But it doesn't. Apparently some earlier wording in the G3 said something to the effect but the G4 has to be paid back by the owner IIRR within 15 years or upon selling the team - whichever comes first. It also is not a zero interest loan. Again IIRR it is either prime rate or somehow tied to the prime rate.
It's a rate also with an option to extend to 25 years
Looking to find the other stuff in the loans from other teams. Couldn't find anything on niners, vikings source link didn't work, here is what the falcons have on it
http://newstadium.atlantafalcons.com/funding2/g-4-stadium-financing/
"On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, NFL owners voted to provide the Atlanta Falcons with $200 million for their new stadium under the League’s G-4 Financing Plan. The G-4 financing plan is based on a provision in the new collective bargaining agreement that allows up to 1.5% of league revenue to be credited for new stadium costs.
The NFL’s $200 million contribution includes a $100 million loan that can be repaid over 15 years from the league’s share of the increased revenue generated in the new stadium, a $50 million grant that does not have to be repaid and a $50 million loan that the team repays.
In general, NFL teams pay 34 percent of home gate receipts into the league’s revenue-sharing pool, which is distributed equally to all clubs. But the NFL waives its 34 percent share of revenue from premium seats and its share of the incremental increase in other gate revenue for the first 15 years in a new stadium, allowing those funds to instead go toward repaying G-4 loans. The team is responsible for any shortfall if new revenue proves insufficient."
Forgot the G4 Loan also has Free grants in it
And some more goodies
http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html
- The new loan program — which actually will be called "G-4" — ups the maximum loan level from $150 million per team under the old plan to a maximum of $200 million under the new one. Only projects costing at least $400 million, and with a "private contribution" from the team of at least $200 million, will be eligible for the top loan level
- As under G-3, teams can repay the loan with club seat money they normally would have had to share with the league. They can now also use incremental regular ticket revenue, defined as the difference between ticket sales in the new stadium and average sales in the last three years of the old one.
- "The project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club's 'home territory.'" That's in keeping with the old G-3 plan's goal of aiding teams in building new stadiums in their existing hometowns (to avoid the kind of city-hopping that gave us the St. Louis Rams and Tennessee Titans). Still, it's worth noting that this means theMinnesota Vikings, for example, can access $200 million in G-4 loans for a new stadium in Minnesota, but not for one in, say, Los Angeles
I get that. But if his premise that the G4 is free money to Stan from the NFL then it would have to be a reduction in that "free" public money they are getting - no? IOW - let's just say for discussion that the NFL is getting $400 million from Missouri in "free" public money. But they are "giving" Stan $200 million through the G4. Wouldn't you logically say that they are netting $200 million? And if that is the case - which it's not - then wouldn't the NFL be better off with a $500 million relocation fee that actually IS paid to them?
Never said the g4 was free money - the city bonds are. And I would fully expect the relocation for Stan to be $500, which has been rumored as so.
The loan isn't "free money" but it most certainly makes things significantly easier on owners - and it does provide more incentive to stay.
More accurately I would think, is that the NFL might want Stan to stay because they will get the "free" public money plus whatever interest off the G4 loan if Stan stays and takes the loan (which he might refuse). But that G4 money comes from somewhere and must be paid back.
I think they want the Rams to stay for multiple reasons:
-they don't want to deal with the potential backlash of a team alienating a market that's willing to spend a lot of Public money to build a stadium
-That doesn't show "acting in good faith" as part of the relocation rules
-I can't imagine Spanos or Davis allowing Kroenke to essentially jump ahead of them in line to LA - especially with those owners actually working in good faith for 10+ years in their cities..
they've been working on their stadiums atleast twice as long as Kroenke has been an owner
-They've said it over and over again, they're going to do what's best for all 32... I see the other owners placating those two owners before 1 (whom of which has an offer on the table), which would be tapping into another teams market while abandoning one at the same time. While it's not their whole market, 1/4 of their season ticket sales (which may include PSL's) is dollars to owners, and that's all they care about.
-If the other owners see St.Louis offering a legit stadium that meets NFL standards, I think that's the biggest sticking point on whether he goes or not
