New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

How much is peacock worth?

I think I read about 40 million or so, either way assuming the Rams sell for their worth (Forbes says 930 million as of August 2014 in a link below, since they've grown each year, I'd assume their worth would be close to a billion dollars, if not that) he's only got about 4% of their value. That's less than 5% of the team, why would he be the one who's calling the shots? I'm all for rewarding his work, but we're expecting guys to buy in with much larger shares to not be the big cheese?

http://www.forbes.com/teams/st-louis-rams/

 

[The Ripper]

Goldman have worked with Chargers for years before the project, but given they've helped other stadiums in the past, I don't see why they'd turn down the Raiders if they wanted help.

They could but the Raiders have someone else but that's not the problem. It all depends on the numbers and that's still unknown. The owner needs 250 million but how much for the cost overruns. It just to early to know if the returns are enough to offset the debt levels

Did they encourage it or simply help it? I'd also say a franchise swap is different from forcing out an owner. That's one of the key issues to me, forcing out Mark Davis.

Plenty of rumors about the bad old days of the NFL to know what is true or what is rumor but Rozelle was directly involved.

Davis wouldn't necessarily forced out. It's more about options.

If it's simply about cost, obviously Peacock cannot afford the Rams, and unless there's like 30 or 40 owners is unlikely to be the majority owner, so why would he be the one put in charge? Why would Kroenke sell to a large collection and not someone else?

Peacock being involved is just speculation but if he organized the group they could be why he was put in charge. I would see it like Shaw for the Rams. I am too tired to look for the exact number but the NFL limits the number of owners for a team.

There are a lot of different scenarios that can be discussed but there are only 2 that are realistic. Kroenke and the Rams in LA or Kroenke and the Rams in St Louis.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They could but the Raiders have someone else but that's not the problem. It all depends on the numbers and that's still unknown. The owner needs 250 million but how much for the cost overruns. It just to early to know if the returns are enough to offset the debt levels

I would assume that would be figured out as the financing is figured out, after all these are questions they need to have answered for Kroenke too, right? There's a lot of complicated moving parts here, but I feel that if Davis liked the St Louis plan he could make it work, unless the relocation fee was something outrageous, but that would probably mean the NFL doesn't want him to move in my opinion.

Plenty of rumors about the bad old days of the NFL to know what is true or what is rumor but Rozelle was directly involved.

Davis wouldn't necessarily forced out. It's more about options.

Then that rumor would be dependent on Davis wanting to sell wouldn't it? Which is hard for me to believe as well. If Davis wanted to openly sell the Raiders, then I'd say Kroenke doing a sell and purchase would be more of an option, but I don't think he is. So you'd think that Kroenke would need to make a good offer that he can't really refuse, which would be buying above their worth of 970 million (as of August 2014), which then drives up the price of the Rams. Unless Kroenke wants to be part of an ownership group like Davis is now, but why do that when you already own a team, he'll take a far smaller cut, which makes it harder to recoup losses after building in Inglewood. Same with a simple franchise swap, Kroenke comes out with the worse deal there. He doesn't have to share his profits with anyone with the Rams, but will with the Raiders.

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: Peacock keeping St. Louis' options open
• By Bernie Miklasz

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_7259d66a-0462-5382-97db-62e5a899e094.html

Dave Peacock, the co-leader of the St. Louis stadium task force, stirred things up earlier this week with remarks made at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast.

Speaking about the Rams, franchise owner Stan Kroenke and the team’s potential move to Los Angeles, Peacock put this out there:

“It’s possible we have different ownership of the (Rams) because I think (Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles. 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.”

What did Peacock mean by that?

Was he giving up on Kroenke?

No. Peacock was merely stating something that should be obvious by now: The goal is to keep St. Louis in the NFL. And if that means the Rams staying here, that’s option No. 1. If it means getting another NFL team here, great. If it means Kroenke selling the Rams to locally committed ownership to buy the Oakland Raiders and move them to Los Angeles, great.

Instead of putting everything on the line for one team, the Rams, Peacock is determined to keep St. Louis in play for all options. And that’s smart.

The Rams, Raiders and San Diego Chargers want to be in Los Angeles. At most only two of the three will get there, playing in one stadium.

Kroenke obviously wants to be in LA, and I have no doubt that he’ll apply for a franchise relocation. Why would anyone be surprised by this?

Kroenke has conveyed no desire to engage Peacock or local leaders in discussions to put the team in a new stadium on the St. Louis riverfront, so why pretend otherwise?

Peacock, a pragmatist, is making sure he keeps St. Louis in a flexible position. All along Peacock’s goal has been to secure funding for a new stadium that will keep St. Louis in the NFL.

That NFL team doesn’t have to be the Rams.

If Kroenke gets the necessary votes to move, Peacock doesn’t want it to be the end game in St. Louis.

If the Raiders or Chargers get shut out of Los Angeles and have no hope of getting a new stadium in their home markets, then Peacock is trying to put St. Louis in line to accommodate a team interested in moving.

Especially if the NFL settles this confusing game of franchise roulette in a back-room deal. And this matter could be heading to that back room.

It isn’t that Peacock is turning on Kroenke; that’s missing the point. Peacock’s motivation: This isn’t a Kroenke-or-nothing strategy. The more comprehensive strategy is to have an NFL team. Any team.

Peacock has been consistent in this approach from the beginning, working directly with NFL executive VP Eric Grubman. It was important to establish credibility with the NFL, and Peacock has done that. Commissioner Roger Goodell and Grubman have commented favorably on the stadium progress being made in St. Louis.

Peacock believes if the stadium becomes a reality, the NFL will do the right thing by St. Louis instead of abandoning a market that’s willing to build another NFL venue — the second in 25 years.

The latest buzz — and that’s all it is for now — has Kroenke making a deal with the Chargers to play in Kroenke’s Inglewood palace. If that unfolds, the revenue-challenged Raiders would be stuck in an terribly outdated stadium in Oakland, with no realistic shot of getting a new home there.

So one possibility puts the Raiders in St. Louis to set up all three teams in new stadiums. I make no predictions here, but as I’ve written before, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility.

And if the NFL does cut that back room deal, Peacock wants St. Louis at the table.

Peacock is getting the message out: St. Louis will be open for business for any franchise, any owner, who wants to be here. That was his intention in bringing up Kroenke’s name during the breakfast address.

========
Former Rams head coach Steve Spagnuolo, back with the New York Giants as defensive coordinator, predicts success for his former St. Louis quarterback, Sam Bradford, in Philadelphia. Spagnuolo says Bradford is a nice fit for Chip Kelly’s offense.

“Trust me when I tell you he’s got all the skills,” Spagnuolo told Philadelphia radio station WPEN-FM. “And I keep going back to the fierce competitor because I believe elite quarterbacks in this league have that,” Spagnuolo continued. “... They love the challenge. They love to rally people around them, and Sam has that. I really believe that. I know he’s going to do great things there.”

 

[blue4]

Peacock has been upfront about this being about St Louis being an NFL town. This isn't the first time he's mentioned other teams, or other options with ownership so why is everyone's panties in a wad now? I thought this was relatively old news, why is everyone acting like a bomb just dropped? As Bernie States, that's how we've approached it from the beginning. That's certainly how I remember it. It's an approach I wholeheartedly support. If Peacock is keeping his ear to the ground looking for other buyers, good for him. I expect him to, it's the smart thing to do.

As for tweeking Stan's nose, who cares? What's he going to do, move the team to LA? Refuse to talk to us anymore? Have TC in SoCal? Send Demoff out to reassure us that all will be well if we just keep buying tickets while planning a move anyway?

He's kinda run out of shitty things to do to us.

 

[iced]

Why is it suddenly possible he can afford Carson? And no, it's not Goldman Sachs paying for it or helping with funding, they can do that for them anywhere. If he can afford Carson I don't see how he can't afford the 500ish million for St Louis. If he's willing to do so, I don't know though.

I have no idea what the financial break down for Carson is nor what they are asking specifically from the raiders - so I don't know how we can assume what he can and can't do. They haven't released those numbers - they're supposed to be giving a presentation to the owners on it soon. What I do know about the Carson staduim is that Goldman Sachs has pledged $1.7 billion to the stadium, which is the total cost - and in earlier/original plans they only had promised a 10 figure number with the plan of using PSL's to cover up to half the cost (stadium is $1.7 billion total).

For all you know they could be chipping in a smaller amount and taking a smaller portion of the revenue in exchange. Again, all speculation til they release the numbers.

The NFL has never to my knowledge forced, or guided, two owners from their teams, to then allow one of those owners to buy another team, especially not to then push one team into relocating while keeping another team from doing so. I believe that would also set precedent for future owners AND cities. "So as long as we offer a stadium deal, they can't leave." and "So as long as my city offers up a deal, even if I don't like it, I have to play ball or risk you guys forcing me out?"

Yea, it's never happened. And unless an owner makes a donald strickland type of move, I don't see anyone being forced out.

And I don't think its as simple as "so long as we offer a stadium deal" - first off, that stadium has to meet NFL standards and approval. If it doesn't meet their criteria then they can tell the city to kick rocks. As a ram fan and going through this process, just look at the arbitration process - a half-assed offer(before), a more than sincere and pretty damn good offer (according to the details peacocked shared about the stadium experience itself).

I think this situation would be a lot different if it were just Kroenke moving - but the league has 2 other owners to consider, and they're gonna want venues for all 3. Whats best for all 32, not 1.

 

[RAGRam]

So if Stan is allowed to just up sticks and move with a good offer on the table from the city of St Louis, does that set a precedent that an owner can move wherever they like?

Say I have the money to bye the Raiders and can come to an agreement with say the University of Auburn to play at Jordan-Hare Stadium is their anything they can do to stop me from owning the Auburn Raiders? It may not be best for business, but in this hypothetical I was born and live in Auburn so want a team close to me.

 

[iced]

Very good points. Waiving fees and changing bylaws is extremely easy. The owners just have to vote. The financial situation is what makes any scenario involving the Raiders difficult to believe. It's not just about the cash on hand, it's more about the value of the team. Al Davis protected Mark from the estate tax problem to an extent but a move to LA or even St Louis in a new stadium might be an issue. The Raiders could end up in St Louis but Davis wouldn't be the managing partner.

Exactly - and people act like it's easy and cheap to move a team. Just pack your bags and go... No, it costs a lot of money.

Relocation fees is only required for LA. Everywhere else the term is "may" be subjected to a relocation fee. If a relocation to St Louis solves a league problem then no fee. I could see the part of the relocation fee from the Rams to go directly to payoff debt of the dome.

Yet throughout history, they've always charged a relocation fee with the one Raiders exception, and this situation isn't anything close to that.

Things with the NFL seem clear but reality is a different thing. What is the common belief up the Colts move or what happened with Seahawks? What they have done in the past is not always the whole story.

The Seahawks were threatened to be fined by the league before buckling to the Commish. Can't remember the colts right now.

 

[iced]

Just ran across this looking for another article - thought it was interesting given the title and timeline (September 21,2014)

-ugh just realized its la canfora, so i guess that makes it a coin flip lol


I think its surprising they're valuing the Raiders that highly

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...h-more-than-2b-if-davis-sells-to-help-la-move


With Los Angeles looming, NFL envisions $2B sale price for Raiders
September 21, 2014 9:09 am ET

With the sale of the Buffalo Bills to the Pegula family set to be voted through in a matter of weeks for $1.4 billion, there is considerable attention being paid by NFL officials to the plight of the Raiders.

They still face a highly uncertain stadium situation with their lease in Oakland expiring after the season and the team no longer interested in going year-to-year there. League sources said the NFL now believes the Raiders could generate $2 billion or more if sold, and, selling the team remains the most likely path for a move to Los Angeles.

The NFL will be very careful about who gets that Los Angeles market, and Raiders owner Mark Davis has limitations in real estate, marketing and overall business expertise. Convincing Davis to take a few billion to sell the team to one of the league's short-list of owners-in-waiting -- a list headlined by Larry Ellison, sources said -- would be one way to fast-track getting to that market.

Otherwise, the Raiders remain in a difficult conundrum with the landscape for a new deal in northern California bleak and other options like San Antonio having their own economic limitations. Given the league's overall desire to be in Los Angeles (and the fact San Antonio is hardly a market where other owners are clamoring for games to be played), cajoling Davis to sell the team would solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop, though obviously that decision only could be made by him.

There are numerous people around the league more or less waiting for the Rams, whose lease in St. Louis also is up after the season, to announce an intent to move by the February deadline to do so. And Commissioner Roger Goodell has made it clear the league views Los Angeles as a two-team town. Of course, getting their first tends to have significant positive ramifications for sponsorships, naming rights, etc. The sense of urgency about the LA market is at a more fevered pitch than it has been for quite some time, and the behind-the-scenes machinations won't subside soon.

Even without a stadium solution, selling the Raiders to someone equipped to get them to LA would ensure the price tag gets where the league wants it to be, and some wonder if at some point the headaches and tribulations of trying to get a new stadium eventually would lead to Davis going that route.

 

[blue4]

Just ran across this looking for another article - thought it was interesting given the title and timeline (September 21,2014)

-ugh just realized its la canfora, so i guess that makes it a coin flip lol


I think its surprising they're valuing the Raiders that highly

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/writer...h-more-than-2b-if-davis-sells-to-help-la-move


With Los Angeles looming, NFL envisions $2B sale price for Raiders
September 21, 2014 9:09 am ET

With the sale of the Buffalo Bills to the Pegula family set to be voted through in a matter of weeks for $1.4 billion, there is considerable attention being paid by NFL officials to the plight of the Raiders.

They still face a highly uncertain stadium situation with their lease in Oakland expiring after the season and the team no longer interested in going year-to-year there. League sources said the NFL now believes the Raiders could generate $2 billion or more if sold, and, selling the team remains the most likely path for a move to Los Angeles.

The NFL will be very careful about who gets that Los Angeles market, and Raiders owner Mark Davis has limitations in real estate, marketing and overall business expertise. Convincing Davis to take a few billion to sell the team to one of the league's short-list of owners-in-waiting -- a list headlined by Larry Ellison, sources said -- would be one way to fast-track getting to that market.

Otherwise, the Raiders remain in a difficult conundrum with the landscape for a new deal in northern California bleak and other options like San Antonio having their own economic limitations. Given the league's overall desire to be in Los Angeles (and the fact San Antonio is hardly a market where other owners are clamoring for games to be played), cajoling Davis to sell the team would solve a lot of problems in one fell swoop, though obviously that decision only could be made by him.

There are numerous people around the league more or less waiting for the Rams, whose lease in St. Louis also is up after the season, to announce an intent to move by the February deadline to do so. And Commissioner Roger Goodell has made it clear the league views Los Angeles as a two-team town. Of course, getting their first tends to have significant positive ramifications for sponsorships, naming rights, etc. The sense of urgency about the LA market is at a more fevered pitch than it has been for quite some time, and the behind-the-scenes machinations won't subside soon.

Even without a stadium solution, selling the Raiders to someone equipped to get them to LA would ensure the price tag gets where the league wants it to be, and some wonder if at some point the headaches and tribulations of trying to get a new stadium eventually would lead to Davis going that route.

There is no way the Raiders are worth that much without a built stadium. Whether it's in LA,STL, or Oakland without a bona fide reach out and touch it stadium there's no way they are worth that.

 

[iced]

There is no way the Raiders are worth that much without a built stadium. Whether it's in LA,STL, or Oakland without a bona fide reach out and touch it stadium there's no way they are worth that.

Yea I was gonna say - i wonder what the results would be if we drug tested the owners

 

[iced]

Forbes rates the raiders at $970 million

http://www.forbes.com/teams/oakland-raiders/

 

[blue4]

Here's the "truths" as I see it after seeing all of Peacock's and the NFLs statements so far combined with all the media.

1. Stan wants to move. He has no interest in STL and I strongly suspect that he bought the team in 2010 with this in mind. Nobody puts such minimal effort into working with a city if they want to be there.

2. Stan will be allowed to move the Rams. The NFL wrongly and conveniently lumped us in with Oakland and SD during statements in order to allow this to happen.

3. When they do allow this move they will be breaking their bylaws to do it. They are allowing Carson to move forward despite that projects reliance on G4 loans they technically should not be eligible for. If they are willing to bend those rules, they'll be willing to bend G4 loans for a team to move here. So I'm not discounting the Raiders moving here, especially since it solves so many problems for them.

4. I don't think the Rams are for sale. Besides the only local owner we had who loved the team and had deep enough pockets blew his wad on Jacksonville.

5. The Rams and Chargers will be ok no matter what. Oakland is screwed if they don't get to move here for whatever reason if those two go to LA. Really screwed. Especially, if they don't have winning season.

 

[RamFan503]

I expanded on it that reasoning though, however I'm still waiting on you to explain what causes you to dismiss rumors differently. I'd say if you're allowed to harp on me for that one, I should be to harp on you for dismissing the rumors you have. We can have our opinions, and I know there's things on this topic you and I don't see eye to eye on, but if you feel the need to call me out for apparent biases as a method to discredit my opinions, then you should explain what process you go through that sets you apart. If it is simply "because that's my opinion" then I'd say this subtopic has long sense run it's course and was a bit pointless.

Enough already man. This whole back and forth needs to end.

and Kroenke has stated repeatedly that he will follow NFL guidelines, but you refuse to believe that too, why is it that you only believe things that are pro LA?

As I've said before. Keep it about the post - not what motives you might assign to them.

seems anything pro LA is credible, but anything pro St Louis is wishfull thinking and rumor.

See my response to the above.

but not when Stan says it? he has stated that he will follow NFL bylaws, but that you find unbelievable, why would you believe what media says over what the actual owner says? Do you not think Stan knows more about how he will do things than a writer?

Here you are actually arguing with something that has never been said. Provide a link please.

who is deciding who is credible or not? and how can they be sure of that credibility? credibility my ass, your getting a bunch of opinions from the media, nothing more nothing less.

Can we move on?

yes he did say he wont go rogue.

When? Where? Again. Show your work.

Relocation fees is only required for LA. Everywhere else the term is "may" be subjected to a relocation fee.

This may indeed be true. I wonder if anyone else can show relocation fees for the several moves over the past fifty years. I'm going to guess that the Raiduhs moving back to Oak was not the only one to not have one. Not sure - just a guess.

 

[Oldgeek]

NFL has major image issues and keeping fans nervous about losing teams certainly won't help. I guess they balance that against losing the leverage for new stadiums somehow. I think they are starting to turn fans off in general coming across as money grubbing rich assholes.

 

[The Ripper]

The Seahawks were threatened to be fined by the league before buckling to the Commish. Can't remember the colts right now.

That's the common belief but not correct. The NFL was just in front of Congress arguing that they couldn't stop a team moving and if they could no need for an antitrust exemption. The threat of fines came too late in the process. King County had an injunction against the Seahawks and the negotiations for a sale had already started in February. John Shaw who helped the Seahawks negotiate a lease for Rams Park in Anaheim said prior to the owners meeting that he didn't think they were committed to moving. The whole move was just crazy. Behring was nuts. His stated reason for the move was that the Kingdome was at risk from an earthquake but the engineers that he hired said that it was a bigger risk in LA.

 

[den-the-coach]

The Rams and Chargers will be ok no matter what. Oakland is screwed if they don't get to move here for whatever reason if those two go to LA. Really screwed. Especially, if they don't have winning season.

That was a great post @blue4 and for the first time Bernie actually made some sense with the end game. Actually, IMO, the NFL is still going to come out smelling like a rose because Kroenke's stadium in Inglewood will be one for the ages including a west coast operation for NFL Network, people keep forgetting that key factor.

Also with the Rams & Chargers in LA getting Davis to relocate removes a questionable fan base that IMO the upper crust of the NFL does not enjoy the association with. Overall I could see it playing out this way and it will be tough on all Ram fans especially for me as now I truly understand the song by Mary MacGregor years ago "Torn between two lovers."

 

[bluecoconuts]

I have no idea what the financial break down for Carson is nor what they are asking specifically from the raiders - so I don't know how we can assume what he can and can't do. They haven't released those numbers - they're supposed to be giving a presentation to the owners on it soon. What I do know about the Carson staduim is that Goldman Sachs has pledged $1.7 billion to the stadium, which is the total cost - and in earlier/original plans they only had promised a 10 figure number with the plan of using PSL's to cover up to half the cost (stadium is $1.7 billion total).

I can't figure out the Carson funding either, and I think that adds a lot to the confusion. From what I read, Carson doesn't even really understand the funding, even though they voted on it. Articles seem to say two different things, one that Goldman Sachs is helping them secure financing, and others that say they are getting investors to bankroll it and be paid back later. If they put forward the money to be paid back later, how long does it take? A report said over 40 years Carson should see a profit of about 140 million (averaging to about 3.5 million per year), but does that take into account paying back different investors? If only one team goes there then it likely operates at a loss for the first 30 years before bringing in about 85 million.

I guess I don't really see why investors are going to pool together 1.7 billion dollars to be paid back over decades.. Again, I'm not an investor, so maybe someone who's more familiar with that stuff might be able to shed light, but I don't think I'd want to do that. Especially since we don't know what'll happen in the future that could make for a loss.

Independent of that, if Goldman Sachs is putting up the cost of the stadium, then the Raiders would likely still need to put up the cost of relocation (unless they're paying for that, which adds another half a billion to a billion dollars depending on the Chargers) which as hinted may be in the range of 500 million. 500 million should be enough to go to St Louis if that was the case.


I'm sure they can figure out how to make Carson work, otherwise I don't think they'd be going for it (I don't believe it's simply just a bluff as some others do) but I feel they could figure out how to make St Louis work if they can make Carson work. Unless Goldman Sachs is just paying for everything, but I can't figure out why they would.

 

[The Ripper]

I can't figure out the Carson funding either, and I think that adds a lot to the confusion. From what I read, Carson doesn't even really understand the funding, even though they voted on it. Articles seem to say two different things, one that Goldman Sachs is helping them secure financing, and others that say they are getting investors to bankroll it and be paid back later. If they put forward the money to be paid back later, how long does it take? A report said over 40 years Carson should see a profit of about 140 million (averaging to about 3.5 million per year), but does that take into account paying back different investors? If only one team goes there then it likely operates at a loss for the first 30 years before bringing in about 85 million.

The 40 years was for the City of Carson and their revenues not for the investors because the Carson is not involved in that part. They only care about the money t0 them

I guess I don't really see why investors are going to pool together 1.7 billion dollars to be paid back over decades.. Again, I'm not an investor, so maybe someone who's more familiar with that stuff might be able to shed light, but I don't think I'd want to do that. Especially since we don't know what'll happen in the future that could make for a loss.

There are multiple layers to the financing some short some long. Some of the financing will come from mutual fund companies, insurance companies and other investment banks. Riskier investments have higher returns so there is someone will take the risk to make more over time. Some of the long term financing will be secured through the naming rights revenues so it's not as risky.

Independent of that, if Goldman Sachs is putting up the cost of the stadium, then the Raiders would likely still need to put up the cost of relocation (unless they're paying for that, which adds another half a billion to a billion dollars depending on the Chargers) which as hinted may be in the range of 500 million. 500 million should be enough to go to St Louis if that was the case.

It's enough but the revenue wouldn't be as high so there's a possibility that they wouldn't able to borrow as much for a move to a different city.

Financing for Carson is tricky because it relies on G4 and until they apply for the loan no one knows if they get approved for it.

I am not concerned with their financing it's the environmental issues that could cause problems. The NFL wants certainty when it comes to stadium development and that won't come to the clean up is done.

 

[dieterbrock]

So if Stan is allowed to just up sticks and move with a good offer on the table from the city of St Louis, does that set a precedent that an owner can move wherever they like?

Say I have the money to bye the Raiders and can come to an agreement with say the University of Auburn to play at Jordan-Hare Stadium is their anything they can do to stop me from owning the Auburn Raiders? It may not be best for business, but in this hypothetical I was born and live in Auburn so want a team close to me.

I've seen posts like this before and dont mean to single this out, but actually there is no precedent being set.

*If* an owner has/had the financial wherewithall to buy a team and be able to afford to move the team to a more desirable location, IMO they would/will.

In the case of Stan's rumored move to LA, even if approved would cost an incredible sum of money. Who else has that and is willing to spend it?

I dont think there is any precendence issue here at all

This scenario is entirely unique