New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

Because if the Carson project is indeed to be modeled after the Santa Clara project, they will be required to go to a public vote in order to issue the bonds that would be required to pay off the construction loans. The project is supposedly going to be funded with ZERO public funds. Now there seems to be some hedging going on to where the city will somehow be on the hook to pay off some of the debt? I think the NFL cares.

To tell you the truth, I don't think the NFL will care in the slightest come fall who pays for what as long as you can show it's getting paid. Why would they? The only advantage that I can see Stan having that the NFL would be directly affected by would be his significant advantage of simplicity. One man, one plan vs Carson's two organizations. The rest sounds like conjecture to me.

 

[RamFan503]

To tell you the truth, I don't think the NFL will care in the slightest come fall who pays for what as long as you can show it's getting paid. Why would they? The only advantage that I can see Stan having that the NFL would be directly affected by would be his significant advantage of simplicity. One man, one plan vs Carson's two organizations. The rest sounds like conjecture to me.

Because getting the public to vote for funding a stadium is anything but a slam dunk and the NFL has said it expects proposals to have funding essentially locked up very soon. I think you are right that if Carson was able to pass a funding initiative then the NFL wouldn't care that it is public funding but going from 100% private funding to assuming they can pull off a Santa Clara like maneuver is a pretty shaky plan at best and not one I think the NFL will view as a secure funding plan.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I had a long response to this ready to type out, but the short version is that I kinda feel this is all wishful conjecture. 1 team makes almost as much as 2? With half the home games? Not buying it. NFL caring about after game surrounding nightlife? Not buying it. NFL reluctant to use loan money despite the fund being designed to keep teams in their markets? Not buying that either. I still think Stan has a really good chance to be allowed to move, but it will be because he got his crap together faster or the deal in Carson falling apart. Not because of stuff like fans having more to do.

Economic projections say that the Inglewood project is estimated to generate about 325 million in annual revenue, with a single team there. Carson is projected to make 208 million with a single team, and 422 with two teams there. So one would imagine that a two team in Inglewood is making at least 600 million, probably about 630-650 million. I'm not sure where you're getting at with the second part, are you saying that the NFL wouldn't be reluctant to hand out the G4 loan even though it says in the rules for the loans that it can't be for relocation? Or are you saying that the NFL will be happy to change the rules and hand out the loan? It might not just be about changing the rules, but when they're presented with two options, one of them requires them to give up 400 million dollars, and one requires them to give up nothing, PLUS they have get a new place to host the draft, and NFL studios, and there's going to be plenty of hotels for them (which they want for Super Bowls) on site.

 

[blue4]

Economic projections say that the Inglewood project is estimated to generate about 325 million in annual revenue, with a single team there. Carson is projected to make 208 million with a single team, and 422 with two teams there. So one would imagine that a two team in Inglewood is making at least 600 million, probably about 630-650 million. I'm not sure where you're getting at with the second part, are you saying that the NFL wouldn't be reluctant to hand out the G4 loan even though it says in the rules for the loans that it can't be for relocation? Or are you saying that the NFL will be happy to change the rules and hand out the loan? It might not just be about changing the rules, but when they're presented with two options, one of them requires them to give up 400 million dollars, and one requires them to give up nothing, PLUS they have get a new place to host the draft, and NFL studios, and there's going to be plenty of hotels for them (which they want for Super Bowls) on site.

I'm not saying I disbelieve you. But

Who is projecting, who paid for the projections, and so on. Is that revenue for the NFL, or total for the whole project? Because if the NFL isn't making 650 million vs 422 mil again I'm not understanding why that's worth killing the 21st largest market for.


The NFL will have to bend the rules for Stan to move. The NFL has bent the rules for crosstown ownership. Why would they balk about G4 loans?

The fact that there are two sides on this website arguing great points for two sides tells me a lot of these things aren't exactly "facts" yet. Either way I'm on midnights so I'm off to bed.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

What's Ball Park Village in STL like? I heard it's pretty cool. It's kinda like what Inglewood is no? With restaurants and stuff?

 

[RamFan503]

The fact that there are two sides on this website arguing great points for two sides tells me a lot of these things aren't exactly "facts" yet.

Yep.

 

[Goose]

What's Ball Park Village in STL like? I heard it's pretty cool. It's kinda like what Inglewood is no? With restaurants and stuff?

It is a good time. Plenty of options for entertainment, clean, a little over priced, but a good time. I think the Power and Light in KC is better same company built both. It was scaled back from the initial plan.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

It is a good time. Plenty of options for entertainment, clean, a little over priced, but a good time. I think the Power and Light in KC is better same company built both. It was scaled back from the initial plan.

I just googled it and it looks amazing. Stuff like that attracts fans. Obviously winning is everything but if stuff like that is around the stadium, people will buy tickets and fill a stadium. Imagine before and after a game you go like hey let's go to the park and lake and hang out till traffic dies down or let's go watch a movie or go to the bar. Carson is cool too but it's just a stadium. The cost of PSL's and tickets in LA is going to be sky high. At least Inglewood justifies buying tickets and showing up. I'll still go watch a game in Carson but me and my gf could go have breakfast at 8-9am if the game is at 10 pacific time or you know go have a picnic at the park and walk a couple of minutes into the stadium. I dig that more than just a stadium.

 

[iced]

Economic projections say that the Inglewood project is estimated to generate about 325 million in annual revenue, with a single team there. Carson is projected to make 208 million with a single team, and 422 with two teams there. So one would imagine that a two team in Inglewood is making at least 600 million, probably about 630-650 million. I'm not sure where you're getting at with the second part, are you saying that the NFL wouldn't be reluctant to hand out the G4 loan even though it says in the rules for the loans that it can't be for relocation? Or are you saying that the NFL will be happy to change the rules and hand out the loan? It might not just be about changing the rules, but when they're presented with two options, one of them requires them to give up 400 million dollars, and one requires them to give up nothing, PLUS they have get a new place to host the draft, and NFL studios, and there's going to be plenty of hotels for them (which they want for Super Bowls) on site.

Not the NFL- its the owners apparently.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...-stadium-is-no-small-task-20150220-story.html

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.

They get their money back over the years for the G4 loans as it is.

And It's not just about "which one costs less now" - it's about potential and growth. plus you're not factoring Markets and TV, which is the biggest source of Revenue for the NFL. (unless you assume some team is gonna move to St.Louis). Big reason why the salary cap is constantly increasing, especially when you have direct TV paying $12 billion over 8 years by themselves..that doesn't even include local and national sponsors,advertisers, etc.

Also, if the Carson Stadium is making somewhere in the $400 million range as someone is suggesting, then why would you not do that loan? Get paid back quicker + everyone's share increases thanks to the new revenue source

 

[Hacksaw]

Hacksaw I know that you very familiar with the area and have stated your concern about the clean up and maintenance before. I believe you know what you are talking about. The NFL has studied the site for a long time and it has been in consideration before so I am sure they are aware of the risk. I just don't see this as just leverage or a bluff. Especially since it appears at this point that the City of SD are calling it.

I get that Goose. I doubt it is a bluff either. More of building an alternative on the fly. Stan kind of pushed over the apple cart and now everyone is having to get a foothold on their situations before Stan just rolls over them. We have read that both Davis and Spanos would prefer to stay in there respective locations but haven't been able to strike a deal there. Some reports say Spanos is being to choosy. Others state the CofSD has been dragging their feet. Davis and Alameda have no money so they are either stuck or have to go Al without the vibrato.

More than a concern. I would not attend a game with my kids there even if the Rams were playing in it.
I am a builder of custom homes and smaller developments and that site in Carson is a dog. The remedial requirements, both static and ongoing would be a deal killer for many. The term toxic breaks most of the rest. I guess the owners won't mid giving up the mineral rights.. lol
It is however a 'ready made' site in the sense that the city had already done some of the work for previous NFL attempts and had reports, drawings and such already done. This helps if your in a hurry to make noise before the ESK express does you in.

I wonder exactly why the NFL didn't build their stadium there? No team, bad investment, bad geology?

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm not saying I disbelieve you. But

Who is projecting, who paid for the projections, and so on. Is that revenue for the NFL, or total for the whole project? Because if the NFL isn't making 650 million vs 422 mil again I'm not understanding why that's worth killing the 21st largest market for.


The NFL will have to bend the rules for Stan to move. The NFL has bent the rules for crosstown ownership. Why would they balk about G4 loans?

The fact that there are two sides on this website arguing great points for two sides tells me a lot of these things aren't exactly "facts" yet. Either way I'm on midnights so I'm off to bed.

It was in an article I posted before. Los Angeles had a commission paid for by each group to see what the economic projections would be, for the entire projects. Inglewood being more than a stadium obviously gives them a boost.

I think you're getting hung up on them bending the rules. I definitely can see them changing them. The difference between this and the relocation, is they have set themselves up with a lot of wiggle room by how they were written, and with various comments throughout the process. The G4 rules are a bit more black and white, but I don't doubt the NFL would rewrite them if they wanted. Most of these rule, especially in terms of relocation, are likely more about making sure that fans are happy and not worried, therefore more willing to open their wallets, than forcing owners into doing things that they want to do. So they write the relocation bylaws in such a way they have tons of room to do whatever they want, and still be "okay" by the bylaws.

However that's not the point, the point is why spend 400 million when you don't have to? 400 million for Carson, 200 for St Louis, 200 for Levis, and 200 for the Vikings new digs, now they're suddenly down a billion dollars in the last 5 years. Those loans are set up to not really need much of a payback, if really at all, so it's a hit that they need to calculate in with things. It's not about bending the rules, it's about loaning the cash.

Not the NFL- its the owners apparently.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-...-stadium-is-no-small-task-20150220-story.html

They get their money back over the years for the G4 loans as it is.

And It's not just about "which one costs less now" - it's about potential and growth. plus you're not factoring Markets and TV, which is the biggest source of Revenue for the NFL. (unless you assume some team is gonna move to St.Louis). Big reason why the salary cap is constantly increasing, especially when you have direct TV paying $12 billion over 8 years by themselves..that doesn't even include local and national sponsors,advertisers, etc.

Also, if the Carson Stadium is making somewhere in the $400 million range as someone is suggesting, then why would you not do that loan? Get paid back quicker + everyone's share increases thanks to the new revenue source

When I say NFL in this situation I typically mean the owners. The G4 loans don't really make them much money though, it's so long and such a low interest rate, it's really not much. The Inglewood project has more potential and growth from how things stand right now. I do assume that another team goes to occupy the St Louis market, leaving it bare is stupid, keeping a team in San Diego with 2 in LA is stupid, and leaving the Raiders in Oakland with no team in St Louis is stupid. If the Rams leave, there should be another team that moves in.

Why loan 400 million to Carson, in hopes that you eventually (over 20+ years, because you know they wont turn around and start making large payments ASAP) make the money back, when you can loan nothing for a project that probably sees north of 6 with two teams. Inglewood isn't a single team stadium.

 

[iced]

When I say NFL in this situation I typically mean the owners. The G4 loans don't really make them much money though, it's so long and such a low interest rate, it's really not much. The Inglewood project has more potential and growth from how things stand right now. I do assume that another team goes to occupy the St Louis market, leaving it bare is stupid, keeping a team in San Diego with 2 in LA is stupid, and leaving the Raiders in Oakland with no team in St Louis is stupid. If the Rams leave, there should be another team that moves in.

Why loan 400 million to Carson, in hopes that you eventually (over 20+ years, because you know they wont turn around and start making large payments ASAP) make the money back, when you can loan nothing for a project that probably sees north of 6 with two teams. Inglewood isn't a single team stadium.

Because over that same time span the owners would make more money with Carson and St.Louis having stadiums vs just Inglewood. Two teams would have more revenue than one - and that's not pointing out you'd be losing St.Louis as a market.

I don't understand how you can just assume St.Louis is going to get another team if they lose the Rams - Spanos moving isn't feasible nor are the Raiders...the Raiders don't have enough money to do anything on their own but yet suddenly they're going to have enough money to cover the move to St.Louis? I think not. Especially since we're count on funding from the owner, which they don't have.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Because over that same time span the owners would make more money with Carson and St.Louis having stadiums vs just Inglewood. Two teams would have more revenue than one - and that's not pointing out you'd be losing St.Louis as a market.

I don't understand how you can just assume St.Louis is going to get another team if they lose the Rams - Spanos moving isn't feasible nor are the Raiders...the Raiders don't have enough money to do anything on their own but yet suddenly they're going to have enough money to cover the move to St.Louis? I think not. Especially since we're count on funding from the owner, which they don't have.

How much does the riverfront stadium require an owner to put in?

 

[blue4]

I thought Davis claimed he had almost $500 mil available to help in Oakland?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Because over that same time span the owners would make more money with Carson and St.Louis having stadiums vs just Inglewood. Two teams would have more revenue than one - and that's not pointing out you'd be losing St.Louis as a market.

I don't understand how you can just assume St.Louis is going to get another team if they lose the Rams - Spanos moving isn't feasible nor are the Raiders...the Raiders don't have enough money to do anything on their own but yet suddenly they're going to have enough money to cover the move to St.Louis? I think not. Especially since we're count on funding from the owner, which they don't have.

How do you know Kroenke is willing to work in St Louis? So in theory a new stadium in St Louis and the Inglewood stadium gives out the most potential in terms of dollars. Again, I don't think the NFL should, nor wants to leave the St Louis market, but it is the smallest one of the 3. However there is already a team in the Oakland (Bay Area) market, which makes the loss of them easier.

You cant assume that St Louis gets another team, especially the Chargers. The Raiders are likely more willing to move to St Louis, especially if they can't get things to work in Oakland. Raiders don't have much money, but the 200ish million they'll need in St Louis is FAR easier than the almost billion they need in Carson. The NFL could wave, or reduce the relocation fee, which in turn gives them more incentive to more. Can you guarantee that the Raiders move? No, but you can dangle a carrot and give them a little nudge.

The Raiders have funds, they just don't have a lot. A move is a move, it's going to cost either way, but the investment from St Louis is less than Carson. The Riverfront is also very close to what Davis apparently wants in a stadium, almost to the T.

 

[blue4]

It was in an article I posted before. Los Angeles had a commission paid for by each group to see what the economic projections would be, for the entire projects. Inglewood being more than a stadium obviously gives them a boost.

I think you're getting hung up on them bending the rules. I definitely can see them changing them. The difference between this and the relocation, is they have set themselves up with a lot of wiggle room by how they were written, and with various comments throughout the process. The G4 rules are a bit more black and white, but I don't doubt the NFL would rewrite them if they wanted. Most of these rule, especially in terms of relocation, are likely more about making sure that fans are happy and not worried, therefore more willing to open their wallets, than forcing owners into doing things that they want to do. So they write the relocation bylaws in such a way they have tons of room to do whatever they want, and still be "okay" by the bylaws.

However that's not the point, the point is why spend 400 million when you don't have to? 400 million for Carson, 200 for St Louis, 200 for Levis, and 200 for the Vikings new digs, now they're suddenly down a billion dollars in the last 5 years. Those loans are set up to not really need much of a payback, if really at all, so it's a hit that they need to calculate in with things. It's not about bending the rules, it's about loaning the cash.



When I say NFL in this situation I typically mean the owners. The G4 loans don't really make them much money though, it's so long and such a low interest rate, it's really not much. The Inglewood project has more potential and growth from how things stand right now. I do assume that another team goes to occupy the St Louis market, leaving it bare is stupid, keeping a team in San Diego with 2 in LA is stupid, and leaving the Raiders in Oakland with no team in St Louis is stupid. If the Rams leave, there should be another team that moves in.

Why loan 400 million to Carson, in hopes that you eventually (over 20+ years, because you know they wont turn around and start making large payments ASAP) make the money back, when you can loan nothing for a project that probably sees north of 6 with two teams. Inglewood isn't a single team stadium.

I'm not hung up on the rules, I'm agreeing with you that the rules mean squat. Like I said, Stan is pretty much wiping his ass with the bylaws to move, so why would they care about other rules? I also agree with you that Inglewood makes more sense to the NFL if the Raiders fill STL. But that's a big if. I just don't agree that having Inglewood and no STL is more profitable to the NFL than Carson and STL. And I'm still not sure I believe that Inglewood with one team is going to give the NFL as much as two in Carson. I don't dispute the notion that Inglewood may generate more money, what I question is whether or not the NFL and the other owners would see enough of that extra money in their profits to use that as a deciding factor, as both would be plenty stable financially. And any Inglewood figure must also take into account the loss of STL unless the Raiders are basically gifted the money to move there.

 

[iced]

How much does the riverfront stadium require an owner to put in?

$300-$400 mill were the estimates I've seen floating around IIRC

How do you know Kroenke is willing to work in St Louis? So in theory a new stadium in St Louis and the Inglewood stadium gives out the most potential in terms of dollars. Again, I don't think the NFL should, nor wants to leave the St Louis market, but it is the smallest one of the 3. However there is already a team in the Oakland (Bay Area) market, which makes the loss of them easier.

You cant assume that St Louis gets another team, especially the Chargers. The Raiders are likely more willing to move to St Louis, especially if they can't get things to work in Oakland. Raiders don't have much money, but the 200ish million they'll need in St Louis is FAR easier than the almost billion they need in Carson. The NFL could wave, or reduce the relocation fee, which in turn gives them more incentive to more. Can you guarantee that the Raiders move? No, but you can dangle a carrot and give them a little nudge.

The Raiders have funds, they just don't have a lot. A move is a move, it's going to cost either way, but the investment from St Louis is less than Carson. The Riverfront is also very close to what Davis apparently wants in a stadium, almost to the T.

I think you need to reread my post - you're saying the exact opposite. I'm saying if Kroenke does leave, what team is going to move to St.Louis? The Raiders can't afford it most likely and the Chargers look dead set on SD or LA.

And it's not just "200'ish" to move here. The investment for the stadium alone is most likely in the $300-$400, and that's not even factoring in the actual cost of moving the team plus any relocation fee's other owners want to associate with it.

If they can't afford their much,much cheaper stadium Oakland, there's no way in hell they can afford to move, pitch in for the stadium, and pay the relocation fee. Pretty much they're only option is Carson or stay put.

Not to mention Davis has made it clear they want to stay in Oakland as option #1...If they can't get a deal in Carson I don't see him packing up. There's also a question to the G4 Loan for his part of the payment too because while Kroenke is eligible for it, they wouldn't be....

Which goes back to your point earlier about the G4 Loans - unless you think they're gonna waive the rules for that too then the question becomes if they're loaning them money for a stadium, why St.Louis over Carson? Their deal solves a problem for two teams with ongoing stadium issues for years, and will house 2 teams.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I'm not hung up on the rules, I'm agreeing with you that the rules mean squat. Like I said, Stan is pretty much wiping his ass with the bylaws to move, so why would they care about other rules? I also agree with you that Inglewood makes more sense to the NFL if the Raiders fill STL. But that's a big if. I just don't agree that having Inglewood and no STL is more profitable to the NFL than Carson and STL. And I'm still not sure I believe that Inglewood with one team is going to give the NFL as much as two in Carson. I don't dispute the notion that Inglewood may generate more money, what I question is whether or not the NFL and the other owners would see enough of that extra money in their profits to use that as a deciding factor, as both would be plenty stable financially. And any Inglewood figure must also take into account the loss of STL unless the Raiders are basically gifted the money to move there.

Also remember this, if Stan is the only one in LA, the NFL could continue to use LA as leverage seeing that it's fitted for 2 teams.

Imo the NFL wants a team in SD LA and STL. If a new stadium gets built in oak it'll be what like 50 miles from levis stadium? That's weird. I would rather be in STL then in oak. Mark has to only pinch in 200-250 mil and maybe another 100 mill to relocate in STL. That's fuckinggg bargain.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

$300-$400 mill were the estimates I've seen floating around IIRC



I think you need to reread my post - you're saying the exact opposite. I'm saying if Kroenke does leave, what team is going to move to St.Louis? The Raiders can't afford it most likely and the Chargers look dead set on SD or LA.

And it's not just "200'ish" to move here. The investment for the stadium alone is most likely in the $300-$400, and that's not even factoring in the actual cost of moving the team plus any relocation fee's other owners want to associate with it.

If they can't afford their much,much cheaper stadium Oakland, there's no way in hell they can afford to move, pitch in for the stadium, and pay the relocation fee. Pretty much they're only option is Carson or stay put.

Not to mention Davis has made it clear they want to stay in Oakland as option #1...If they can't get a deal in Carson I don't see him packing up. There's also a question to the G4 Loan for his part of the payment too because while Kroenke is eligible for it, they wouldn't be....

Which goes back to your point earlier about the G4 Loans - unless you think they're gonna waive the rules for that too then the question becomes if they're loaning them money for a stadium, why St.Louis over Carson? Their deal solves a problem for two teams with ongoing stadium issues for years.

200-250.

 

[iced]

200-250.

not without the G4