New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[rhinobean]

I wouldn't count the St. Louis plan as officially on the table until the financing is worked out. From what I've heard, it would have be voted on and there's significant disagreement in St. Louis with using any public money on the new stadium.

Plus, I think Kroenke is going to balk and balk hard at the idea of the Rams having to pay part of the costs.

I think the one issue that would screw up the stadium in LA is the FAA no fly zone issue! That one intrigues me! Kroenke is acting like a 1 %er so if he can do what's best for him, he will!

 

[ChrisW]

I wouldn't count the St. Louis plan as officially on the table until the financing is worked out. From what I've heard, it would have be voted on and there's significant disagreement in St. Louis with using any public money on the new stadium.

Plus, I think Kroenke is going to balk and balk hard at the idea of the Rams having to pay part of the costs.

I think it will probably at least be voted on in the general assembly. The new costs will have to stand up against the new revenue that will be coming in from the freed dates in the ED and conventions. If the early reports are that they will double their money, that's more money coming into the city than a whole season's worth of baseball at Busch Stadium.

As far as Kroenke putting in his share, well...200m is cheap compared to what he'd be investing in L.A. He will start making money a whole lot faster if he stays, then if he goes. I'll say, how long does a man in his 70s have to wait to make his money back, and start making profits?

 

[Boffo97]

As far as Kroenke putting in his share, well...200m is cheap compared to what he'd be investing in L.A. He will start making money a whole lot faster if he stays, then if he goes. I'll say, how long does a man in his 70s have to wait to make his money back, and start making profits?

But he would own the Inglewood stadium. He wouldn't own the St. Louis stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I think it will probably at least be voted on in the general assembly. The new costs will have to stand up against the new revenue that will be coming in from the freed dates in the ED and conventions. If the early reports are that they will double their money, that's more money coming into the city than a whole season's worth of baseball at Busch Stadium.

As far as Kroenke putting in his share, well...200m is cheap compared to what he'd be investing in L.A. He will start making money a whole lot faster if he stays, then if he goes. I'll say, how long does a man in his 70s have to wait to make his money back, and start making profits?

Not really, he'll spend more to move, but the value of the team will double and potentially triple almost immediately. Plus he'll make more money from owning it all. The initial costs would be much higher, but like the old saying goes, you gotta spend money to make money.


I doubt the FAA will be an issue either, they would have spotted that long ago if it would have been. Its another one of those formalities that likely gets passed and is all good. They just need to actually have it happen. They did hire a consultant to help them, which also shows the seriousness of it all. The FAA hasn't gotten a thing yet though, so anyone who says they may not approve it is probably just pulling things out of their ass. They haven't looked at it yet, so while technically they can say no, the statement at this point would be like saying "an astroid may fall and hit the site directly"

 

[ChrisW]

Not really, he'll spend more to move, but the value of the team will double and potentially triple almost immediately. Plus he'll make more money from owning it all. The initial costs would be much high, but like the old saying go, you gotta spend money to make money.


I doubt the FAA will be an issue either, they would have spotted that long ago if it would have been. Its another one of those formalities that likely gets passed and is all good. They just need to actually have it happen. They did hire a consultant to help them, which also shows the seriousness of it all. The FAA hasn't gotten a thing yet though, so anyone who says they may not approve it is probably just pulling things out of their ass. They haven't looked at it yet, so while technically they can say no, the statement at this point would be like saying "an astroid may fall and hit the site directly"

His profits won't be that much more in LA, until a new TV deal is reached (was it in 2020?). 60-65% of his revenue is from the NFL profit sharing. So he really wouldn't earn that much more money. The rest would be contingent on sales at each stadium, which would be a direct reflection of the product on field. If the product stays the course of the past 20 years, then the only real part of the whole proposal that makes him more money is the retail/commerical space surrounding the stadium.

 

[bluecoconuts]

His profits won't be that much more in LA, until a new TV deal is reached (was it in 2020?). 60-65% of his revenue is from the NFL profit sharing. So he really wouldn't earn that much more money. The rest would be contingent on sales at each stadium, which would be a direct reflection of the product on field. If the product stays the course of the past 20 years, then the only real part of the whole proposal that makes him more money is the retail/commerical space surrounding the stadium.

He will also see profits elsewhere, but the team value shooting up is probably enough in all honesty. He will also see returns on some of the surrounding area as well.

 

[beej]

He will also see profits elsewhere, but the team value shooting up is probably enough in all honesty. He will also see returns on some of the surrounding area as well.

would the Chargers and the Raiders values double or triple if they moved to LA as well?

 

[T-REX]

I’m from neither St. Louis or Los Angles and have no allegiance to either city. I’ve been hooked on the horns since 1969. I will follow the horns were ever they take me. I have sincere compassion to those of both cities understanding what they are going through and have gone through. I’ll stay out of the politics of all that is going on in the city of St. Louis but I will weigh in on the stadium concept proposal.

I’m not a huge fan of the new stadium concept that was presented by Peacock. It looks to me like a huge salad bowl, way to wide open for my liking. Open air is one thing but total exposure in St. Louis mid-January is not good for the game time experience IMO.

I’m not an Architect in anyway shape of form but I do work in the mechanical design field and use 3D modeling software. I spent of few lunch hours putting together a stadium concept to my liking just because what was presented was garbage IMO.

I would like to see a stadium on lines of what the Arizona Cardinals play in but without the retractable roof keeping the open air still in play but giving coverage to the fans while creating an environment that will hold the sound of a cheering crowd.

View attachment 4979

 

[beej]

Nice Design! but don't worry about Mid January. If the rams ever start playing games in mid January. nobody is going to care about the weather.

 

[bluecoconuts]

would the Chargers and the Raiders values double or triple if they moved to LA as well?

Increase? Yes, but their teams are more valuable already, so the increase wouldn't be as much.

 

[beej]

Increase? Yes, but their teams are more valuable already, so the increase wouldn't be as much.

I actually just looked it up on Forbes. They are right there with the rams around $970.

 

[beej]

The article said that if the Rams moved to LA they would be worth somewhere between 2-3 Billion. The Cowboys are number 1 at 3.2 billion. but the cowboys own their own 2 billion dollar stadium. the redskins and the Patriots are in the 2's and they own their own stadium as well. If stan goes and builds a 2 billion dollar stadium and that makes him worth 3.2 billion, which is debatable but for the sake of argument we'll say 3.2, it's not really that much improvement.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't think there's rules against it, but its probably because its not something any owner would want. Especially if you're looking at this situation. Why would stan spend close to a billion dollars on a stadium, plus spend another half a billion on another stadium, and not get anywhere near the return he would get by having his franchise net worth grow significantly? Building the stadium for someone else makes very little sense financially.

Probably no rules because nobody would want to.

Want aside - I don't see how a league can have completely unrelated cross ownership rules while allowing someone to own a NFL team in one city and a stadium that another NFL team plays in in another. In this case Stan would profit from the popularity of a team in LA. Isn't that a MUCH bigger conflict than a basketball, hockey, or baseball team in another city?

I agree that it wouldn't appear to make sense from a business standpoint to build a stadium for someone else to play in when you already own a team but if you are making money off marketing an NFL team in another city, that really makes no sense to me unless I am missing something as to WHY they don't allow cross ownership in other cities. But then again, I don't really get the reasoning behind that rule anyway.

 

[ChrisW]

He will also see profits elsewhere, but the team value shooting up is probably enough in all honesty. He will also see returns on some of the surrounding area as well.

That may be true, but it is against the bylaws to move just increase the value of your franchise.

 

[JCK363]

If St. Louis can get this through, I don't think there will be much of an issue getting approval from at least the St. Louis area voters:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: MLS officials are heading to St.Louis to study the stadium project.</p>&mdash; Keep The Rams In StL (@KeepTheRamsNStL) <a href="January'>
View: https://twitter.com/KeepTheRamsNStL/status/555838075147141121

 

[ChrisW]

If St. Louis can get this through, I don't think there will be much of an issue getting approval from at least the St. Louis area voters:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>BREAKING: MLS officials are heading to St.Louis to study the stadium project.</p>&mdash; Keep The Rams In StL (@KeepTheRamsNStL) <a href="January'>
View: https://twitter.com/KeepTheRamsNStL/status/555838075147141121

The MLS angle is curious. If Kroenke doesn't want to sell the Rapids, then the new team would have to pay into the stadium, which would soften any payments.

Also, there's the angle that the CVC would make $20 million more a year. How much of that would be able to be used to help pay off the new stadium, since they both will be owned by the CVC?

 

[dbrooks25]

The MLS angle is curious. If Kroenke doesn't want to sell the Rapids, then the new team would have to pay into the stadium, which would soften any payments.

Also, there's the angle that the CVC would make $20 million more a year. How much of that would be able to be used to help pay off the new stadium, since they both will be owned by the CVC?

I thought they said the CVC would make $20 million or more a year as well, but when I listened again Peacock said the dome being open for other events would generate an additional revenue of $20 plus million to the area. He brought up hotels, restaurants, and other business generating income as well.

Also, I don't get all of the complaints regarding the new Stl stadium. How would you expect an outdoor stadium to look? The places most of you are comparing it to are closed stadiums (retractable roof or not) and with those you are going to get some futuristic look to it. I'm sure if a closed stadium was proposed the renderings would have been satisfactory to most. Again, how much spaceship looking crap can you add to an outdoor stadium? Look at the stadiums in Pittsburgh, Seattle, Buffalo, etc. and tell me that they look much better (if any better at all) than the new stadium being proposed in St. Louis.

I personally don't care how an aerial view of the stadium looks, I care about how it will look inside and none of us have seen many details regarding it. I guarantee it will look great if/when it is built.

 

[blue4]

I thought they said the CVC would make $20 million or more a year as well, but when I listened again Peacock said the dome being open for other events would generate an additional revenue of $20 plus million to the area. He brought up hotels, restaurants, and other business generating income as well.

Also, I don't get all of the complaints regarding the new Stl stadium. How would you expect an outdoor stadium to look? The places most of you are comparing it to are closed stadiums (retractable roof or not) and with those you are going to get some futuristic look to it. I'm sure if a closed stadium was proposed the renderings would have been satisfactory to most. Again, how much spaceship looking crap can you add to an outdoor stadium? Look at the stadiums in Pittsburgh, Seattle, Buffalo, etc. and tell me that they look much better (if any better at all) than the new stadium being proposed in St. Louis.

I personally don't care how an aerial view of the stadium looks, I care about how it will look inside and none of us have seen many details regarding it. I guarantee it will look great if/when it is built.

I don't get the anxiety over it being outdoors as opposed to a dome. For years, every complained about the dome. The field, the lack of atmosphere, etc. It's football.

 

[Ramathon]

Also, I don't get all of the complaints regarding the new Stl stadium. How would you expect an outdoor stadium to look? The places most of you are comparing it to are closed stadiums (retractable roof or not) and with those you are going to get some futuristic look to it. I'm sure if a closed stadium was proposed the renderings would have been satisfactory to most. Again, how much spaceship looking crap can you add to an outdoor stadium? Look at the stadiums in Pittsburgh, Seattle, Buffalo, etc. and tell me that they look much better (if any better at all) than the new stadium being proposed in St. Louis.

I personally don't care how an aerial view of the stadium looks, I care about how it will look inside and none of us have seen many details regarding it. I guarantee it will look great if/when it is built.

Thank you. I don't get that at all. I couldn't give a flock less what the place looks like. I care about how easy it is to get in/out of, do I have to spend an eternity in line to get food, what are the sight lines like.....oh, and then there's that trivial aspect of the product on the field.

But the way it looks?!?! Seriously?!? What are we.....a bunch of teenage girls assessing Katie Perry's latest hairstyle???

That just makes me want to go all Jim Mora on the idea.....'LOOKS??!? Don't talk about looks. Are you kiddin' me? LOOKS!?!??!

 

[JCK363]

This is at least encouraging in that it looks like the NFL would like to have the Rams stay in St. Louis. It also looks like they haven't been thrilled with the city's effort so far.

NFL exec: St. Louis must build new stadium to keep NFL

ST. LOUIS • Local planners must build a new football stadium here, or St. Louis will not hold onto its franchise, a key National Football League executive said on Thursday.

NFL Executive Vice President Eric Grubman, who is in charge of stadium development as well as developing the Los Angeles market, came to St. Louis on Thursday to meet with Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium team.

He confirmed, for the first time ever by a league official, that St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke is indeed “looking” elsewhere.
“I’m not going to get into specifics, other than he’s said he’s going to keep his options open and he’s looking,” Grubman said.
But he also said Kroenke has not made it clear to the league if he wants to move to Los Angeles, as has long been discussed since Kroenke purchased land there last year.

And league officials are not even considering such a move, Grubman said.

“We’re looking for a solution to the St. Louis Rams to be the St. Louis Rams, not for some other team to be the St. Louis Rams,” he said.
Grubman said he came to St. Louis to offer the NFL’s help in development of a new stadium, with hopes the team will make progress on the plan announced last week.
Is a stadium necessary to keep the Rams?

“Yes,” Grubman responded. “But I don’t know what kind of stadium. A team healthy in its market is the prescription,” he continued.
“The way that was pursued over the past couple years has failed,” he said. “The probability that it will be resurrected is zero.
“Therefore we need to look at a new solution. There’s no other stadium to be renovated or retrofitted. Ergo, the solution set involves a new stadium.”

http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/article_1683d7d6-ddf1-545f-9c95-5f5b6d6a4ff4.html#.VLhIe6KaFz4.twitter