New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Bernie: 'Too little, too late' argument is bogus
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_07b205e5-34cd-5d54-997b-991dce328e84.html

Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones, a man of immense wealth and a surplus of opinions, set off another round of sirens to alarm tormented Rams fans.

In an interview with the New York Times, Jones green-lighted a Rams move to Los Angeles.

I’m loosely paraphrasing here, but essentially Jones believes Stan Kroenke can do as he pleases and the NFL can’t prevent him from moving. Jones obviously believes the NFL rules on franchise relocations are worthless.

That’s Jerry being Jerry. He speaks for himself and not his fellow owners or the executives at NFL headquarters.

That said, Jones could be on to something here.

There’s no telling what Kroenke will try to do.

I’ve been wrong in reading him. Evidently I was a fool to buy Kroenke’s sincerity during our interview in 2010.

Kroenke agreed to talk as he prepared to assume majority ownership of the Rams.

In case you forgot, this is what Kroenke told me:

“I’m going to attempt to do everything that I can to keep the Rams in St. Louis. Just as I did everything that I could to bring the team to St. Louis in 1995. I believe my actions speak for themselves.”

And … “There’s a track record. I’ve always stepped up for pro football in St. Louis. And I’m stepping up one more time.”

Finally, the kicker … “I’m born and raised in Missouri. I’ve been a Missourian for 60 years. People in our state know me. People know I can be trusted. People know I am an honorable guy.”

Yeah, well.

I suppose people can change.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Kroenke pulled a Bob Irsay and loaded up the moving vans for a sneak-attack move in the middle of the night.

It may come down to the NFL’s resolve to enforce its bylaws.

We’ve covered this ground before, but Kroenke isn’t close to satisfying the NFL rules on relocation. And that’s especially true now that Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz have officially launched their plans for a new stadium here.

Kroenke tried to diminish the impact of the Peacock-Blitz announcement by having details of his plan to build a new LA Stadium reported by the Los Angeles Times. (I wonder: Who was the weasel who gave Kroenke the heads-up on the STL announcement?) The big LA stadium story ran Jan. 5, four days before the rollout of the St. Louis stadium proposal.

By jumping first, Kroenke clearly tried to reinforce the “St. Louis is doing too little, too late” narrative that’s making the rounds.

Peacock and Blitz can’t trust Kroenke.

The more relevant question: Can they trust the NFL?

Or will the NFL bend or ignore the rules (again) for Kroenke, who already is in violation of the league bylaws that prohibit cross ownership?

I want to believe that the NFL will do the right thing and put its muscle behind the relocation rules. But I just don’t know.

NFL and team sources familiar with the Kroenke/Rams strategy have provided details on how Kroenke plans to make his case to the NFL.

Kroenke’s plan of attack will be centered on two points:

1. St. Louis had plenty of time to get something done before now, and it’s too late.

2. St. Louis is lacking in corporate support and fan support.

Both accusations are nonsense. The Rams received abundant support here — in all phases — after making the move. They hopped into the league’s new stadium, one funded by taxpayers, and enjoyed years of sellouts and blissful financial prosperity.

The Rams’ soaring profits in their new home drew envy from other NFL owners, and that set off a sweeping wave of new-stadium construction throughout the league.

Only one thing really changed: Rams ownership ran this franchise aground.

The Rams have had 11 consecutive non-winning seasons (record: 57-118-1). They haven’t made the playoffs since 2004. Included in that dreadful stretch was a 15-65 skid that represented the worst five-year record by a franchise in NFL history.

Kroenke’s record as the majority owner is 29-50-1, which ranks 27th among the 32 teams since 2010.

Question for the NFL: At what point should an NFL owner be held accountable for an erosion of ticket sales?

Years of chronic ineptitude and losing will naturally lead to a dip in attendance. But even then, the Rams filled 88 percent of their seats in 2014 and had their largest home attendance since 2008. Given the Rams’ horrendous 11-year slide, how does that register as a lack of support?

The bogus charge of “too little, too late” is preposterous.

In 2012 the St. Louis Convention and Visitors Commission voted to enter arbitration with the Rams in a dispute over the Edward Jones Dome’s status as a “top tier” NFL venue. In early 2013, a panel of arbitrators ruled in favor of the Rams, a decision that triggered Kroenke’s stadium-lease escape clause.

St. Louis needed time to regroup, but it didn’t take long. In 2013 — soon after the arbitration ruling — Peacock quietly went to work behind the scenes to formulate a new-stadium strategy.

This was a difficult assignment, made more challenging by the Rams’ continued losing and Kroenke’s steady alienation of his fan base. But that plan was revealed Friday.

Peacock’s initiative took less than two full years. That hardly fits the “too little, too late” bunk. It isn’t easy to get new stadiums off the ground.

Let’s review:

• Los Angeles lost two NFL teams in 1995 and is still trying to come up with a suitable stadium solution. Kroenke may have that, but his plan must clear some hurdles. It isn’t a sure thing.

• The Arizona Cardinals played in a sun-baked college football stadium from 1988 through 2005. Numerous attempts to get a new stadium were rejected until a deal was struck in 2003. The Cardinals moved into their new home (University of Phoenix Stadium) in 2006.

• Three different owners tried to get a new stadium for the Vikings in Minnesota. The first serious proposal, in 2007, was shot down. After several more years of haggling, a successful plan came together in 2012, and the Vikings’ new stadium is scheduled to open in July.

• A proposal for a new Atlanta football stadium was first pitched in 2010, but the Falcons couldn’t cut a deal with the city of Atlanta until 2013. The venue is scheduled to open in 2018.

• The San Francisco 49ers moved into a new stadium in Santa Clara this season, and it was a long time coming. Negotiations to build a new stadium on the site of Candlestick Park collapsed in 2006, and the 49ers didn’t reach an agreement with Santa Clara until 2010.

• A proposal to construct a new stadium for the Chicago Bears first surfaced in 1989, only to be rejected by the Illinois legislature. Another plan was spurned in 1998. The solution — to renovate Soldier Field — emerged in 2001, and the Bears set up there in 2003.

• The San Diego Chargers play in Qualcomm Stadium, which opened in 1967. The Spanos family, which owns the Chargers, has been trying (in vain) for at least 12 years to get a new stadium built in San Diego. And nothing has happened.

Why is it “too little, too late” in St. Louis? This flies against the stadium timelines we’ve seen in multiple NFL markets.

If the Peacock-Blitz plan gets shredded — meaning no new stadium — then the critics will have a basis for their theories.

St. Louis deserves a chance to build a new stadium. And if that stadium plan is a non-starter, then so be it. No more NFL for St. Louis.

Until that determination is made, I just hope the NFL gives this town a fair shake. I want to trust the league. Then again, I believed Stan Kroenke in 2010.

I challenge anyone to find one bit of research or new information in this article. Butthurt Bernie mails in another one. But lets go down his list of stadium issues in other cities.

• Los Angeles lost two teams in '95 - Georgia and Shaw had to threaten to sue for $2.2 BILLION to get the NFL to approve. The NFL didn't buy into their assertions that there was no support in LA but Georgia forced a move anyway but only after Shaw found out about the city of St Louis' overwhelming desire to do anything to get a team. The Raiduhs - Al Freaking Davis - do we really need to go further? He also sued the NFL and moved without permission - TWICE!
• AZ - Apples to Oranges. Bidwell moved without a stadium deal and then worked on getting a deal done. There was no provision from the city that he would get a new stadium by moving and there certainly was no provision that a new stadium would remain in the top 25% of all NFL stadiums.
• Viqueens - They tried to work out a deal with the city and were shot down for years. Finally after there were rumblings that Minn might be a team considered for two different LA stadium locations, a deal was struck that will have the queens playing in a freaking incredible stadium that before it is even constructed, already has a Superbowl on the schedule.
• ATL - Mr. Blank actually suggested it in 2010, proposed it in 2012, and it was approved less than a year later. In this case, it was the owner's idea to replace the current stadium so he came up with the plan. And it moved VERY quickly. Ground breaking began last year and it is due to open in 2017.
• Whiners - The city of San Francisco actually lost the Winers by dicking around with proposals that were unacceptable to the team and were geared more to hosting the Olympics than logistically workable for a football team. Diane Feinstein even threatened the team with legislation that would strip the San Francisco from the Whiners name if they built outside of the city. Another politician tried to introduce language that would forbid the Whiners from building a stadium within 100 miles if they did not approve the Candlestick location. She was unsuccessful and part of that was apparently due to the Whiners threatening to sue the city. They now play in Santa Clara 40 miles south in a city much closer to San Jose than San Francisco. BTW - the city of Santa Clara apparently ponied up $850 million to get the stadium built there. I don't know about anyone else - but those negotiations seemed a lot more contentious than what we are seeing with the Rams. BTW, Levi Stadium has already been awarded a Superbowl as well.
• I don't know much about the Chicago deal but Soldier field looks to me to be a pretty cool place for football. Maybe not. I don't know. But it's still Soldier fucking Field!
• Spanos has been trying to get a new stadium for years. That is true. But for all his saber rattling, he doesn't want to leave the San Diego market and has ONLY used the LA market as leverage while insisting that if he leaves for LA that no one be allowed to build in San Diego. The guy wants it all, including mostly public funding, and wants assurances that he will be able to control the entire Southern California market.

So while I believe this stadium issue is unfair to St Louis fans, I don't really see where Stan is playing any more hard ball than other owners or that St Louis is moving quicker or even at the same speed as other cities. The city has known since the inception of the contract that this day was coming. So when did the clock start ticking? In 1995? 2010 when the Rams chose to wave the top tier requirement? When the CVC lost arbitration? When Stan bought the parking lot?

I'm sorry but IMO - the city/state needs to ramp up their efforts considerably if they really want to keep the Rams OR lure another NFL franchise to the city. Rather than trying to drive a wedge between ownership and the region, they should put forth a real workable solution and I think they better do it quickly.

 

[RamFan503]

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

Interesting. I hope what he is doing is reviewing the proposal and letting them know exactly what the NFL would look favorably on so that they can propose something that maybe the two sides can stop this game.

 

[duckhunter]

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

Owning the facility doesn't necessarily make it a smart or profitable decision. I would guess ego has a lot to do with it, plus he may view it very wise to reposition from other like assets or cash for that matter. What his views are of the future and subsequent future values of fiat/land/building/tax abatement/etc may be driving this.

Stadium's are capital intensive, depreciable assets avoided like the plague under normal corporate circumstances. It has to increase a commiserate stream of revenues and/or value. Say $1B construction costs on a simple, straight line depreciation of 20 years and you have annual depreciation expenses of $50M per year. Considering that he has a sweetheart deal of $25K rental expense per game plus the Convention Center pays 50% of game day expenses averaging about $75K per game to the Convention Center, it's easy to see staying in St. Louis is better from just that standpoint. But there are other revenue flows/value from parking etc that obviously make this attractive to Stan.

So he spends $1B on a stadium in addition to the cost for 60 acres plus the 240 acres (I haven't found the figures). Add in a $500M to $1B NFL relocation fee and you invested a lot of highly liquid cash for an illiquid, depreciable stadium asset in a larger market with bigger numbers at every line item. Now let's say he has to turn both like and unlike assets into cash and the costs can go up considerably. Sure the unsubstantiated fairy tale value number will increase to $3B or so. Take a low $800M value in ST Louis with a $1B stadium cost and $500M relocation fee (probably low) and say total $200M (probably low) in land and you really haven't gained much in increased perceived value.

What I see more than anything is 'Stan is telling you it is obviously better to hold property/land than cash.' That is all. Let that sink in because I doubt if he is too diversified from what I hear. We would need a peek at his other holdings to determine more.

He can get his teat in a wringer real fast and that is why Silent Stan is silent but that's another subject. Loose lips sink ships.

 

[ChrisW]

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

Here's some audio.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/audio/t...n-president-of-business-ventures-for-the-nfl/

 

[bluecoconuts]

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

Of course not, but they won't cite that as the reason, and even if it is the NFL probably wouldn't vote against it.

 

[MrMotes]

It's also against the bylaws to own teams in more than one market but last i check SK has been exempt from that for like 5 years now.

They're really more like by-suggestions....

 

[Alan]

MrMotes noting the wink and a nod:
It's also against the bylaws to own teams in more than one market but last i check SK has been exempt from that for like 5 years now.

I'm pretty sure he put those other teams in his wife's name as a temporary fix.

This subject doesn't interest me so I've only read the last page of posts. That was in a tiny effort to find out what people are saying that could last for over thirty pages. :eek:

 

[Boffo97]

They're really more like by-suggestions....

Yeah, St. Louis would honestly be best advised to assume that the NFL won't enforce the bylaws.

That way, if they actually do, then it's a pleasant surprise, but there's preparation if all the billionaires let each other slide.

 

[Dodgersrf]

The league has been pounding the LA drum for a while now. We know they want the NFL in LA. Why wouldn't they?

There is no current plan for expansion.
This leaves 3 teams that can go at the moment.
2 are waiting for someone to give them a stadium.
1 is ready to lead the way on his own.

If Stan wants to move. The league will let him go. I can't see the league turning Stan down if he's giving the league what they've been barking about for over 10 years.

If Stan wants to stay he will stay. Which just may happen as well.

None of the reports about Stan going rogue or lawsuits seem to have any validity what so ever.

This whole game, will be decided by one man and one man only.

 

[RamFan503]

Lot of good stuff here. You could be right but I think Stan has already accounted for most of this. And maybe his accounting for it is that he agrees with what you are saying and is exactly the reason he has presented nothing to the NFL and has left a buttload of questions still on the table. Many want to say that he is already out the door but this is high stakes stuff here. His paying a couple million to make things look like he is more serious than he may indeed be, is not money wasted.

Take hiring the outfit to ascertain how the flight plan affects his stadium, for example. Would it not also affect an entirely different type of building in some of the same ways? I believe all we know for sure is that he hired the company. Do we really know all that he has asked them to tell him?

Stadium's are capital intensive, depreciable assets avoided like the plague under normal corporate circumstances.

Many have said the same about strip malls and office buildings - in fact virtually any commercial property. But yeah - stadiums for a private investor are pretty sketchy. It is interesting though that most of the newer concert venues and such are being built with private funds. I wonder if there is some hidden value or tax advantage we are not seeing or that is now available in the form of economic improvement incentives and the like.

It has to increase a commiserate stream of revenues and/or value. Say $1B construction costs on a simple, straight line depreciation of 20 years and you have annual depreciation expenses of $50M per year.

For a business, that depreciation is actually a valuable asset (expense). For a stadium, he may even be able to look at an expedited depreciation schedule if it helps his tax situation or he could go to 30 years depending.

So he spends $1B on a stadium in addition to the cost for 60 acres plus the 240 acres (I haven't found the figures). Add in a $500M to $1B NFL relocation fee and you invested a lot of highly liquid cash for an illiquid, depreciable stadium asset in a larger market with bigger numbers at every line item.

I don't believe he owns the 238 acres so I'm not sure how it all comes together regarding footprint, location of the stadium, parking, other venues, etc... This also assumes that Stan is somehow paying cash for the project when he would more likely be leveraging assets.

Considering that he has a sweetheart deal of $25K rental expense per game plus the Convention Center pays 50% of game day expenses averaging about $75K per game to the Convention Center, it's easy to see staying in St. Louis is better from just that standpoint. But there are other revenue flows/value from parking etc that obviously make this attractive to Stan.

Hard to say if a sweetheart deal on rent is as valuable as all the other revenue streams and their potential extensions. How much are all the other events and their potential streams worth? Every single major music act that hits SoCal is no doubt going to play the new LA Stadium. You know Soccer will be part of it in a region where it is far more popular than probably every other market. Supercross, Superbowls, Olympics, NCAA Championships, monster trucks, you name it. Whereas a Superbowl or the Olympics are a potential money loser for the city they are in, the other businesses and stadiums make bank.

What I see more than anything is 'Stan is telling you it is obviously better to hold property/land than cash.' That is all. Let that sink in because I doubt if he is too diversified from what I hear. We would need a peek at his other holdings to determine more.

Not sure where you heard this. I believe he is the second largest landowner in the US. And not to mention his sports holdings and other developments. But I don't know for sure how this relates to his liquidity or diversity. My guess is that his holdings are far more diverse than liquid.

He can get his teat in a wringer real fast and that is why Silent Stan is silent but that's another subject. Loose lips sink ships.

Oddly, this may very well be the case. Someone who appears very rich can be taken down by one or two stupid moves. In his case, I would guess he has figured out that silence is indeed golden.

 

[mr.stlouis]

I just came up with a new phrase.

LA = Leverage Assistance

Every team that needs a new stadium knows that! And when that takes off know that's an original idea from yours truly.

(Please don't take offense to that LA fans. Its meant to be funny so have a laugh with me!)

 

[Dodgersrf]

I just came up with a new phrase.

LA = Leverage Assistance

Every team that needs a new stadium knows that! And when that takes off know that's an original idea from yours truly.

(Please don't take offense to that LA fans. Its meant to be funny so have a laugh with me!)

I'm with ya.

 

[TSFH Fan]

I just came up with a new phrase.

LA = Leverage Assistance

Every team that needs a new stadium knows that! And when that takes off know that's an original idea from yours truly.

(Please don't take offense to that LA fans. Its meant to be funny so have a laugh with me!)

Blah . . . let me help you out:
And when Stan decides to stay in St. Louis, you can say it stands for "Lose Again!"

 

[mr.stlouis]

Blah . . . let me help you out:
And when Stan decides to stay in St. Louis, you can say it stands for "Lose Again!"

If he stays then we didn't lose anything. I'm confused!"

 

[TSFH Fan]

If he stays then we didn't lose anything. I'm confused!"

Heh, I'm here in peace. . . .Stan stays, you win!

 

[RamFan503]

Blah . . . let me help you out:
And when Stan decides to stay in St. Louis, you can say it stands for "Lose Again!"

Funny thing is that either way, I don't think Stan actually loses. He can no doubt make more money in LA but by all accounts, St Louis is a great football city and he will likely enjoy another sweetheart deal to stay. You might say that LA = Lofty Aspirations

 

[duckhunter]

Many have said the same about strip malls and office buildings - in fact virtually any commercial property. But yeah - stadiums for a private investor are pretty sketchy. It is interesting though that most of the newer concert venues and such are being built with private funds. I wonder if there is some hidden value or tax advantage we are not seeing or that is now available in the form of economic improvement incentives and the like.

Commercial is essentially Stan's expertise and he has been quite successful at it. Online is where the retail sales action is today but this easily could be Stan's last hurrah and final extravanganza. This is only speculation but the old Chrysler plant property that he bought a few years back to Stan is a more attractive property maybe than downtown St. Louis. As a private investor, we will never know much if anything about Stan's business, revolvers, leverage, optimum deal size, optimum follow on phases or any of the other variables from his viewpoint. Private vs public disclosure was a given from the get go and involves every phase of the project. But when you mix the people's money for the financial benefit of the 1%ers there is always serious concern. Congress and in particular John Glenn laid out the parameters and history of the current system. Most of the comments I find amusing that disregard some serious hurdles and only consider the NFL vote as some limp and marginal req. If the NFL does not legitimately meet those self documented tests and requirements, one would being very naïve IMO. My only previous post laid out in layman terms where it stood back when it was developed and was front burner. That hasn't changed and law history begin there.


For a business, that depreciation is actually a valuable asset (expense). For a stadium, he may even be able to look at an expedited depreciation schedule if it helps his tax situation or he could go to 30 years depending.

Accelarated or simple, his choice.

I don't believe he owns the 238 acres so I'm not sure how it all comes together regarding footprint, location of the stadium, parking, other venues, etc... This also assumes that Stan is somehow paying cash for the project when he would more likely be leveraging assets.

It's not public info.

Hard to say if a sweetheart deal on rent is as valuable as all the other revenue streams and their potential extensions. How much are all the other events and their potential streams worth? Every single major music act that hits SoCal is no doubt going to play the new LA Stadium. You know Soccer will be part of it in a region where it is far more popular than probably every other market. Supercross, Superbowls, Olympics, NCAA Championships, monster trucks, you name it. Whereas a Superbowl or the Olympics are a potential money loser for the city they are in, the other businesses and stadiums make bank.

It's not public info.


Not sure where you heard this. I believe he is the second largest landowner in the US. And not to mention his sports holdings and other developments. But I don't know for sure how this relates to his liquidity or diversity. My guess is that his holdings are far more diverse than liquid.

It's not public info. It was an assessment on my part and refers to my earlier statement of what is Stan's views are concering the future and where he saw value/risk etc etc.

Oddly, this may very well be the case. Someone who appears very rich can be taken down by one or two stupid moves. In his case, I would guess he has figured out that silence is indeed golden.[/QUOTE]

 

[bluecoconuts]

On the Olympic note, LA was just exploring getting the games again. That new stadium would probably do the trick. Plus it'll get multiple super bowls, etc. There's not a chance it is being built just for football, which is probably a big sticking point for why Stan wants to own it. You think his soccer team won't be playing a friendly there against the Galaxy or something? Football is just part of the puzzle here, he could build the stadium and never move the Rams if he wanted. I just don't think its very likely that he wants to build two stadiums, and not own one, when he can do it all in one go. The fact that he has so many other options for use with it, plus that he's teamed up with another group, certainly doesn't look like its simply a leverage ploy. Threatening to move and going to LA on a highly visible stage is leverage ploy, buying land, teaming up with another development group, starting construction on surrounding areas, and getting all the hurdles out of the way is a lot of money, time, and energy to squeeze out a couple more hundred million out of a city. Totally out of the question? No, especially not someone with his net worth. Looking at it realistically it doesn't seem likely.

 

[RamFan503]

Many have said the same about strip malls and office buildings - in fact virtually any commercial property. But yeah - stadiums for a private investor are pretty sketchy. It is interesting though that most of the newer concert venues and such are being built with private funds. I wonder if there is some hidden value or tax advantage we are not seeing or that is now available in the form of economic improvement incentives and the like.

Commercial is essentially Stan's expertise and he has been quite successful at it. Online is where the retail sales action is today but this easily could be Stan's last hurrah and final extravanganza. This is only speculation but the old Chrysler plant property that he bought a few years back to Stan is a more attractive property maybe than downtown St. Louis. As a private investor, we will never know much if anything about Stan's business, revolvers, leverage, optimum deal size, optimum follow on phases or any of the other variables from his viewpoint. Private vs public disclosure was a given from the get go and involves every phase of the project. But when you mix the people's money for the financial benefit of the 1%ers there is always serious concern. Congress and in particular John Glenn laid out the parameters and history of the current system. Most of the comments I find amusing that disregard some serious hurdles and only consider the NFL vote as some limp and marginal req. If the NFL does not legitimately meet those self documented tests and requirements, one would being very naïve IMO. My only previous post laid out in layman terms where it stood back when it was developed and was front burner. That hasn't changed and law history begin there.


For a business, that depreciation is actually a valuable asset (expense). For a stadium, he may even be able to look at an expedited depreciation schedule if it helps his tax situation or he could go to 30 years depending.

Accelarated or simple, his choice.

I don't believe he owns the 238 acres so I'm not sure how it all comes together regarding footprint, location of the stadium, parking, other venues, etc... This also assumes that Stan is somehow paying cash for the project when he would more likely be leveraging assets.

It's not public info.

Hard to say if a sweetheart deal on rent is as valuable as all the other revenue streams and their potential extensions. How much are all the other events and their potential streams worth? Every single major music act that hits SoCal is no doubt going to play the new LA Stadium. You know Soccer will be part of it in a region where it is far more popular than probably every other market. Supercross, Superbowls, Olympics, NCAA Championships, monster trucks, you name it. Whereas a Superbowl or the Olympics are a potential money loser for the city they are in, the other businesses and stadiums make bank.

It's not public info.


Not sure where you heard this. I believe he is the second largest landowner in the US. And not to mention his sports holdings and other developments. But I don't know for sure how this relates to his liquidity or diversity. My guess is that his holdings are far more diverse than liquid.

It's not public info. It was an assessment on my part and refers to my earlier statement of what is Stan's views are concering the future and where he saw value/risk etc etc.

Oddly, this may very well be the case. Someone who appears very rich can be taken down by one or two stupid moves. In his case, I would guess he has figured out that silence is indeed golden.

[/QUOTE]
Did the quote box mess with you too? I've had it happen where I tried to respond and it put everything inside one quote box.

But I think I get most of your gist.

Did Glenn get anything passed after the moves of the 90s? I haven't seen where he has and if not, I don't see it being relevant as it didn't stop the Raiduhs, Rams, Browns, et al.

 

[RamFan503]

On the Olympic note, LA was just exploring getting the games again. That new stadium would probably do the trick. Plus it'll get multiple super bowls, etc. There's not a chance it is being built just for football, which is probably a big sticking point for why Stan wants to own it. You think his soccer team won't be playing a friendly there against the Galaxy or something? Football is just part of the puzzle here, he could build the stadium and never move the Rams if he wanted. I just don't think its very likely that he wants to build two stadiums, and not own one, when he can do it all in one go. The fact that he has so many other options for use with it, plus that he's teamed up with another group, certainly doesn't look like its simply a leverage ploy. Threatening to move and going to LA on a highly visible stage is leverage ploy, buying land, teaming up with another development group, starting construction on surrounding areas, and getting all the hurdles out of the way is a lot of money, time, and energy to squeeze out a couple more hundred million out of a city. Totally out of the question? No, especially not someone with his net worth. Looking at it realistically it doesn't seem likely.

By all accounts, buying the largest available ranch in the west and keeping it as a production ranch wasn't likely either but he did just that. The dude has some skills in property and development. I can't pretend to know what he is thinking.