New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RAMbler]

Because that's the way most of the new stadiums are being built these days. The city must be willing to pay a for a portion of the stadium, not ALL of the stadium. We are talking about the NFL bylaws in that an owner isn't supposed to be able to move his team just for financial gain and if the home city is talking about ponying up damn near half of the bill then that kinda goes against the "exhausting all options" with the current city thing they keep talking about. You think the city is supposed to cover the entire cost of the stadium? We have already received quotes from an owner stating that if a city is willing to get their half of a stadium funded then the NFL has an obligation to keep their product in that city. What's so hard to understand about that? Examples of new stadiums being built with "HALF publicly funded" money:

Minnesota Vikings: Public funds: $498 million Vikings contribution: $529 million

20-30% of the Falcons' new stadium is to be financed by the public, even.

Again, it's all about a city doing its part to keep a team. Everyone in this thread has gone back and forth on their beliefs regarding whether the owners will abide by the bylaws, but it is what is is. If the city of St. Louis nails down their portion of public funding, then it will make it hard for the NFL to just let the Rams leave as the city did what they were supposed to do. Then the question will be if they will turn their back on the city or honor their bylaws which is anyone's guess.

RAMbler, your post seems to suggest that the NFL is choosing between the Inglewood and Stl Stadium projects, and that isn't correct at all. If they are choosing between projects it would be Inglewood and Carson. St. Louis is just proving that they are willing to fund their half of the stadium in order to keep the team here and that is all the NFL is looking for from them along with fan support. Not that hard to understand, Chief.

This has nothing to do with what the Vikings or the Falcons have done. Neither of those teams came close to purchasing a stadium sized piece of property in a location the NFL has favored for a long time. Non of those teams (or any other) has joined forces with a financial giant and announced the "intention" to build a 'fully funded' 80,000 seat state of the art NFL stadium. Not even close (Carson is way behind).

Gotta stop looking in the past for a model. There really isn't one for the current situation. Kroenke is finally doing it right. The rich are paying the bill to make themselves filthy rich....., instead of getting half from tax payers towards the same end. And the same reason Nixon & Peacock are meeting political resistance. And 'no', I don't think the city should cover the entire cost. As a matter of fact, i think the high n mighty (and their rich friends) should cover the vast majority of the tab. But I don't make the rules.... they do (Capitalism American style).

I do not think the NFL is trying to choose between St Louis & LA at all. I think Kroenke has made the choice, and it happens to be the same thing the NFL has wanted. Back into the LA market....., in style...., and with the highest potential for success. Unfortunately for St Louis football fans, it just so happens to be the Rams owner who has the deepest pockets...., and the will to make this happen.

Look, I can see that those in charge are doing what they can to keep the NFL in St Louis. And I don't disagree with what they are trying to do. But I just don't put a lot of stock in NFL 'bylaws', and the whole "exhausting all options" thing. You do. Which is fine. I think they (being the exclusive club that they are) will always bend, adjust, and mold their 'bylaws' as they see fit. How many years has Kroenke owned professional franchises in separate markets?

It isn't that I find it hard to understand, Chief. I simply disagreed with the previous post.

No harm, no foul.

 

[brokeu91]

I hate to be pessimistic, but I think those of us from StL need to prepare for life without football. I don't think it's fair, definitely think it's against the bylaws, but I'm not sure it's going to matter. When Goodell and the rest put us on the same level as SD and Oakland at the owners meetings that indicates to me that fairness isn't going to come into play. Even if one counts negotiating between the CVC and the Rams (a negotiation neither side tried very hard to bring to a result); it's still at least half the time those other cities have been trying to build. Yet somehow we're on the same level of urgency to keep the team according to Goodell. At the end of the day money is going to win the day. As you said yourself, they're going to fill LA.

I can understand the need to "prepare" for life without the NFL, but I just don't see it happening. By all reports St. Louis is getting it's act together and is much further along than San Diego/Oakland and has what appears to be a much more viable plan. I don't see the NFL abandoning the market if it puts up a legit stadium proposal

 

[blue4]

I can understand the need to "prepare" for life without the NFL, but I just don't see it happening. By all reports St. Louis is getting it's act together and is much further along than San Diego/Oakland and has what appears to be a much more viable plan. I don't see the NFL abandoning the market if it puts up a legit stadium proposal

I hope you are right. I go back and forth myself on it. But it's like some advice my dad gave me. "Just ask yourself, what's more likely." Is it more likely that STL completes the land purchase, gets approved by voters or the state government, lines up financials, gets Stan to answer the phone, makes it past Stan's lawyers, and talks him into putting in money? Or is it more likely than a bunch of billionaires scratch another billionaire's back and lets him move? I'm still pretty stuck on my number of 60% chance they move.

 

[iced]

I hate to be pessimistic, but I think those of us from StL need to prepare for life without football. I don't think it's fair, definitely think it's against the bylaws, but I'm not sure it's going to matter. When Goodell and the rest put us on the same level as SD and Oakland at the owners meetings that indicates to me that fairness isn't going to come into play. Even if one counts negotiating between the CVC and the Rams (a negotiation neither side tried very hard to bring to a result); it's still at least half the time those other cities have been trying to build. Yet somehow we're on the same level of urgency to keep the team according to Goodell. At the end of the day money is going to win the day. As you said yourself, they're going to fill LA.

I still think there's a better chance the Rams stay than they leave - it all hinges on the stadium deal and if it gets done. Right now St.Louis controls their own destiny

 

[myronjax]

If St. Louis gets this stadium proposal locked down, then the whole "exhaust all options" argument doesn't hold water-The stadium (proposed) is right there as proof that all the options weren't exhausted. It's a minor point in the grand scheme of this thing, but, nevertheless, a weak argument on the Rams part if they try to go there.

 

[dbrooks25]

This has nothing to do with what the Vikings or the Falcons have done. Neither of those teams came close to purchasing a stadium sized piece of property in a location the NFL has favored for a long time. Non of those teams (or any other) has joined forces with a financial giant and announced the "intention" to build a 'fully funded' 80,000 seat state of the art NFL stadium. Not even close (Carson is way behind).

Gotta stop looking in the past for a model. There really isn't one for the current situation. Kroenke is finally doing it right. The rich are paying the bill to make themselves filthy rich....., instead of getting half from tax payers towards the same end. And the same reason Nixon & Peacock are meeting political resistance. And 'no', I don't think the city should cover the entire cost. As a matter of fact, i think the high n mighty (and their rich friends) should cover the vast majority of the tab. But I don't make the rules.... they do (Capitalism American style).

I do not think the NFL is trying to choose between St Louis & LA at all. I think Kroenke has made the choice, and it happens to be the same thing the NFL has wanted. Back into the LA market....., in style...., and with the highest potential for success. Unfortunately for St Louis football fans, it just so happens to be the Rams owner who has the deepest pockets...., and the will to make this happen.

Look, I can see that those in charge are doing what they can to keep the NFL in St Louis. And I don't disagree with what they are trying to do. But I just don't put a lot of stock in NFL 'bylaws', and the whole "exhausting all options" thing. You do. Which is fine. I think they (being the exclusive club that they are) will always bend, adjust, and mold their 'bylaws' as they see fit. How many years has Kroenke owned professional franchises in separate markets?

It isn't that I find it hard to understand, Chief. I simply disagreed with the previous post.

No harm, no foul.

Nope, not even close to the argument. Your post suggested that the league would choose an Inglewood project that wouldn't require public money over an Stl project that will be half financed by the public. I pointed out two teams where their new stadiums are partially funded by their cities, not fully financed. I stated in my post that we have beaten the bylaws thing to death, and nobody knows how that will shake out. In short, the NFL isn't looking at a half public funded stadium vs the Inglewood stadium as you suggested in your previous post. That isn't hard to understand. Go through the articles and you will see the quote where an owner even says the NFL has an obiligation to keep the game in a city that has done its part in financing a new stadium. Spin that how you would like, but that means that a stadium partially funded by the public is good enough for them. I'm not even interested in going into that other stuff you mentioned as it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

 

[dbrooks25]

If St. Louis gets this stadium proposal locked down, then the whole "exhaust all options" argument doesn't hold water-The stadium (proposed) is right there as proof that all the options weren't exhausted. It's a minor point in the grand scheme of this thing, but, nevertheless, a weak argument on the Rams part if they try to go there.

Yep, but the NFL will bend the rules as they see fit. THAT is the number 1 problem as I fully expect the financing to get done. It could take a combination of the Stl stadium proposal getting done along with the Carson project getting its shit together. The owners not voting between the two proposals in May certainly gives them time to catch up.

 

[blue4]

I still think there's a better chance the Rams stay than they leave - it all hinges on the stadium deal and if it gets done. Right now St.Louis controls their own destiny

Let's hope you're right. They've already moved the goalposts a little by upping the timetable.

 

[Thordaddy]

The thing I hold out hope for is one of the few times Stan spoke to anyone about StL vs. LA is what he said to Peter King ,wherein he voiced his desire to be owner of a team that was as revered in their home city as the Steelers or the Cardinals.

That IMO is not possible in LA , not to diminish the fans of LA in any way but with two PAC teams the Lakers and the other pro teams adding the two LA NFL franchise model, just can't see the possibility to be there

 

[RAMbler]

Nope, not even close to the argument. Your post suggested that the league would choose an Inglewood project that wouldn't require public money over an Stl project that will be half financed by the public. I pointed out two teams where their new stadiums are partially funded by their cities, not fully financed. I stated in my post that we have beaten the bylaws thing to death, and nobody knows how that will shake out. In short, the NFL isn't looking at a half public funded stadium vs the Inglewood stadium as you suggested in your previous post. That isn't hard to understand. Go through the articles and you will see the quote where an owner even says the NFL has an obiligation to keep the game in a city that has done its part in financing a new stadium. Spin that how you would like, but that means that a stadium partially funded by the public is good enough for them. I'm not even interested in going into that other stuff you mentioned as it is irrelevant to the point I was trying to make.

What I'm saying is that IMO, the Vikings & Falcons situation were different in that those owners really wanted to stay in their current markets, and used LA for leverage. Stan wants LA. So the situation is apples & oranges. The NFL wants LA...., done right, Stan provide's that. Davis & Spanos cannot. You can spin that however you like. We just disagree man.

And we have both said...... "Yep, but the NFL will bend the rules as they see fit."

I believe the NFL wants LA bad enough to bend these rules at least one more time. And, again IMO, if they do it right, in a two team stadium, the NFL can "have its cake and eat it too". That is to say, they can have LA, and still use LA for leverage..... at least for a time.

Just another Ram fans take.

 

[dbrooks25]

What I'm saying is that IMO, the Vikings & Falcons situation were different in that those owners really wanted to stay in their current markets, and used LA for leverage. Stan wants LA. So the situation is apples & oranges. The NFL wants LA...., done right, Stan provide's that. Davis & Spanos cannot. You can spin that however you like. We just disagree man.

And we have both said...... "Yep, but the NFL will bend the rules as they see fit."

I believe the NFL wants LA bad enough to bend these rules at least one more time. And, again IMO, if they do it right, in a two team stadium, the NFL can "have its cake and eat it too". That is to say, they can have LA, and still use LA for leverage..... at least for a time.

Just another Ram fans take.

No, I agree with most of what you just said. Yes, the Vikes and Falcons situation is different in that the owners obviously wanted to stay in their current markets. My original issue was the notion that the NFL will not shoot down the Rams moving based on the Stl stadium being half financed by the public. That seemed to be what you were saying in your comment to Chris W. What's bothersome is it is seen as a fact that Stan wants L.A. and Spanos and Davis can not provide L.A. with the NFL done right. I know SK's actions say he wants the market, but the fact is he has not opened his mouth and said such. The truth is he can come out of left field with something else in typical SK fashion and shock all of us. How do you know that Spanos and Davis can't do L.A. right? That's just your opinion and I can respect that but it is not factual in the least.

The problem with bending the rules is you leave a viable market out in the dust. IMO, as long as the Stl stadium proposal gets done there will be an NFL in the St. Louis area. How the NFL stays there will be anyone's guess.

 

[Hacksaw]

Because that's the way most of the new stadiums are being built these days. The city must be willing to pay a for a portion of the stadium, not ALL of the stadium. We are talking about the NFL bylaws in that an owner isn't supposed to be able to move his team just for financial gain and if the home city is talking about ponying up damn near half of the bill then that kinda goes against the "exhausting all options" with the current city thing they keep talking about. You think the city is supposed to cover the entire cost of the stadium? We have already received quotes from an owner stating that if a city is willing to get their half of a stadium funded then the NFL has an obligation to keep their product in that city. What's so hard to understand about that? Examples of new stadiums being built with "HALF publicly funded" money:

Minnesota Vikings: Public funds: $498 million Vikings contribution: $529 million

20-30% of the Falcons' new stadium is to be financed by the public, even.

Again, it's all about a city doing its part to keep a team. Everyone in this thread has gone back and forth on their beliefs regarding whether the owners will abide by the bylaws, but it is what is is. If the city of St. Louis nails down their portion of public funding, then it will make it hard for the NFL to just let the Rams leave as the city did what they were supposed to do. Then the question will be if they will turn their back on the city or honor their bylaws which is anyone's guess.

RAMbler, your post seems to suggest that the NFL is choosing between the Inglewood and Stl Stadium projects, and that isn't correct at all. If they are choosing between projects it would be Inglewood and Carson. St. Louis is just proving that they are willing to fund their half of the stadium in order to keep the team here and that is all the NFL is looking for from them along with fan support. Not that hard to understand, Chief.

Excellent examples dbrooks25. So is the 50% rule now statutory? I get that the original deal StL was a 50% target and I guess the argument can be made that due to the extreme cost of stadiums and now that the bar is raised so high, this would be the a reasonable expectation. There are even your recent examples to bear that out.
The only real difference I see here is that the StL owner is free to leave and appears to want to. Since this is only a recent model that a couple of teams have negotiated, I'm not sure how much weight this caries.

 

[myronjax]

This just in from the St. Louis Post:

Jones Dome board sues St. Louis to block a public vote on new stadium


ST. LOUIS • The public body that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome filed suit on Friday against the City of St. Louis, challenging the authority of a city ordinance that requires a public vote to use taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

The suit, filed in state court, says the 2002 city ordinance is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous,” and asks the judge to rule that it either doesn’t apply in this case, conflicts with state statute, or is unconstitutional.

At the same time, the lawsuit reveals new details about the city’s plans to fund the proposed stadium — a governor-led effort to build an open-air $985 million downtown riverfront arena, and keep the NFL in St. Louis.

With St. Louis County dollars now out of the financing equation, the city has an expanded role, the lawsuit suggests. It says the city will issue new bonds, which will both pay off the city’s debt on the Jones Dome and provide capital for the new construction. Debt service, the suit says, will not exceed the $6 million a year in current payments.

The city also will donate land to the project, and provide some sort of tax-based incentives, such as tax increment financing or creation of a transportation development or community improvement district.

 

[Hacksaw]

How do you know that Spanos and Davis can't do L.A. right? That's just your opinion and I can respect that but it is not factual in the least.

The problem with bending the rules is you leave a viable market out in the dust. IMO, as long as the Stl stadium proposal gets done there will be an NFL in the St. Louis area. How the NFL stays there will be anyone's guess.

RAMbler wasn't far off with his assessment.

Spanos : Forbes magazine calculated Spanos' net worth at $1.1 billion in September. The magazine valued the team at $907 million and reported that Spanos paid $70 million for it in 1984.

Davis : $ 500mm net.

Goldman-Sachs is not funding a Carson project, they have stated that they wold assist in obtaining funding. So the money has to get done by others like in StL

Below is a list of the owners club. It doesn't appear the Raiders or Chargers are close to the head of that table.

1. Paul Allen – Seattle Seahawks
$15.8B
2. Stan Kroenke – St. Louis Rams

$5.3B
3. Stephen Ross – Miami Dolphins
$4.8B
4. Terrance Pegula – Buffalo Bills
$4.6B/h4>
5. Glazer Family – Tampa Bay Buccaneers
$4.5B
6. Shahid Khan – Jacksonville Jaguars
$3.8B
7. Robert “Woody” Johnson – New York Jets
$3.5B
8. Jerry Jones – Dallas Cowboys
$3B
9. Robert Kraft – New England Patriots
$2.9B
10. Joan Tisch – New York Giants
$2.9B (The Tisch family splits ownership with the Mara family, who are worth approx. $500 million)
11. Stephen Bisciotti – Baltimore Ravens
$2.1B
12. Bob McNair – Houston Texans
$2B
13. Arthur Blank – Atlanta Falcons
$1.7B
14. Jim Irsay – Indianapolis Colts
$1.6B
15. Jimmy Haslam – Cleveland Browns
$1.5B
16. Ford Family – Detroit Lions
$1.4B
17. Tom Benson – New Orleans Saints
$1.3B
18. Zygi Wilf – Minnesota Vikings
$1.3B
19. Virginia Halas McCaskey – Chicago Bears
$1.2B
20. Jeffrey Lurie – Philadelphia Eagles
$1.2B
21. Daniel Snyder – Washington Redskins
$1.2B
22. Jed York – San Francisco 49ers
$1.2B ($1.1B through his mother, Denise DiBartolo York)
23. Jerry Richardson – Carolina Panthers
$1.1B
24. Estate of Bud Adams – Tennessee Titans
$1.1B (Adams passed away in October 2013)
25. Pat Bowlen – Denver Broncos
$1B
26. Alex Spanos – San Diego Chargers

$1B
27. Mike Brown – Cincinnati Bengals
$925M
28. Dan Rooney – Pittsburgh Steelers
$500M
29. Carol & Mark Davis – Oakland Raiders

$500M

 

[RamFan503]

Debt service, the suit says, will not exceed the $6 million a year in current payments.

Pay off current debt, potentially take over the County's share, and provide capital for construction of the new stadium and still stay at $6 mil? Are they 100 year bonds?

 

[Legatron4]

Paul Allen is worth 15 billion!?

 

[Hacksaw]

That IMO is not possible in LA , not to diminish the fans of LA in any way but with two PAC teams the Lakers and the other pro teams adding the two LA NFL franchise model, just can't see the possibility to be there

Why Thordaddy? Our population numbers are staggering.

LA county = over 10 million butts. (LA-OC-Riverside-Ventura-Ontario /all within an hour of Inglewood/ = over 15 million)

The entire state of Mo = just over 6 million (StL county = 1.1 million)

So I don't think a strong argument can be made about the potential fan support. Why do you think everybody is able to use LA for leverage?

 

[Hacksaw]

Paul Allen is worth 15 billion!?

Yeah really.. That company he and his buddy Bill started has done pretty well. I bet his mother is proud. And I'm glad there is a salary cap.

 

[Hacksaw]

This just in from the St. Louis Post:

Jones Dome board sues St. Louis to block a public vote on new stadium


ST. LOUIS • The public body that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome filed suit on Friday against the City of St. Louis, challenging the authority of a city ordinance that requires a public vote to use taxpayer money to build a new stadium.

The suit, filed in state court, says the 2002 city ordinance is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous,” and asks the judge to rule that it either doesn’t apply in this case, conflicts with state statute, or is unconstitutional.

At the same time, the lawsuit reveals new details about the city’s plans to fund the proposed stadium — a governor-led effort to build an open-air $985 million downtown riverfront arena, and keep the NFL in St. Louis.

With St. Louis County dollars now out of the financing equation, the city has an expanded role, the lawsuit suggests. It says the city will issue new bonds, which will both pay off the city’s debt on the Jones Dome and provide capital for the new construction. Debt service, the suit says, will not exceed the $6 million a year in current payments.

The city also will donate land to the project, and provide some sort of tax-based incentives, such as tax increment financing or creation of a transportation development or community improvement district.

This suit brought to light Nixon's plan which is pretty much what we all figured. Now the question in my mind is, why are all of these local politicians trying to put the kibosh on the stadium deal?
Is it that they are just doing their job and looking out for the citizens? hmmm
Are they looking for angles and revenue streams?
It all seems counter-intuitive to me if everyone in that part of the world want's to keep the Rams in StL as much as the posters on the board do.

 

[Goose]

The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority today initiated litigation in the 22nd judicial circuit to clarify the RSA’s authority to enter into a financing plan for the construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis.

RSA Chairman Jim Shrewsbury released the following statement:

“Our counsel has advised that because the proposed stadium involves a significant private financial commitment and no additional tax increase, another vote by the public is not needed. However, given the threat of protracted litigation, the RSA is asking the court to provide legal certainty on this matter now so that we can continue to move forward within the timeframe established by the NFL.”

(endit)

http://interact.stltoday.com/forums...=1103751&sid=bf3970e103df5bf14d81e6a068dd5d1c