting that the relocation # has come down to $500 million from many saying it could be as much as a billion. Truth is that no one really knows how much the NFL will require nor what criteria they will actually use to determine it. It appears that they could make it higher for the Rams if they wanted to because they are potentially leaving a bigger void in a geographical area than the other two if they move.

But if the Inglewood stadium is viewed by the NFL owners as their ideal fit for the LA market, they could even make it lower than the others. Just as they could say the Rams are leaving a void in a regional market, they could say the same about Oak and SD. They could also determine that the viability and long term stability of the Inglewood project is greater than any of the other projects thus guaranteeing them a more secure and long term revenue stream coming from a market they openly want to fill while keeping the LA leverage ploy in full force. Hell - they could even make it less so long as Stan leaves it open for another team to move into the market. How much is it worth to the owners to have an existing facility in LA to hold over the cities where teams want a new stadium? Maybe let 50% of the fee kick in if Stan lets another team move in? Who really knows?

I find it a little hard to swallow that the Raiduhs could make any sort of argument that they have held onto the LA market any more than the Rams have. I just don't see that playing in any scenario. And as far as the unlikelihood of the Raiduhs moving half way across the country because they are cash strapped. The Rams were cash strapped when they decided to move against NFL wishes. If Stan or someone else hadn't stepped in, they supposedly wouldn't have been able to make the move. Somehow, I still think they would have found a way. The lease being offered was just too sweet to let it get away.

I'm not sure how revenues get shared with a Superbowl but I have to think the idea of 80,000 fans attending a Superbowl is pretty appealing regardless of how much direct revenues it receives. I suspect they do receive a cut though and having 15,000 extra seats isn't exactly chump change at SB pricing.

Still - in all of this - the wild card is St Louis crossing their Ts and dotting their Is. I still think that if they can get it all put together in a timely manner, the Rams stay in the Lou and IMO probably should.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yet you skipped over the obvious.. Directly from Goodell "Well, we certainly have had that conversation with the governor on several occasions."

If Kroenke was really acting in the good faith that you're suggesting, then I don't see how having any of those conversations let alone multiple times would be necessary.

Having the conversations doesn't mean that they (the NFL) don't think he's acting in good faith. They could have directed Demoff to be more involved, or they simply could have said that's okay. The statement simply says they have talked to Nixon, it doesn't say that they have agreed and don't like it, doesn't say anything about how they feel. Just because they spoke to Nixon several times doesn't mean they're displeased either. For all we know Nixon keeps saying "Kroenke isn't talking to us!' And Goodell is saying "Demoff is, and that's okay." Zero specification there.

Well then I guess we shouldn't believe anything Demoff says since he works for Kroenke?

I wouldn't to a certain degree. That doesn't mean he's a bad guy, but he's got a job to do.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a change - and I could easily see the argument for San Diego since they've been trying for 14 years to get a stadium done

I think what will worry them is the idea of setting a precedent that the G-4 loan is also for relocation reasons.

Understandable - but the idea of the Chargers or Raiders relocating to St.Louis doesn't at any point truly sound like a realistic option. (Especially with how broke those 2 teams are - hard for them to imagine moving here if they can't even move to Carson as some suggest).. So yea, if the Rams are removed, you would be pulling them out of the market. I agree with you in that if anyone should lose a team it's Oakland - but any equation that removes a team from St.Louis would be stupid to the NFL..Would be an untapped market that obviously supports crappy teams, but I would imagine most of their money comes the TV contracts and advertising.

I don't think the Chargers would look to relocate, but I can see the Raiders doing it. It would be cheaper for them to relocate to St Louis than to Oakland.

It's not about pure market size or one owner. It's about how much money, all of the owners, collectively can make. Which is why I think the Riverfront stadium and Carson stadium will yield more money than the Inglewood stadium. 2 markets means 2 different stadiums, ticket prices, television Revenue, advertising, etc. everything that goes in with having a team in one market and a team in another market.

Inglewood and the Riverfront would yield more than Riverfront and Carson. That assumes Kroenke is willing to build the riverfront if he feels scorned by the league. Inglewood also opens up the possibility of three new stadiums, Carson maxes out at two. Three obviously brings in more. Those are risks and rewards the NFL will need to account for.

Would Davis even want to move to St.Louis? He flirted with moving to San Antonio and nothing ever came of that.

I don't know, I don't think it would be his first option, but I think if LA is taken then he would seriously consider it. Looking at what Davis seems to want in a stadium, it's cheap, small, and simple. That is the Riverfront stadium. The Carson stadium is expensive (it'll require twice as much money), big, and complex, and then he has to share the market. If Kroenke moves to LA, then it's unlikely that he splits with him (if anyone splits it's probably the Chargers) so then that leaves Oakland, St Louis, or another unnamed location. I agree with most, that Oakland is unlikely, so then St Louis is the obvious choice. Raiders need a fresh start, and that's what St Louis gives them. New revenue from merchandise, new stadium, etc. If it happens, I don't know, but I think he's more likely to go for it than Spanos.

don't know about tank the project but the NFL has made it pretty clear that they want to be the ones in control and continually have their thumped chest about it. But if the NFL feels the Rams are best off in St.Louis (really only if the Riverfront plan comes through) and Raiders/Chargers in LA, thats where I could see them making it difficult/more expensive for them to move vs anyone else...I also think this is the scenario where the NFL makes the most money..you got two teams in a giant market and maintain the St.Louis market

I think they will back whoever they feel brings them the best results, therefore they can say they controlled the process. Controlling the process however did nothing for them, they couldn't get it done. One way or another, Kroenke got it done.

he league and the could argue that the Raiders did keep contact there and never revoked there attachment (everything the Raiders have done since moving makes this claim).

How so?

Your missing what is being tossed in, it goes way beyond the venue...it is everything from hotels rooms and restaurant reservations to private access to tourist sites and police presence during the event. That certainly that isn't something he can just do...I guess he can offer to spearhead it...but everything the NFL has done for years says that they believe bidding these things out makes them the most money (they don't actually do much work, the bidding communities do).

The City of Champions project has hotels, restaurants, and it's far closer to tourist sites than Carson is, meaning better access. While no, he wouldn't be in direct control over it, he'd have more of a say in those things, and would be able to help more. I guess if the NFL would rather a bidding war between different venues, then it doesn't matter.

In stadium revenue such as advertising and refreshments are NOT shared - I guess he can if he wants...but if he does that then he makes less....sooooo

I meant more in terms of the Super Bowl. I don't know how that works, but I'm guessing the NFL gets a nice cut from that. Imagine the tens of millions of dollars, even potentially over 100 million dollars they can get from that stupid roof advertisement.

Not sure I agree with this. The stadiums have nearly equal cost so they should in theory be equal. I get that Inglewood has plans to do things around the stadium, but the fact is a new stadium will automatically draw in such businesses. Fans will be drawn into the stadium experience but that will/should be equal (since cost is same). What will be around Inglewood that won't be around Carson? I know they may have plans for businesses but those will come to both locations. At this point it would actually be more viable at Carson, since as thing stand NOW it can be assumed both sites can hold the same events (final 4/concerts - once agian we are spending same on both stadiums) and as it stands Carson is planning on 2 teams which means 20 dates a year (plus double your post season chances) vs. Inlewood which is only 10.

They have a similar cost, but they are not equal. Yes, a new stadium will attract people initially, but over the long term, having more things will keep the casual fans coming back. This is consistent to the NFL expressing their desires for long term stability and viability. Plus just the stadium alone, going of the pictures the Inglewood project is just nicer. I don't know why, I get the feeling that the Carson project costs more because it requires extra work, and has extra costs. They need to do some plastic thing in terms of keeping the air from leaking toxic waste (I think they need to redo it so it can handle the weight of the stadium and such) and then there's the yearly cost of maintaining that, and I'm assuming they'll need to pay Goldman Sachs for their services, etc. I don't know how the cost breaks down, I just know it's iffy that they can both do it, and despite being similar in price to Inglewood, the stadium does not look to be equal. Both individually, and especially when you look at the bigger picture.

 

[rams2050]

Kroenke is 67 years old, not 65. He will be 68 in July, 2015.

He will forever be remembered, in Missouri, for having moved the Rams to L.A. (if, in fact, that is what he does). Not the type of legacy one would want in his home state, I would think. But then, what do I know?)

 

[Legatron4]

Kroenke is 67 years old, not 65. He will be 68 in July, 2015.

He will forever be remembered, in Missouri, for having moved the Rams to L.A. (if, in fact, that is what he does). Not the type of legacy one would want in his home state, I would think. But then, what do I know?)

Exactly. That's why this whole thing is a little screwy. It just doesn't seem like something someone would logically do and destroy everything he's built. He will see exactly zero dollars from this by the time he's dead. St.Louis has the potential to be an incredible venue. Maybe the best in the NFL. I would take pride in the fact that I could take a lower level city and make it huge. Instead of dry humping the economy in an already profitable community.

 

[blue4]

Kroenke is 67 years old, not 65. He will be 68 in July, 2015.

He will forever be remembered, in Missouri, for having moved the Rams to L.A. (if, in fact, that is what he does). Not the type of legacy one would want in his home state, I would think. But then, what do I know?)

Doubt he cares. Even Dierdorf has said that's probably not going to be any factor in his decision.

Exactly. That's why this whole thing is a little screwy. It just doesn't seem like something someone would logically do and destroy everything he's built. He will see exactly zero dollars from this by the time he's dead. St.Louis has the potential to be an incredible venue. Maybe the best in the NFL. I would take pride in the fact that I could take a lower level city and make it huge. Instead of dry humping the economy in an already profitable community.

I've wondered how he planned to see any money from this before death as well. But many have mentioned that he wants to leave solid financial legacies in place for his kids.

You know, sometimes the billions you have just aren't enough to fall back on.

 

[Hacksaw]

Kroenke is 67 years old, not 65. He will be 68 in July, 2015.

He will forever be remembered, in Missouri, for having moved the Rams to L.A. (if, in fact, that is what he does). Not the type of legacy one would want in his home state, I would think. But then, what do I know?)

Up to 5mm Misouri STATE residents might hate him but 15mm LA fans (and surrouning COUNTIES) are going to love him. and that's not counting the other 20 million California residents. mo love mo betta