New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Inglewood state of the city address

Inglewood Stadium talk and presentation begins at 2:15

http://cityofinglewood.org/soc15.html

Beat me to it, good information there.

 

[iced]

Omg...
"Just as you believe the Rams are definitely moving to LA..."

Nevermind... I'll discuss with people who actually read what I post, not ones that make stuff up.

I'm sorry , but you saying "You Definitely Know Stan wants to move to LA" is almost splitting hairs (not that you can "KNOW" that anyway, its just your opinion as i have my own)

Oh.. and you're wrong on the TV revenue.. it's already set in the national contracts and, believe it or not, people already watch NFL games in LA.

Uhh no I'm not - all 32 owners collectively negotiate and split TV Market Revenue. Its one of their Anti-trust exemptions.

And yea people watch games in LA - I was stationed in Ventura. Whether or not they get games has nothing to do with negotiating contracts and advertising

And last time I was there without sunday ticket, i think people in LA were subject to SD Black outs. IIRC the trick to get around it was to change the satelite feed to bakersfield (Don't ask me how you get around it or how you do it - no idea. I know they've done it here for Bucs games, they switch to a Fort Myers feed)

 

[iced]

Last I heard it's all owned by the Stadium Authority/City, and that's who gets to profit from it. I remember when they were first discussing things, that was one of the selling points for using public funds, that they would get all that extra stuff. It stuck with me, because the initial plan sounded like they were compensating for getting bent over the table 20 years ago, and trying to bend Stan some, and I thought it wasn't a good move. I'll have to look when I get home tonight to see if I can find an old article there, but it seemed to indicate almost all revenue generated from the stadium went to the city.

Would like to see it - because that makes little to no sense from an investment stand point. I would venture all investors would divvy up the profits in some regard

That was just from the numbers from the article that you posted. It's probably less now because they took the county out of it, so 350 might be closer than not.

seeing as how it was posted 37 minutes ago, i think not.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_b3d3ce6c-bc82-5568-9f8e-6a632e18b3e7.html

Directly From Peacock's mouth

"We're gonna take it to a point, but we've got to be met halfway," said Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch executive. "We've been clear from January, and we didn't change in this message, that we're trying to get somewhere in the $400 million range in public funding."

An additional $150 million will come through sales of personal seat licenses.

"And then we expect $450 million in team and league (money), which is private funding," Peacock said. "It's meet us halfway and this project progresses."

Of that $450 million, the St. Louis stadium group wants $250 million from Rams owner Stan Kroenke. If that's the case, the league will chip in $200 million from its G4 stadium loan program.

 

[Dick84]

I'm sorry , but you saying "You Definitely Know Stan wants to move to LA" is almost splitting hairs (not that you can "KNOW" that anyway, its just your opinion as i have my own)


Uhh no I'm not - all 32 owners collectively negotiate and split TV Market Revenue. Its one of their Anti-trust exemptions.

And yea people watch games in LA - I was stationed in Ventura. Whether or not the get games has nothing to do with negotiating contracts and advertising

It's not splitting hairs, not by a longshot.

Not sure what you're trying to say about TV $$... they already get money from LA and that money doesn't change with a team in LA. What may change is merchandise and stadium revenue.

 

[iced]

It's not splitting hairs, not by a longshot.

Not sure what you're trying to say about TV $$... they already get money from LA and that money doesn't change with a team in LA. What may change is merchandise and stadium revenue.

Not when they have a team in the LA market - it changes.

That's like saying any other Non-NFL city has a contract them - when they don't. Its different when a market has a team.

 

[Dick84]

Not when they have a team in the LA market - it changes.

That's like saying any other Non-NFL city has a contract them - when they don't. Its different when a market has a team.

You know the wording on TV contract?
It's a national broadcast contract with national carriers... It's not different in local markets.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Would like to see it - because that makes little to no sense from an investment stand point. I would venture all investors would divvy up the profits in some regard




seeing as how it was posted 37 minutes ago, i think not.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/foot...cle_b3d3ce6c-bc82-5568-9f8e-6a632e18b3e7.html

Directly From Peacock's mouth

I'll look tonight when I get home.


And did you not post this article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...e2f516-dfb8-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html

Directly from that article is where I pulled those numbers. G4 loan is paid back by Stan, PSL is money that could go to Stan that now isn't, lost revenue. Peacock is going to try to spin things a certain way, like the G4 loan being from the NFL, so it looks as if Stan has less to contribute. The fact is Stan is on the hook for the G4 loan, not St Louis or Peacock. Stan is on the hook for the difference if they don't get the type of money they want from the PSL, and Stan is probably on the hook if the Stadium Authority cannot get the money they owe each year.

 

[CGI_Ram]

I understand when people take me to task for saying I know Stan wants to move. I get it. Doesn't change my viewpoint, obviously.

The stuff I find positively hysterical is when people try to break down which deal is more financially lucrative to Stan.

HOW WOULD ANY OF US KNOW??????????????

Do you have the market research on both ends? Because I sure don't.

Read the Santa Clara numbers and find your own conclusions. LA has twice as many people and many big companies.

I think it's time to stop saying you know what Stan wants to do... Post after post.

You might believe it... but it's clutter for the rest of us to read around, quite frankly, and brings nothing productive to this topic.

 

[Dick84]

I think it's time to stop saying you know what Stan wants to do... Post after post.

You might believe it... but it's clutter for the rest of us to read around, quite frankly, and brings nothing productive to this topic.

Then don't reply to it and create more clutter.

 

[CGI_Ram]

Then don't reply to it and create more clutter.

And... I know a dick when I see one without the benefit of being given a screen name.

Bye bye.

 

[iced]

I'll look tonight when I get home.


And did you not post this article?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...e2f516-dfb8-11e4-b6d7-b9bc8acf16f7_story.html

Directly from that article is where I pulled those numbers. G4 loan is paid back by Stan, PSL is money that could go to Stan that now isn't, lost revenue. Peacock is going to try to spin things a certain way, like the G4 loan being from the NFL, so it looks as if Stan has less to contribute.

right but i also said there was a new one recently posted within the past couple of pages

The fact is Stan is on the hook for the G4 loan, not St Louis or Peacock. Stan is on the hook for the difference if they don't get the type of money they want from the PSL, and Stan is probably on the hook if the Stadium Authority cannot get the money they owe each year.

to pay it back over time - and its not stan purely, the other owners chip in for the $200

 

[Hacksaw]

Man this thread has hit rock bottom. Posters calling each other names, no one is objectively listening. It was inevitable though as this is a very emotional divisive subject.
Good luck to all!

 

[CGI_Ram]

Man this thread has hit rock bottom. Posters calling each other names, no one is objectively listening. It was inevitable though as this is a very emotional divisive subject.
Good luck to all!

Not all all Hack/saw.

This thread has been handled totally well by our membership.

As far as I'm concerned; it's back on track.

 

[Legatron4]

Man this thread has hit rock bottom. Posters calling each other names, no one is objectively listening. It was inevitable though as this is a very emotional divisive subject.
Good luck to all!

One person can ruin the whole thing. That person is gone. Most of us can handle this subject without being a Dick.

 

[bluecoconuts]

right but i also said there was a new one recently posted within the past couple of pages

I hadn't seen it, since I'm not home, I'm not able to really read through each thing as carefully. I'm trying to multitask about 5 different things at once, and this is getting the least amount of attention.

to pay it back over time - and its not stan purely, the other owners chip in for the $200

Huh? Other owners? You mean the other owners in the NFL? Or are you talking about Stan selling off some of the Rams? The other owners in the NFL have no obligation to do that, the money comes from the league, to be repaid by Stan.

 

[iced]

I hadn't seen it, since I'm not home, I'm not able to really read through each thing as carefully. I'm trying to multitask about 5 different things at once, and this is getting the least amount of attention.

lol right on - working on a presentation on monday, cleaning my smoker, having a drink, and waiting on the cougar to get home lol

Huh? Other owners? You mean the other owners in the NFL? Or are you talking about Stan selling off some of the Rams? The other owners in the NFL have no obligation to do that, the money comes from the league, to be repaid by Stan.

my bad i skimmed over this earlier and threw me off

http://newballpark.org/2013/10/17/the-limits-of-the-nfls-g-4-stadium-loan-program/

Last week at the NFL owners meetings, the assembled owners approved a raft of small G-4 loans for current NFL stadia. The recipients include the Panthers ($37.5 million), Redskins ($27 million), and Browns ($62.5 million). Combine that with the $58 million the Packers received last year, and you’ve got nearly the amount of one full slots ($200 million) awarded to a team building a new stadium. The fund, a continuation of the G-3 program started with the previous CBA, has already assigned full slots for the 49ers, Falcons, and Vikings. All told that’s around $800 million. When the 49ers were starting construction, I figured that there was about $1 billion available, making for 4 new stadium slots and the rest for renovation work.

Although the minimum for the league is 15 years in loan time - not too shabby...and i think part of the money comes out of the ticket sales if i read correctly

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html

 

[rhinobean]

I think a lot of us fans have forgotten that Stan's counter proposal on renovating the dome had STL spending 700 million taxpayer dollars and 0 Rams dollars! It was rather obvious that he wanted a free ride again from the folks here! The new stadium is, IMO, as generous an offer as any team has got from their home city! Here's hoping the NFL sees it the same way!

 

[Moostache]

I think a lot of us fans have forgotten that Stan's counter proposal on renovating the dome had STL spending 700 million taxpayer dollars and 0 Rams dollars! It was rather obvious that he wanted a free ride again from the folks here! The new stadium is, IMO, as generous an offer as any team has got from their home city! Here's hoping the NFL sees it the same way!

I agree that the initial "proposal" from the Rams for the EJD was laughable. He knew going into it that a zero-contribution, shut-down-the-convention-center-for-2-years proposal was deader than Dillinger on arrival. I know there is a vast under-current of belief that the NFL will simply toss aside the relocation guidelines as they have in the past for kick-back cash, I just don't believe it will happen that way. I stand by my earlier feelings - the owner with the least leverage in all of this is Mark Davis. Start with the weakest link, assume he gets screwed the hardest and the dominoes fall predictably from there. It makes just as much sense as assuming the St. Louis effort is all for naught with no real evidence of that either.

The other comment I had was there seemed to be a lot of certainty that the St. Louis proposal needs STAN'S $ and that Peacock said so...what the actually said was "TEAM $", which is different than "STAN'S $" and could come from any other ownership group...just sayin'

 

[8to12]

One person can ruin the whole thing. That person is gone. Most of us can handle this subject without being a Dick.

What do you mean this person is gone? And, why did you have to highlight the last word? Are you calling that poster a four letter word?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Although the minimum for the league is 15 years in loan time - not too shabby...and i think part of the money comes out of the ticket sales if i read correctly

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html

Yeah, its definitely not a bad loan, I'm more playing devils advocate and thinking about possible reasons Stan may use to leave.

I'm pretty split down the middle on if they stay or not. I want them to stay, but I don't know if they do. Where I differ from most on the "want them to stay" side is that I think Stan would like to move, and would move if he can. I.E. I don't feel LA is simply a leverage ploy.

If he actually does or not, I don't know, we won't know until they vote.