That article was also directly from the task force - and I haven't seen anything that asks for more than $200 or $250 from Kroenke. Which is why I pointed out when you were trying to do the math for the bonds...
and I think I know what article you were talking about - which another key point, the bonds weren't $405.. It was $400 to $500 million, or so that article's guess was
It's not who the article was from, it was that it was from January. The situation has changed quite a bit, both from the financial side of things (taking the county out of it) to the stadium design and cost. There hasn't really been much else on how much it's estimated to cost, but I just remember the article saying that the public will cover about 400 million. I don't think it was about bonds, I think it was the bonds and PSL's combined, but I'll have to check. Either way, Stan needs to pay at least half of it, probably more.
t's a terrible comparison. Why? Because how many other owners are in real estate like stan? Completely changes the playing field
I'm not sure, but I know Spanos did, as did Zygi Wilf, the owner of the Vikings. Coincidentally the two owners who have most recently tried to use LA as leverage. So why didn't Wilf purchase land, why did it take Inglewood for Spanos to look into purchasing land (which he hasn't yet). Plus every owner is capable of doing what Stan has done so far, and they all have the ability to create it into something to make a profit, So why didn't they go that route?
Because this strategy had success before with arbitration? No.
Hence leverage - while also helping solving 2 fellow owners fix their stadium issues. Lot of people like to theorize that the owners talk a lot behind closed doors - better believe this has been brought up if that's the case.
Again, collectively whats best for all 32.
So Stan is going to spend million of dollars just to help out two owners who don't need his help? The NFL isn't going to let LA sit without a team, they've said that already and neither San Diego or Oakland looks close to solving the stadium issues. The only thing Stan did was get Spanos to get off his ass and actually make a move. He didn't need to purchase a thing to do that, especially if they're all working together behind the scenes. At this point he would also be able to back away from Inglewood if that was simply the case.
I beg to differ on the profits - every team evenly splits the TV revenue and ticket sales are split 60/40 to home/away team...And that TV revenue is the one of the biggest sources, if not the biggest, of revenue for the NFL.
You really think the owners are going collectively do whats best for one business man instead of 32? Let Alone Kroenke himself? Please.
By owning and operating the stadium and the land he can use it for other events (basketball, concerts, college bowls, etc) and make money from there. He can't do that in St Louis, so it directly cuts into potential profits for him. Stan typically owns and operates his teams stadiums, hence the point of him wanting to own it. This helps him maximize his profits.
stadium cost: 985
985 - 480 = 505. take out the G4 loan, which is $200 to $250, and kroenke ends up paying $305 or $255.
G4 loan is paid back by the team, so I include that. So the bonds are paying for 350 million. PSL is covering the St Louis cost, NOT the owner cost, so that's 130 million that could be his no isn't, So essentially St Louis is agreeing to pay for 350 million of a billion dollar stadium (and with how it's set up, according to the legislature can end up not being able to pay for it if they don't budget it), and the rest comes from Stan either directly, or from a loan he is obligated to pay back, or money that he could have himself. The Task Force is going to frame it to make it appear as if they are asking for very little from him, but Stan isn't an idiot, and he'll know exactly what the numbers that the city/state are paying for, and what they aren't. How much that matters, I don't know, but if he wants a certain thing and the city wont give it to him, I don't see why he agrees.
This is soooooo NOT true. Demoff continues to hedge his bets, parse each word he uses, and obfuscate by various means those things that DO seem to come out relatively clearly. He is the ultimate #2 Man in the Organization -- doing just what his handler (#1 Man) wants him to do, and doing it in such a way that his audience, be it in LA or STL, is left to wonder what in the hell does he REALLY mean?
I'm telling you, no one can know if Stan truly wants to move to LA. The ONLY person who can possibly know this is Stan himself, and, perhaps, Mrs. Stan. And I'm not too sure he's even told her what he's thinking or up to in this regard.
For all intents and purposes -- and this is crucial to today's situation -- DEMOFF MAY ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT STAN TRULY DOES WANT TO MOVE.
But I reiterate: Does that mean that Stan wants to move?
Or, is Stan doing what is best for Stan's best interests by keeping Demoff out of this loop so that he has plausible deniability of Stan's real intention of remaining in St. Louis??
Or, and I still believe that this really is the case, are Demoff and Stan in this plot up to their eyebrows? With BOTH of them knowing that Stan wants to stay?
I tend toward believing the latter because Demoff, after all, did say, "Things are going to get a LOT worse (regarding the Rams and the stadium situation) before they get better." And Demoff said that NOT to a LA sports or business reporter, but to a STL reporter. As if he were advising the reporter to 'batten down the hatches, tough sailing ahead.'
And yet despite the dire warning he did finish up with this: "BEFORE they get BETTER!"
And what could be better than keeping the Rams here in a spiffy new stadium??
Sorry, I just don't see why Stan is going to lie to a bunch of his people with his true intentions that he is having them work on a project. I can see him lying to the public, I can see him lying to political officials, but I don't see the benefits of lying to Demoff. I also have trouble placing a lot of stock in things a lot of the different people say, including Demoff. Don't get me wrong, I like him, I don't think he's a bad guy, but his job is to ultimately make money for Kroenke, and he'll say what's needed. They wont burn any bridges in St Louis until they know they have a go ahead to LA. If they never get that go ahead then they will stay. But I just don't see anything to me that indicates they aren't willing and looking to move. It doesn't make sense to me, and in my opinion it seems far fetched to assume that's the case. It is getting worse, and it may get better, but we don't know what "better" is. Is it that the Rams stay? Is it that St Louis gets another team that signs a nice long lease? We don't know.
KD was quoted as saying its just as likely that the Rams are in St Louis in 16 as it is that they are in LA, how is that him saying that they are looking to move to LA? sounds to me like he is saying even they aren't sure yet.
That means there's a 50/50 shot they stay or go. If they half a 50 percent chance of moving, where are they moving to? LA. Therefore they are looking at a move to LA.
how is the deal in St Louis the same or maybe even worse since Inglewood? your reaching here dude, before Inglewood there wasn't much talk of a stadium in St Louis, since Inglewood there has been a task force formed who has a new stadium on the fast track, they have gotten assurances from unions, have started acquiring the land, have hired a few consulting firms, have named the stadium builders, yet you say our situation is the same or worse????
No, it hasn't changed much from when they first gave us updated renders, and the financing has gotten fuzzier. NOT since Inglewood, since the updated renders a few months ago. They first came out with drawings in January, then a few weeks later a new updated look that was rendered, then we saw more stuff yesterday. The leap between the first set and the second set was noticeable, the difference between the second set and what we saw yesterday was not.
