New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Hacksaw]

I'm sure they're not financing it alone by themselves; bet they have other investors.. However, if they have the money then thats what matters right now.

They'll have the financial pitch breakdown next wednesday on the 20th

Correct, they never said they would. but apparently they have enough investors to feel comfortable enough to guarantee the funds now. They always committed to covering moving costs and temporary venue costs. Hell they see the dollar signs to and have been partners with the Chargers for years so this is perfect for them

 

[The Ripper]

I'm sure they're not financing it alone by themselves; bet they have other investors.. However, if they have the money then thats what matters right now.

They'll have the financial pitch breakdown next wednesday on the 20th

The financing isn't as easy as it sounds. There's always someone financially responsible for the payments. In most stadiums it's backed by the local community in order to keep the rates low but that's not the case in Carson. The other part of the guarantees is the stadium itself that can be taken if there's a default but no one wants to own the stadium. The investors may feel comfortable with the guarantee by it will come with a cost. Something of value must be used to lessen the risk. It's easy to say they have financing but the details are what's important and those have not been addressed at least as of the Carson City Meeting that approved the project.

 

[RamFan503]

Interesting part of the G4 from the Atlanta article. G-4 loans are available to only public-private stadium projects. Would that not rule out Carson?

 

[iced]

The financing isn't as easy as it sounds. There's always someone financially responsible for the payments. In most stadiums it's backed by the local community in order to keep the rates low but that's not the case in Carson. The other part of the guarantees is the stadium itself that can be taken if there's a default but no one wants to own the stadium. The investors may feel comfortable with the guarantee by it will come with a cost. Something of value must be used to lessen the risk. It's easy to say they have financing but the details are what's important and those have not been addressed at least as of the Carson City Meeting that approved the project.

Correct, they never said they would. but apparently they have enough investors to feel comfortable enough to guarantee the funds now. They always committed to covering moving costs and temporary venue costs. Hell they see the dollar signs to and have been partners with the Chargers for years so this is perfect for them

Yep which is a step up from April 20th - at the time they weren't giving a hard number, but a 10 figure investment. The fact that they can put a number on it I would think that says they have it mapped out on their end. Especially since its a week before they're presenting to the council. Sounds like they're almost wrapped up to me.

Goldman Sachs has promised up to $1.7 billion for the Carson project, said Tim Romer, a municipal finance manager for the bank.

“We’ve been working with both the Chargers and the Raiders to help develop a solid financing plan,” Romer said. “We are very excited about this project as a firm. We’ve very committed. I think it’s the best site in Southern California for a football stadium because it’s the most fan-friendly site.”

The city has released the bonds for clean up and should be finalized come August.. Teams can't apply for relocation until January 1st, 2016, so Carson would have until the end of this year to get it done.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-chargers-raiders-stadium-20150506-story.html

The Carson City Council on Tuesday night approved the sale of $50.5 million in bonds to finish stalled environmental work on the former Cal Compact landfill, along the 405 freeway.

found this little nugget while looking for another article... for those who think the chargers haven't negotiated in good faith...

Grubman added that the Chargers have engaged in a good-faith effort to stay in San Diego. Which makes sense, given that the Chargers have tried for 14 years to get a new stadium locally.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...relocation-applications-could-be-accelerated/

 

[bluecoconuts]

Ah okay I thought you said meant inside the stadium, especially when you were talking about suites.



It's not which one project is the better individual solution - its which which scenario is for all, and which yields the most money. Carson + St.Louis > Inglewood + SD + Oakland. Simply because the only real difference between the two projects in the big scheme is the presence of the St.Louis market.

Oakland doesn't have the pockets to move to St.Louis and pay for the stadium. And If they were to move, I'm sure they'd prefer their "better option" in LA.. Especially with two teams in that market, which is supposed to be more revenue than just the Rams.

Again, what's best for all 32 - I see more Revenue for all 32 owners with Carson + St.Louis vs Inglewood + SD + Oakland... and that doesn't even include all the other issues that come with this - The NFL turning their backs on a city putting up public funding, not meeting relocation guidelines (Do SD and Oakland have a viable stadium plan on the table? Nope.)

Kroenke's biggest battle is gonna be convincing 29 other owners why they should allow him to move who's just entering a one year lease with a stadium that meets NFL standards on the table - Chargers and Raiders have been on their leases longer, working in good faith, and don't have a stadium alternative like Kroenke. And there's more than just the NFL keeping their eye on this - you got the public, government, etc.

Ultimately the ball is in St.Louis's court when it comes to whether or not Kroenke stays, and if the Carson project comes through with the owners, then I would think it'd be virtually impossible for him to be approved to move.



that's the number you quoted in extra revenue for hosting NFL Network

I think you've misread a few things, or I wasn't really clear... I don't recall talking about suites for example haha...

I think the main point we disagree on is the Raiders ability to move to St Louis, and that's essentially the center of everything else. I'm of the opinion that the Raiders can afford to move to St Louis if they can afford to move to Carson (as St Louis is cheaper). If the Raiders were truly under the impression that they could go to Carson, then why not St Louis? Assuming that Inglewood houses the Rams and Chargers, if they can't make Oakland work (and I don't think they can) then St Louis seems like the best option. They explored moving to San Antonio before. In that sense I see more revenue with St Louis and Inglewood than Carson and St Louis.

Unfortunately it might even be that Inglewood and Oakland make more revenue for the league (which I have my doubts)... St Louis is actually the smallest of the markets, Oakland is just part of the Bay area which has another team (the 49ers) to help with any loss there. They can make plenty of revenue with Carson, but I think that if hey want to truly maximize their profits they need to factor in Inglewood.

I do think that Kroenke will need to convince the other owners that he should be allowed to move, but I don't think the opinion will be that he shouldn't due to length. The fact is the Rams gave the CVC a lot of time, let things slide when they failed to live up to their lease many years ago, and they're all in this situation. There are things that Kroenke has done and hasn't done, just as there are things that Spanos has done and hasn't done, and Davis as well. Ultimately I think "good faith" will be pretty low on the requirements for moving, they'll pick whichever one they feel is best. They already have all three set up for a PR spin as to why it's okay. If Kroenke and Spanos can come to an agreement, and the Chargers have said that's a possibility, then that's it.

that's the number you quoted in extra revenue for hosting NFL Network

Again, I think there was some miscommunication somewhere, 400 million is money they need to dish out for the G4 Loan for Carson (plus 200 for St Louis)... Now if they don't need the G4 loan for Carson then that point is not longer really valid, but if given the option to save 400 million plus have a new place to set up the NFL Network, that's a nice added bonus.

 

[iced]

Interesting part of the G4 from the Atlanta article. G-4 loans are available to only public-private stadium projects. Would that not rule out Carson?

I haven't heard anything concrete that they were getting it. The stadium is estimated at 1.7 B. Before, they were planning for half of the costs to be covered by PSL's and a "10 figure investment" from GoldMach Sachs.. A week ago, Sachs said they were promising up to 1.7 billion.

Don't think they need the G4 Loan - not that they meet the criteria anyway (Only one I can't say for certain is the chargers because the g4 loan says no changes to "home territory", and with them claiming a quarter of season ticket holders are in LA I don't know if that's some kind of loophole or not....not as cut and dry as say oakland or st.louis)

 

[The Ripper]

Interesting part of the G4 from the Atlanta article. G-4 loans are available to only public-private stadium projects. Would that not rule out Carson?

Stadium authority along with issuing bonds to clean up the site would satisfy the public/private partneship

 

[iced]

I think you've misread a few things, or I wasn't really clear... I don't recall talking about suites for example haha...

I think the main point we disagree on is the Raiders ability to move to St Louis, and that's essentially the center of everything else. I'm of the opinion that the Raiders can afford to move to St Louis if they can afford to move to Carson (as St Louis is cheaper). If the Raiders were truly under the impression that they could go to Carson, then why not St Louis? Assuming that Inglewood houses the Rams and Chargers, if they can't make Oakland work (and I don't think they can) then St Louis seems like the best option. They explored moving to San Antonio before. In that sense I see more revenue with St Louis and Inglewood than Carson and St Louis.

They explored San antonio - but I don't see them having the financial means to do it, even if the league broke protocol and gave them the g4 loan (which i don't see happening)

Unfortunately it might even be that Inglewood and Oakland make more revenue for the league (which I have my doubts)... St Louis is actually the smallest of the markets, Oakland is just part of the Bay area which has another team (the 49ers) to help with any loss there. They can make plenty of revenue with Carson, but I think that if hey want to truly maximize their profits they need to factor in Inglewood.

Not in my opinion because SF still has the bay area - if oakland leaves they still keep market in a sense. And 2 Teams in LA would bring in more revenue than one team while maintaining the market in St.Louis

Size of the market doesn't matter - Green bay has already proven that.

I do think that Kroenke will need to convince the other owners that he should be allowed to move, but I don't think the opinion will be that he shouldn't due to length. The fact is the Rams gave the CVC a lot of time, let things slide when they failed to live up to their lease many years ago, and they're all in this situation. There are things that Kroenke has done and hasn't done, just as there are things that Spanos has done and hasn't done, and Davis as well. Ultimately I think "good faith" will be pretty low on the requirements for moving, they'll pick whichever one they feel is best. They already have all three set up for a PR spin as to why it's okay. If Kroenke and Spanos can come to an agreement, and the Chargers have said that's a possibility, then that's it.

Grubman believes differently
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...relocation-applications-could-be-accelerated/

And Grubman, who made the trip to San Diego to discuss plans for building a new stadium there, was candid regarding the local NFL team’s efforts to satisfy league rules regarding relocation. Via Gehlken, Grubman pointed out that a team must simply “engage in a good faith effort” before changing addresses.

Hard to imagine turning down the Riverfront would be in Good faith, especially if the other owners believe it meets NFL standards.

As to your Spanos - Kroenke partnership theory

"This would require Kroenke and Spanos to reach agreement to share a stadium something they have not shown a willingness to do.

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/apr/09/chargers-spanos-kroenke-raiders-rams-inglewood-nfl/

Remember reading on here before about theories and revenue splits being an issue...but whatever the reason is, that pairing does not appear likely.

And as much time as the Rams gave the CVC pales in Comparison to how much time the Chargers and Raiders have given their cities

Also from that article

Grubman added that the Chargers have engaged in a good-faith effort to stay in San Diego. Which makes sense, given that the Chargers have tried for 14 years to get a new stadium locally.

^ I'd say they're safe as far as good faith goes

Again, I think there was some miscommunication somewhere, 400 million is money they need to dish out for the G4 Loan for Carson (plus 200 for St Louis)... Now if they don't need the G4 loan for Carson then that point is not longer really valid, but if given the option to save 400 million plus have a new place to set up the NFL Network, that's a nice added bonus.

^ i don't think they need it, and i have doubts on whether or not they can get it.

And again, giving a team the G4 Loan to move out of state goes against the very reason they put it in in the first place - to give a team incentive to keep from leaving, not help out the door.

 

[Goose]

The door swings both ways is right.
Those staff members who are making that 90k number who dont want to move to LA? Without a football team (hypothetically, just following the convo) in St louis, how will they replace the 90k income they gave up?
I see the arguement as a non starter
Cost of living higher, and higher wages. I imagine they will hold on to quite a bit of that staff if not all

Dieter I was trying to point out a bit of cost analysis of what it will cost to move the organization. Not just the football side of the entire organization. So my point is that all these folks that they will either layoff or move factors in. I think some posters point to the fact that the team is worth 3 billion and that's all that matters why would he stay in STL but my point is that there so many factors involved that if STL offers public money for a new stadium and he invests 250 mill and gets at least a 50% return on that investment then it may be worth staying. Again I know it is not that simple.

 

[The Ripper]

I haven't heard anything concrete that they were getting it. The stadium is estimated at 1.7 B. Before, they were planning for half of the costs to be covered by PSL's and a "10 figure investment" from GoldMach Sachs.. A week ago, Sachs said they were promising up to 1.7 billion.

Don't think they need the G4 Loan - not that they meet the criteria anyway (Only one I can't say for certain is the chargers because the g4 loan says no changes to "home territory", and with them claiming a quarter of season ticket holders are in LA I don't know if that's some kind of loophole or not....not as cut and dry as say oakland or st.louis)

The 25% hasn't been verified by the league or presented to them. No loophole. LA isn't their home or expanded market. It is classified as a secondary market and that's just for tv coverage. Grubman said no team has a legal right to LA

 

[RamFan503]

Stadium authority along with issuing bonds to clean up the site would satisfy the public/private partneship

Could be. Hell - with how liquid these bylaws are, being in a city could qualify as public. I remember when I was in politics, the shopping malls tried to keep people from campaigning on their property. The courts ruled that the areas were public because they invited the general public in.

 

[RamFan503]

Dieter I was trying to point out a bit of cost analysis of what it will cost to move the organization. Not just the football side of the entire organization. So my point is that all these folks that they will either layoff or move factors in. I think some posters point to the fact that the team is worth 3 billion and that's all that matters why would he stay in STL but my point is that there so many factors involved that if STL offers public money for a new stadium and he invests 250 mill and gets at least a 50% return on that investment then it may be worth staying. Again I know it is not that simple.

Except that he would be investing at minimum $300 million (if the G-4 info in the Atl case is correct) and the "return" is owned by the city/state - not Stan. The real details on what kind of investment opportunity and ROI this really is for Stan is in how much of the revenue stream is the city/state offering Stan as a tenant in "their" stadium.

I think that will be a big part of the overall picture along with the viability of Carson, the funding in St Louis, and several other unknown factors.

 

[The Ripper]

Could be. Hell - with how liquid these bylaws are, being in a city could qualify as public. I remember when I was in politics, the shopping malls tried to keep people from campaigning on their property. The courts ruled that the areas were public because they invited the general public in.

Think of the NFL like a social club. The owners have a gentleman's agreement and they call them bylaws. Anything not dealing with the CBA can be changed at anytime including dissolving of the league office. They're 32 individual businesses that work together for a common goal.

 

[RamFan503]

Think of the NFL like a social club. The owners have a gentleman's agreement and they call them bylaws. Anything not dealing with the CBA can be changed at anytime including dissolving of the league office. There 32 individual businesses that work together for a common goal.

Good way to sum it up.

 

[iced]

The 25% hasn't been verified by the league or presented to them. No loophole. LA isn't their home or expanded market. It is classified as a secondary market and that's just for tv coverage. Grubman said no team has a legal right to LA

well then there ya go

explains why they needed so much help from goldman sachs and other investors

 

[dieterbrock]

Dieter I was trying to point out a bit of cost analysis of what it will cost to move the organization. Not just the football side of the entire organization. So my point is that all these folks that they will either layoff or move factors in. I think some posters point to the fact that the team is worth 3 billion and that's all that matters why would he stay in STL but my point is that there so many factors involved that if STL offers public money for a new stadium and he invests 250 mill and gets at least a 50% return on that investment then it may be worth staying. Again I know it is not that simple.

There's costs attributed even if theyre moving from one stadium to another. Sure theres an expense when any corporation moves to another state. But its a non starter. Heck, the cost of replacing stationary is probably more of a hit

 

[iced]

Except that he would be investing at minimum $300 million (if the G-4 info in the Atl case is correct) and the "return" is owned by the city/state - not Stan. The real details on what kind of investment opportunity and ROI this really is for Stan is in how much of the revenue stream is the city/state offering Stan as a tenant in "their" stadium.

I think that will be a big part of the overall picture along with the viability of Carson, the funding in St Louis, and several other unknown factors.

he would be investing $250 mill and the g4 loan (with which the owner is not on the hook for all of the money, they also get grants for them..in Atlanta, they got $50 million that doesn't have to be repaid back)
http://newstadium.atlantafalcons.com/funding2/g-4-stadium-financing/

 

[Goose]

Stadium task force plans shift in public funding
May 12, 2015, 12:59pm CDT UPDATED: May 12, 2015, 1:10pm CDT

Brian Feldt

Dave Peacock on Tuesday revealed new details about the proposed $1 billion stadium on St. Louis’ north Mississippi riverfront, including that he plans to use an increase in tax credits to lessen revenue raised through an extension of the city and state Edward Jones Dome bonds.

Speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast, Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch president appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to lead the stadium task force, said extending the city of St. Louis’ and state’s bonds would contribute $250 million to the stadium, $50 million less than was said Jan. 9, when he and Bob Blitz, task force attorney, unveiled plans for the development just north of downtown. Tax credits will account for about $150 million in public funding, up from $55 million, Peacock said Tuesday.

Planners are counting on using Brownfield and Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits. The city, St. Louis County and state still owe about $100 million on the Edward Jones Dome bonds, issued in 1991. The county will not extend its bonds.

About $450 million in private funding would come from an owner and the National Football League.

Peacock on Tuesday also discussed new details of the plan for the stadium, which will have 62,500 seats. The stadium will have the fifth-largest video board in the NFL, he said.

“We won’t be as flashy as Los Angeles’ plans or as funky as the retractable roof in Atlanta,” Peacock said. “But as far as the experience goes, it will be as good or better than anyone else in the league.”

Peacock said the Union Electric Light and Power Company building, built in 1904, would be refurbished and used as an entertainment facility, with restaurants and potentially an amphitheater and National Soccer Hall of Fame — if a Major League Soccer team locates here.

Peacock said 62 percent of the parcels in the 90-acre stadium site are now under option agreements to be acquired. Two parcels to be used for parking may require eminent domain, he said. Blitz previously said the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) has eminent domain powers.

Peacock said he thinks NFL owners will vote on whether to allow a team to move to Los Angeles in December. Meanwhile, the NFL is expected to soon share with the task force the results of a market survey it conducted with St. Louis Rams fans earlier this year. Those results will help the task force determine how many club and luxury seats to include in the stadium.

Peacock also acknowledged Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s commitment to the Los Angeles market.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...shift-in-public-funding.html?ana=twt&page=all

 

[Legatron4]

Stadium task force plans shift in public funding
May 12, 2015, 12:59pm CDT UPDATED: May 12, 2015, 1:10pm CDT

Brian Feldt

Dave Peacock on Tuesday revealed new details about the proposed $1 billion stadium on St. Louis’ north Mississippi riverfront, including that he plans to use an increase in tax credits to lessen revenue raised through an extension of the city and state Edward Jones Dome bonds.

Speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast, Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch president appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to lead the stadium task force, said extending the city of St. Louis’ and state’s bonds would contribute $250 million to the stadium, $50 million less than was said Jan. 9, when he and Bob Blitz, task force attorney, unveiled plans for the development just north of downtown. Tax credits will account for about $150 million in public funding, up from $55 million, Peacock said Tuesday.

Planners are counting on using Brownfield and Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits. The city, St. Louis County and state still owe about $100 million on the Edward Jones Dome bonds, issued in 1991. The county will not extend its bonds.

About $450 million in private funding would come from an owner and the National Football League.

Peacock on Tuesday also discussed new details of the plan for the stadium, which will have 62,500 seats. The stadium will have the fifth-largest video board in the NFL, he said.

“We won’t be as flashy as Los Angeles’ plans or as funky as the retractable roof in Atlanta,” Peacock said. “But as far as the experience goes, it will be as good or better than anyone else in the league.”

Peacock said the Union Electric Light and Power Company building, built in 1904, would be refurbished and used as an entertainment facility, with restaurants and potentially an amphitheater and National Soccer Hall of Fame — if a Major League Soccer team locates here.

Peacock said 62 percent of the parcels in the 90-acre stadium site are now under option agreements to be acquired. Two parcels to be used for parking may require eminent domain, he said. Blitz previously said the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RSA) has eminent domain powers.

Peacock said he thinks NFL owners will vote on whether to allow a team to move to Los Angeles in December. Meanwhile, the NFL is expected to soon share with the task force the results of a market survey it conducted with St. Louis Rams fans earlier this year. Those results will help the task force determine how many club and luxury seats to include in the stadium.

Peacock also acknowledged Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s commitment to the Los Angeles market.

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles,” Peacock said. “I’m not against Stan going to Los Angeles, I just don’t want our team there... This is why we’re spending most of our time with the league — we think this is an NFL issue.”

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...shift-in-public-funding.html?ana=twt&page=all

Wow.

 

[iced]

Wow.

says a lot...Guess Stan may really want to bolt to LA

add in the cross ownership issues, and the plot thickens