New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[2105]

Except none of those other cities thought their threats were credible to move.. It's been 10 years and they've been saying that - no one gets serious apparently until you start talking land and throwing out pretty drawings.

Not that different between how CVC treated them during Arbitration - the other cities have been acting the same way. Make an offer that you know they won't accept but don't believe they'll move either.

Fair to say at this point now they have all cities' attention.

True.

But the owner of one of those teams actually appears dead-set on moving to LA & the other 2 do not.

Stan's set on moving, or at least everyone who covers the team for a living believes that.

The others are set on getting a new stadium.

 

[iced]

True.

But the owner of one of those teams actually appears dead-set on moving to LA & the other 2 do not.

1)the appearance he wants, tweaks and changes are still being made. Rams gave some input on the last stadium presentation by peacock
2)do believe the carson project is making their presentation soon... on the 20th IIRC

Stan's set on moving, or at least everyone who covers the team for a living believes that.

The others are set on getting a new stadium.

I think Stan is trying to maximize his deal. You can see the difference in how all the cities have responded to the threat. That's why these owners spend the money - a couple million for a couple more hundred million from the public... They were only going to get, what, $300 m before in upgrades before from the cvc? Now he's being offered that out door, 1 billion stadium that can attract the big time events..what he wants.. and getting $450-$500 million in public bonds + $150 m in PSLs... he only needs to spend $250 m and take the g4 loan

 

[2105]

Okay. You're right. I imagine you have Stan's limo bugged. Lol.

Anyway.. I'll go with the pros on this one. There's consensus he wants to move, the question remains as to whether he actually will.

 

[The Ripper]

1)the appearance he wants, tweaks and changes are still being made. Rams gave some input on the last stadium presentation by peacock
2)do believe the carson project is making their presentation soon... on the 20th IIRC




I think Stan is trying to maximize his deal. You can see the difference in how all the cities have responded to the threat. That's why these owners spend the money - a couple million for a couple more hundred million from the public... They were only going to get, what, $300 m before in upgrades before from the cvc? Now he's being offered that out door, 1 billion stadium that can attract the big time events..what he wants.. and getting $450-$500 million in public bonds + $150 m in PSLs... he only needs to spend $250 m and take the g4 loan

kinda funny - the only time Stan talked about the stadium situation was years ago, and talked about keeping the team in st.louis..

What about the shortfalls? All it would take is the price of steel to rise to increase the cost by a $ 100 million or more. Who covers that? It would be Kroenke so his cost would go up.

 

[iced]

Okay. You're right. I imagine you have Stan's limo bugged. Lol.

Anyway.. I'll go with the pros on this one. There's consensus he wants to move, the question remains as to whether he actually will.

depends on who you're referring to as pro's here

ESPN has been touting a lot of the whole stan wants to move BS, and they don't exactly have an amazing track record of being right

and it doesn't really matter anyway - the only one who knows the answer to what Stan wants to do , is Stan.

 

[iced]

What about the shortfalls? All it would take is the price of steel to rise to increase the cost by a $ 100 million or more. Who covers that? It would be Kroenke so his cost would go up.

Both the city and owner chipped in for the vikings project, so I would assume both would do the same

 

[2105]

Bernie & JT
I think Nick said as much.
Vinny B.
I'm not sure on Farmer.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Doesn't fit their mantra they've echoed all along "What's best for all 32 owners."

Depending on how you look at it. Does letting the Rams, who have potential in a new stadium in their home market, leave for LA while two other teams struggle to fix solutions in their home markets and wouldn't mind going to LA do what's best for all 32 owners? No.

But, does letting Kroenke, who is the only owner who is willing to up and move and pay for 100% without any assistance from the league move into a stadium in LA that can house one of the other two teams, leave an open market for the other do what's best for all 32 owners? Maybe. Now factor in that Inglewood offers much more is likely the easier sell in terms of long term interest, plus the ability to hold more NFL related events, and a location for the NFL Network, all again while saving the league at least 400 million dollars, which helps them reach their goal of 25 billion dollars annually by 2027 (Which they are currently behind schedule to meet that goal).

Yeah, it can easily be seen as best for all 32 owners. Carson is best for the Chargers, it's debatable how good it is for the Raiders, honestly it seems they're not really doing much with the entire process anyway, and doesn't really offer all the extra goodies to the league that Inglewood does. There's also a lot more question marks surrounding it. That doesn't mean that the owners are definitely going to pick Inglewood, but it does mean that Inglewood isn't a tough sell in terms of doing what's best for all.

Going to LA would cost around $500 million in fees, about $2 billion for a new stadium, then whatever else for a train facility, offices, hiring new personnel at a LA wage scale, and probably several other things that you and I don't have any clue about. So that potential $3 billion in team value, which I don't believe it would actually be, isn't as big as it may appear. Let's not forget that the league could forgive cross ownership if he stays in STL. That will not happen in LA.

I don't think most of the staff (if any) are making minimum wage, so talking about wage scales isn't really meaningful. Plus you need to factor in the fact that Kroenke would own everything, which in turn allows him to bring in a lot of revenue, revenue that he doesn't get in St Louis. Final four, bowl games, X-Games, concerts, Pro Bowl, etc etc. I would very much doubt the NFL is going to just let him be on the cross ownership regardless of where the Rams play, as far as I know they've never indicated they were mulling that option over either.

 

[iced]

Bernie & JT
I think Nick said as much.
Vinny B.
I'm not sure on Farmer.

Lol I'm not listening to Bernie & JT - the two most butt hurt analysts with an axe to grind against the Rams. nope to farmer, used to like wagoner but now he's with espn and has changed.

 

[2105]

Well... If you don't believe the people covering the team... I got nothing.

Btw...
Sam Farmer wrote, of Stan;
"his intentions seem clear.."
On March 21.

 

[iced]

Depending on how you look at it. Does letting the Rams, who have potential in a new stadium in their home market, leave for LA while two other teams struggle to fix solutions in their home markets and wouldn't mind going to LA do what's best for all 32 owners? No.

But, does letting Kroenke, who is the only owner who is willing to up and move and pay for 100% without any assistance from the league move into a stadium in LA that can house one of the other two teams, leave an open market for the other do what's best for all 32 owners? Maybe. Now factor in that Inglewood offers much more is likely the easier sell in terms of long term interest, plus the ability to hold more NFL related events, and a location for the NFL Network, all again while saving the league at least 400 million dollars, which helps them reach their goal of 25 billion dollars annually by 2027 (Which they are currently behind schedule to meet that goal).

Yeah, it can easily be seen as best for all 32 owners. Carson is best for the Chargers, it's debatable how good it is for the Raiders, honestly it seems they're not really doing much with the entire process anyway, and doesn't really offer all the extra goodies to the league that Inglewood does. There's also a lot more question marks surrounding it. That doesn't mean that the owners are definitely going to pick Inglewood, but it does mean that Inglewood isn't a tough sell in terms of doing what's best for all.

I sincerely doubt things like a location for NFL Network, especially during the season - running a tv station and everything else goes on during an NFL week for a team? Has this been done before or just something you're speculating about?

Carson + St.Louis is better than Oakland and SD/LA and no St.Louis - losing St.Louis market plus leaving those two teams in the cold...

I still can't imagine all the other owners looking at those 3, looking at their options on the table, and Kroenke, the only one with a public funded offer, being given the green light to move before the others.

The city just approved of $50 million in bonds to clean up the carson site, I wouldn't call that dead.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html

I don't think most of the staff (if any) are making minimum wage, so talking about wage scales isn't really meaningful. Plus you need to factor in the fact that Kroenke would own everything, which in turn allows him to bring in a lot of revenue, revenue that he doesn't get in St Louis. Final four, bowl games, X-Games, concerts, Pro Bowl, etc etc. I would very much doubt the NFL is going to just let him be on the cross ownership regardless of where the Rams play, as far as I know they've never indicated they were mulling that option over either.

stan still hasn't done anything in regard to this either. His last potential offer was to move the team to his wife... lol.. like that will work if they didn't let him pass over a team to his son (or at least was the original plan)

 

[iced]

Well... If you don't believe the people covering the team... I got nothing.

Btw...
Sam Farmer wrote, of Stan;
"his intentions seem clear.."
On March 21.

Cause that's such an unbiased source

I could be wrong but I could have sworn I've always read lots of rumors and theories in Farmer's previous articles that always seemed like a stretch and never panned out. Kinda turned me off.

he's no mike florio though

 

[2105]

Don't mistake disagreeing with their conclusions with whether their conclusions are well researched and thought out.

You don't believe them.

Fine.

 

[iced]

Don't mistake disagreeing with their conclusions with whether their conclusions are well researched and thought out.

You don't believe them.

Fine.

lol not always

And a lot of times they're not that well researched - often times i see misinformation or numbers wrong..plenty of articles have been posted and pointed out here in the past 300 pages with same thing.

And you can't tell me JT or bernie doesn't have an axe to grind against the Rams - I think you'd be the lone person who believes that... Plenty of people on here have called on him for his "Professionalism"

 

[Goose]

I don't think most of the staff (if any) are making minimum wage, so talking about wage scales isn't really meaningful. Plus you need to factor in the fact that Kroenke would own everything, which in turn allows him to bring in a lot of revenue, revenue that he doesn't get in St Louis. Final four, bowl games, X-Games, concerts, Pro Bowl, etc etc. I would very much doubt the NFL is going to just let him be on the cross ownership regardless of where the Rams play, as far as I know they've never indicated they were mulling that option over either.

I understand what you are saying but someone that is making $90,000 in STL cannot live the same lifestyle in LA. To think that would be foolish. What do you think a house 2,500 sq ft house cost in LA vs. STL? Now they have indicated that most departments probably wouldn't move with the team but still you are going to pay your non-football staff more money for the same job in LA. So you have to pay the people you layoff and then pay new people for the same job.

Stan can bid on those events but he is competing with other venues not only in LA but in California. In STL he could contribute to the stadium and bid really only against KC for those other events. I know that the NFL has never indicated as much but does not mean it isn't an option. I was just pointing out it is a bullet in the gun if the need to use it.

 

[2105]

You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm entitled to think it's irrational and disconnected from reality.

Free country.

 

[iced]

You're entitled to your opinion.

I'm entitled to think it's irrational and disconnected from reality.

Free country.

And vice versa

 

[bluecoconuts]

I sincerely doubt things like a location for NFL Network, especially during the season - running a tv station and everything else goes on during an NFL week for a team? Has this been done before or just something you're speculating about?

Carson + St.Louis is better than Oakland and SD/LA and no St.Louis - losing St.Louis market plus leaving those two teams in the cold...

I still can't imagine all the other owners looking those 3, looking at their options on the table, and Kroenke, the only one with a public funded off, being given the green light to move before the others.

The city just approved of $50 million in bonds to clean up the carson site, I wouldn't call that dead.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html

Few things, NFL Network isn't going be the deciding factor, but it's one of different things that add to Inglewood. NFL Network is headquartered in Culver City, their building is literally 7 miles away from the Inglewood stadium. With the surrounding developments, it's not hard for Kroenke to offer a sweet discount to move the studios down, plus they have a theater right there to host different events, etc. It's just bonuses for the NFL, it may not help, but it certainly wont hurt, and it helps demonstrate how Inglewood offers more than just a stadium.

I also didn't say that Oakland, SD, and LA is with no St Louis is better, but Inglewood + St Louis certainly seems better than Carson and St Louis. I know you don't believe that the Raiders will relocate to St Louis, but Inglewood doesn't leave those two teams in the cold. It's a two team stadium, meaning that the Chargers can easily move up the road (and it's cheaper as well), and St Louis IS available if the Raiders were needed. I don't see how Carson is cheaper than St Louis for Oakland, if anything it looks to be far more expensive.

Finally, I didn't say that Carson was dead either, I said there are problems. The cleanup needed to happen no matter what happens with the area, much like Inglewood if a stadium doesn't happen there's a backup for retail. That being said, there is still a lot more to do for the site, they need to truck away a bunch of dirt, destroy it, lay down a plastic sheet, and then truck in a bunch of fresh dirt, and then it costs 200-300K a year for maintenance. Doesn't mean it's dead, but there's more question marks around it.

I believe some sources said they expect Kroenke to have the cross ownership stuff fixed by this summer, when his deadline is up.

I understand what you are saying but someone that is making $90,000 in STL cannot live the same lifestyle in LA. To think that is would is foolish. What do you think a house 2,500 sq ft house cost in LA vs. STL? Now they have indicated that most departments probably wouldn't move with the team but still you are going to pay your non-football staff more money for the same job in LA. Stan can bid on those events but he is competing with other venues not only in LA but in California. In STL he could contribute to the stadium and bid against really on against KC for those other events. I know that the NFL has never indicated as much but does not mean it isn't an option. I was just pointing out it is a bullet in the gun if the need to use it.

$90,000 is more than enough to live comfortably in Los Angeles. Are you going to get the same amount of house as you would in St Louis, of course not, but that's like saying "You can't get beach front property in St Louis.".. No shit you can't. Why do they need a 2500 square foot house? These guys that move with the team are going to be plenty comfortable in Los Angeles, sorry that's just not a good argument.

Honestly the idea that costs are suddenly going to be what changes Kroenke's mind isn't a good argument in my opinion, because Kroenke has most certainly factored in all of these things and knows exactly what he's getting into.

As for competing with other venues, yes that is an issue, but because LA gets more of these venues, there will almost always be something they can book. Plus he's competing for things like E3, or Comic Con, etc... You don't get that in St Louis. At this point he doesn't even get the ability to compete in St Louis, because he wouldn't own or operate the stadium. Unless there's a massive shift and they let Kroenke own and operate the stadium, which a big selling point to the public was having the city own it, he's not getting that potential revenue stream. It's essentially he has the option to compete in LA, or no option.

 

[Goose]

$90,000 is more than enough to live comfortably in Los Angeles. Are you going to get the same amount of house as you would in St Louis, of course not, but that's like saying "You can't get beach front property in St Louis.".. No crap you can't. Why do they need a 2500 square foot house? These guys that move with the team are going to be plenty comfortable in Los Angeles, sorry that's just not a good argument.

Honestly the idea that costs are suddenly going to be what changes Kroenke's mind isn't a good argument in my opinion, because Kroenke has most certainly factored in all of these things and knows exactly what he's getting into.

As for competing with other venues, yes that is an issue, but because LA gets more of these venues, there will almost always be something they can book. Plus he's competing for things like E3, or Comic Con, etc... You don't get that in St Louis. At this point he doesn't even get the ability to compete in St Louis, because he wouldn't own or operate the stadium. Unless there's a massive shift and they let Kroenke own and operate the stadium, which a big selling point to the public was having the city own it, he's not getting that potential revenue stream. It's essentially he has the option to compete in LA, or no option.

It's not about changing his mind but it has to be taken into consideration. LA doesn't just drop money from the sky. It really isn't up to us to decide what size house someone needs. It could be a 1,000 sq ft house for all it matters but it will be extremely more expensive as so is the cost of living. That has to factor into this decision. Any event can be had at any location. LA may get some that STL does not but that door swings both ways. Believe it or not LA is not the center which everything runs through.

Stan is not going to own this stadium alone. He is part of a group and the city of Inglewood is going to get a cut. All of that is going to be laid out in the details of the lease. No one knows how the pie will be split until the lease is signed.

 

[blue4]

I think people are confusing leverage with bluff. Stan has created a situation where he has a development in place that can but does not have to include a stadium. The real money is going to be the development of the area not just the stadium. By attaching a stadium to it he is able to gain more traction for the development while also creating options for himself. The land will be developed by his group with or without a stadium. He has obviously created pressure on the city of STL to help provide him with a top tier stadium. With the price that he bought the Rams at to what they are worth today he is playing with house money. Either way Stan has a place to go and it will be a nice stadium.

As far as staying in STL Stan would only have to invest 250 million to get at least a $500 million dollar return. That's not bad and something to think about especially since the Cardinals have proven to be one of the most profitable in the MLB in the same market. Going to LA would cost around $500 million in fees, about $2 billion for a new stadium, then whatever else for a train facility, offices, hiring new personnel at a LA wage scale, and probably several other things that you and I don't have any clue about. So that potential $3 billion in team value, which I don't believe it would actually be, isn't as big as it may appear. Let's not forget that the league could forgive cross ownership if he stays in STL. That will not happen in LA.

No, I'm not confusing leverage and a bluff. Everything the man has done has been about LA. I hear everything you're saying, I've said it myself about 200 pages ago. I just no longer see the league opposing him. They're bending on the G4, they're going to bend on the bylaws (otherwise we wouldn't even be talking about the Rams relocating yet), and they'll bend whatever they have to to get a result they want.