New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Moostache]

I am curious why so many opinions have the NFL wanting too keep St. Louis as an NFL city, and simultaneously people express the opinion that the current Raiders situation is financially untenable...yet, the logical action - leaving the Rams in St. Louis and facilitating a Raiders take-over and move under Kroenke - is always dismissed out of hand.
If the NFL wants to retain St. Louis as a market, no move is required and a deal to get the Raiders a new home and owner seems just as likely without a Rams move.
Why is it 'pie-in-the-sky' to think that is most likely outcome?

 

[RamFan503]

The Dome is actually turning into a source of Revenue, using to host other events year round now. I think it was part of the reason for building a new stadium as opposed to just renovating

Sorry but I've seen the projections and when you take expenses into account, it would take many moons for the additional Dome revenue streams to come close to outweighing the cost of building the new stadium. And without the extension of the bonds, it looks like they would essentially have to refinance the Dome and try to pay for it on a long term deal using these increased revenues from added events.

This is another reason I feel losing the Rams would be very bad for the city. Not only do you not get the new stadium built and the revitalization of the river front but now the Dome essentially has to pay for itself. With no NFL or NBA team in town, does the Dome attract some of the more major events? I dunno but I doubt it.

 

[RamFan503]

I am curious why so many opinions have the NFL wanting too keep St. Louis as an NFL city, and simultaneously people express the opinion that the current Raiders situation is financially untenable...yet, the logical action - leaving the Rams in St. Louis and facilitating a Raiders take-over and move under Kroenke - is always dismissed out of hand.
If the NFL wants to retain St. Louis as a market, no move is required and a deal to get the Raiders a new home and owner seems just as likely without a Rams move.
Why is it 'pie-in-the-sky' to think that is most likely outcome?

You really think Stan is going to trade all the moving parts he has assembled? If you are talking about him simply changing his organizational name, then I could maybe see it. I doubt it but maybe. But seriously, exchanging teams would be like Nike exchanging headquarters and employees with Adidas. It ain't happenin'

 

[bluecoconuts]

I am curious why so many opinions have the NFL wanting too keep St. Louis as an NFL city, and simultaneously people express the opinion that the current Raiders situation is financially untenable...yet, the logical action - leaving the Rams in St. Louis and facilitating a Raiders take-over and move under Kroenke - is always dismissed out of hand.
If the NFL wants to retain St. Louis as a market, no move is required and a deal to get the Raiders a new home and owner seems just as likely without a Rams move.
Why is it 'pie-in-the-sky' to think that is most likely outcome?

Why would Stan want to trade his team, that he developed and is building for a team that is further behind?

If its name only, why do that when the Rams have a long history in LA, and a solid fanbase that he doesn't need to reshape away from the gangster image that the Raiders have. Rams, in name, are more of a sure thing in LA.

 

[iced]

Sorry but I've seen the projections and when you take expenses into account, it would take many moons for the additional Dome revenue streams to come close to outweighing the cost of building the new stadium. And without the extension of the bonds, it looks like they would essentially have to refinance the Dome and try to pay for it on a long term deal using these increased revenues from added events.

This is another reason I feel losing the Rams would be very bad for the city. Not only do you not get the new stadium built and the revitalization of the river front but now the Dome essentially has to pay for itself. With no NFL or NBA team in town, does the Dome attract some of the more major events? I dunno but I doubt it.

I don't see an issue if they're sustaining decent revenue during when its not in football season.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_59cf65c3-b206-5db2-b2df-7cfb781fcb7c.html

Moreover, the plan doesn’t dump the Jones Dome, Peacock said. Convention center leaders have said they will sell far more conventions without the Rams.

“Many conventions won’t book knowing there’s an NFL game going on next to them,” he said.

 

[beej]

Why would Stan want to trade his team, that he developed and is building for a team that is further behind?

If its name only, why do that when the Rams have a long history in LA, and a solid fanbase that he doesn't need to reshape away from the gangster image that the Raiders have. Rams, in name, are more of a sure thing in LA.

I think that we've established over 286 pages that stan only cares about money. How do you make a ton of money? buy low and sell high.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think that we've established over 286 pages that stan only cares about money. How do you make a ton of money? buy low and sell high.

I don't agree that Stan only cares about money, if that was the case, its probably better to stay put. I think its more about legacy, being the guy who brought the NFL back to LA, being a major sports owner in the second largest market in the US, etc. Nothing suggest he's looking to sell the Rams.

 

[beej]

I don't agree that Stan only cares about money, if that was the case, its probably better to stay put. I think its more about legacy, being the guy who brought the NFL back to LA, being a major sports owner in the second largest market in the US, etc. Nothing suggest he's looking to sell the Rams.

He would still accomplish all of those things in buying the raiders. there is plenty to suggest that he would sell the rams.

1) If the bronco's would have come up for sale, he probably would have already sold the rams
2) Inglewood still won't say that it is in fact "the rams" moving to the new stadium.
3) Dave Peacock has alluded to the fact that the Rams might stay in STL under new ownership. And he doesn't seem to be a guy who throws out speculation like that lightly.
4)since Stan doesn't talk, other sources, and common sense are really all we have to go by.

And as far as legacy goes, he would not only be the guy who brought the NFL back to LA, (which, in my opinion, you have an over-the-top vision of grandeur about). His legacy would also be the guy who sold out his home state by removing the NFL from the city that gave him his first and middle name. He could solve that by leaving the STL Rams where they are and buying the LA Raiders, all the while amassing a fortune, building an empire behind one way glass in a dimly lit room.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't see an issue if they're sustaining decent revenue during when its not in football season.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_59cf65c3-b206-5db2-b2df-7cfb781fcb7c.html

But it doesn't appear that they actually are. I looked for booked events and aside from Rams games and events, there ain't much. I read before that they were saying the America's Center and Dome could account for as much as $20 million in events without the Rams games to interfere. The Dome alone is forecast at costing upwards of $9 million a year just in upkeep beyond 2016. It supposedly needs at least half the roof replaced as well as other renovations in order to keep it up to market standards.

And then there is this (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_ffddcce5-b713-5586-8292-731b20fc7179.html) which kind of summed up what I was thinking:

Maintenance of the Dome, unlike at its sister facilities, falls almost entirely on the backs of the public. Busch Stadium is a private ballpark, funded largely by the St. Louis Cardinals. The Scottrade Center, too, was built with $135 million from local companies, and is maintained by the owners of the St. Louis Blues.

But among public stadiums, this kind of conundrum is not unusual, said University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson. “Estimates of revenues tend to be overstated and costs played down, or at least pushed off to the future,” he said. “You’ve got this combination, on the city side, of public officials worried about the near future, not the long term, and these sports franchises that have an enormous amount of market power. And that’s a bad combination for taxpayers.”

My point being that St Louis and MO need to realize this potential fact and that building a new stadium may actually and amazingly be cheaper for them in the long term while also having the greater benefit of keeping the city as vital as possible well into the future. IMO - it is extremely important for them to step up and keep the Rams in St Louis.

Obviously this is just my take.

 

[MrMotes]

He would still accomplish all of those things in buying the raiders. there is plenty to suggest that he would sell the rams.

1) If the bronco's would have come up for sale, he probably would have already sold the rams
2) Inglewood still won't say that it is in fact "the rams" moving to the new stadium.
3) Dave Peacock has alluded to the fact that the Rams might stay in STL under new ownership. And he doesn't seem to be a guy who throws out speculation like that lightly.
4)since Stan doesn't talk, other sources, and common sense are really all we have to go by.

And as far as legacy goes, he would not only be the guy who brought the NFL back to LA, (which, in my opinion, you have an over-the-top vision of grandeur about). His legacy would also be the guy who sold out his home state by removing the NFL from the city that gave him his first and middle name. He could solve that by leaving the STL Rams where they are and buying the LA Raiders, all the while amassing a fortune, building an empire behind one way glass in a dimly lit room.

Ever heard of the capital gains tax?

Inglewood won't say it's the Rams because unlike Oakland and SD, Kroenke is playing by the rules.

The fact that SD and Oak are making so much noise makes me think they're bluffing. OTOH, Kroenke quietly going about his business makes me think he's serious.

But we'll see...

 

[beej]

Ever heard of the capital gains tax?

Inglewood won't say it's the Rams because unlike Oakland and SD, Kroenke is playing by the rules.

The fact that SD and Oak are making so much noise makes me think they're bluffing. OTOH, Kroenke quietly going about his business makes me think he's serious.

But we'll see...

you can get around the capital gains tax by reinvesting it the profits right away into something else. A new stadium for instance.

If he were interested in Rules he would be in discussion with Dave Peacock about what he wants in this new stadium STL is offering to build him.

 

[RamFan503]

there is plenty to suggest that he would sell the rams.

Not saying it's not possible but I would suggest there is quite a lot more suggesting he hasn't even considered selling the Rams and isn't likely to any time soon. But time will tell I suppose.

 

[beej]

would Stan still be a hero in LA if he bought the Raiders and moved them there?

 

[RamFan503]

you can get around the capital gains tax by reinvesting it the profits right away into something else. A new stadium for instance.

If he were interested in Rules he would be in discussion with Dave Peacock about what he wants in this new stadium STL is offering to build him.

Capital gains aside, he would still have to fork over more for the Raiders than he would apparently get for the Rams even though I would think he actually sees his investments as making the team worth more. Still - I realize Peacock may have said things that would allude to the idea being on the table. While I'm sure it is on the table in his mind, I highly doubt it is on the table in Stan's mind. I'm just guessing like everyone else but I can't see Stan selling the team when he is actually on the verge of increasing its value regardless of where it ends up.

And I'd have to agree that Stan doesn't want to take the Raiduhs and re-brand them in LA as a non-thug team. Just don't see that happening.

 

[iced]

But it doesn't appear that they actually are. I looked for booked events and aside from Rams games and events, there ain't much. I read before that they were saying the America's Center and Dome could account for as much as $20 million in events without the Rams games to interfere. The Dome alone is forecast at costing upwards of $9 million a year just in upkeep beyond 2016. It supposedly needs at least half the roof replaced as well as other renovations in order to keep it up to market standards.

And then there is this (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_ffddcce5-b713-5586-8292-731b20fc7179.html) which kind of summed up what I was thinking:

Maintenance of the Dome, unlike at its sister facilities, falls almost entirely on the backs of the public. Busch Stadium is a private ballpark, funded largely by the St. Louis Cardinals. The Scottrade Center, too, was built with $135 million from local companies, and is maintained by the owners of the St. Louis Blues.

But among public stadiums, this kind of conundrum is not unusual, said University of Chicago economist Allen Sanderson. “Estimates of revenues tend to be overstated and costs played down, or at least pushed off to the future,” he said. “You’ve got this combination, on the city side, of public officials worried about the near future, not the long term, and these sports franchises that have an enormous amount of market power. And that’s a bad combination for taxpayers.”

My point being that St Louis and MO need to realize this potential fact and that building a new stadium may actually and amazingly be cheaper for them in the long term while also having the greater benefit of keeping the city as vital as possible well into the future. IMO - it is extremely important for them to step up and keep the Rams in St Louis.

Obviously this is just my take.

Oh I totally agree - I was just saying if what Peacock was saying about the EJD's revenue stream was true then I don't see the worry. If the Dollars and events are there that's all that matters.

And obviously part of what he said is contingent of there not being in football games - hopefully we'll never have to know that number would be

 

[beej]

And I'd have to agree that Stan doesn't want to take the Raiduhs and re-brand them in LA as a non-thug team. Just don't see that happening.

I'm not sure Stan cares about "thug/non-thug" (stankroenkequotes.com site must be down or something) but if he did just getting the team out of Oakland would fix most of it. and with the turn over to the roster that's going to be happening over the next couple of years, that would fix the rest of it.

 

[RamFan503]

would Stan still be a hero in LA if he bought the Raiders and moved them there?

I would guess that if you are asking members on this site that are obviously Rams fans, the answer is going to be no. Still, if I am thinking back to when the Raiduhs were in LA, they were offering much cheaper tickets and were having to "sell" tickets as promo items. The Coliseum didn't have much if anything in the form of corporate boxes and suites but one of the main reasons Al supposedly moved back was because he was having a very difficult time drumming up interest in that aspect of getting a stadium deal done.

Maybe some on here were around and know more. I already had moved up to Oregon several years before their return to Oakland. But even though the Raiduhs won a SB their second season in LA, the team didn't seem to take in the greater LA area. In fact they were kind of despised by most I knew.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm not sure Stan cares about "thug/non-thug" (stankroenkequotes.com site must be down or something) but if he did just getting the team out of Oakland would fix most of it. and with the turn over to the roster that's going to be happening over the next couple of years, that would fix the rest of it.

Actually, I am going to guess that he cares quite a bit. I realize that many in the Lou don't care for the man much but if you look at his investments and teams, they concentrate quite a bit on image and being a shining star - unfortunately sometimes even more than winning championships. I don't see the Raiduhs fitting his MO or empire.

I'm not sure if you are thinking straight up trade or what but if so, I can't imagine Stan places anywhere near the value on the Raiduhs as he does the team and organization he has been building. If not, I can't really see Davis putting up money to make this happen either.

But who the hell knows.

P.S. - Clearly you have never been to a Raiduhs game in LA. The hell it fixed it moving out of Oakland. It took the NFL gangsta wear and dropped it into the middle of the gangsta capitol of the world.

 

[beej]

P.S. - Clearly you have never been to a Raiduhs game in LA. The hell it fixed it moving out of Oakland. It took the NFL gangsta wear and dropped it into the middle of the gangsta capitol of the world.

well, you got me there. Never been to LA or even California. I mostly try to avoid big cities altogether if at all possible.

 

[dbrooks25]

Somehow I really doubt Stan would be interested in selling. It's not what he does and it's not like he could just go out and buy a new one.

I kind of doubt he's interested in selling as well. I was more so talking about Peacock being willing and able to put an ownership group together should SK want to sell.