New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RAGRam]

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

So if the location I want to move the team to is more desirable to me for reasons other than it makes the league more money I can?

 

[bluecoconuts]

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

Yeah, that's why I'm unsure how it all works out. I don't know how much revenue a stadium typically draws in a year, but between rent to the city and paying back investors, how much would be left for the owners?

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.

How much do you think would be needed for St Louis? Assuming relocation fee isn't really high, I would think 500-600 million would cover it, assuming no G4 loan. If we assume Goldman is working on stadium and not relocation fees, and LA is expecting to be around 500 million to relocate, wouldn't that mean they have enough to cover for St Louis, or they only need to borrow about 100 million. I mean St Louis isn't some shit town, if companies are willing to invest almost 2 billion in LA, I'd think they can swing 500 in St Louis. Again, I'm not crazy familiar with this, it could be my own personal feelings, but I feel St Louis is good enough to get investors.

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.

I agree with that, although I feel the environmental issues will get cleared up. I also think that having the right stadium and the right teams will heavily impact their decision. People have talked about the NFL wanting to "stick the landing" and do it right. Which is why I feel the Raiders might not be the right team. There were reports that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum said they wouldn't host the Raiders last year (but they could change obviously)... But who knows.

I also feel I'm losing my mind, because I don't remember saying what you replied to on the final part of your post.

 

[blue4]

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

It's unique so far. One could argue that someone like Khan who has billions as well may have purchased a team earlier if they knew you could up stakes and move wherever you want. Of course, if St Louis loses a team who's to stop someone buying another team and moving there? Are these scenarios unlikely? Yes they are, but then again in 2012 a three team four city free for all was unlikely too. Once you've proven that you can wipe your ass with the bylaws all kinds of unlikely scenarios become possible. They're not just setting precedent on moving a team. They are setting precedent that rules don't mean a thing. G4, bylaws, cross ownership none of it means a thing. That's the precedent that is being set.

 

[dieterbrock]

So if the location I want to move the team to is more desirable to me for reasons other than it makes the league more money I can?

Name the team, the owner and where they would move and how much it would cost them

 

[dieterbrock]

It's unique so far. One could argue that someone like Khan who has billions as well may have purchased a team earlier if they knew you could up stakes and move wherever you want. Of course, if St Louis loses a team who's to stop someone buying another team and moving there? Are these scenarios unlikely? Yes they are, but then again in 2012 a three team four city free for all was unlikely too. Once you've proven that you can wipe your ass with the bylaws all kinds of unlikely scenarios become possible. They're not just setting precedent on moving a team. They are setting precedent that rules don't mean a thing. G4, bylaws, cross ownership none of it means a thing. That's the precedent that is being set.

The only precedent is that the bylaws are fluid. If they werent, then the Rams wouldnt have been able to move to St Louis in the first place

 

[blue4]

The only precedent is that the bylaws are fluid. If they werent, then the Rams wouldnt have been able to move to St Louis in the first place

Yes, that's what I said. But them just entertaining Carson sets a small precedent for fluid G4 guidelines, and Stan's large middle finger on cross ownership sets another IMO. If I were a billionaire, it would for me. You do it for one, you'll do it for all or the winning lawsuit writes itself.

 

[Hacksaw]

The only precedent is that the bylaws are fluid. If they werent, then the Rams wouldnt have been able to move to St Louis in the first place

I've been wondering. With all the talk about setting precedence, who ultimately loses if the guideline bylaws get circumvented? I don't mean in this case specifically.

Name the team, the owner and where they would move and how much it would cost them

Not to mention 20+ year leases lock teams in to their markets. Unless the lease can be broken by a market not living up to their end of the deal.

 

[The Ripper]

Yeah, that's why I'm unsure how it all works out. I don't know how much revenue a stadium typically draws in a year, but between rent to the city and paying back investors, how much would be left for the owners?

That's the real question but the NFL wouldn't allow a lease situation where the teams lose money. All that matters is that they make more than what they're doing now and with the increase in ticket prices that will work. Even in Anaheim in 1994 with the attendance problems the Rams still finished 10th in the league for revenues and top half for gate receipts.

How much do you think would be needed for St Louis? Assuming relocation fee isn't really high, I would think 500-600 million would cover it, assuming no G4 loan. If we assume Goldman is working on stadium and not relocation fees, and LA is expecting to be around 500 million to relocate, wouldn't that mean they have enough to cover for St Louis, or they only need to borrow about 100 million. I mean St Louis isn't some crap town, if companies are willing to invest almost 2 billion in LA, I'd think they can swing 500 in St Louis. Again, I'm not crazy familiar with this, it could be my own personal feelings, but I feel St Louis is good enough to get investors.

There would be no relocation fee and yes G4 will be approved because the NFL would be pushing the team there. $ 500 million would be a safe bet. It still would depend on revenues because that's still a lot of debt.

I agree with that, although I feel the environmental issues will get cleared up. I also think that having the right stadium and the right teams will heavily impact their decision. People have talked about the NFL wanting to "stick the landing" and do it right. Which is why I feel the Raiders might not be the right team. There were reports that the Rose Bowl and Coliseum said they wouldn't host the Raiders last year (but they could change obviously)... But who knows.

The problem with any type of clean up is that there are no guarantees and the estimates are based on a number of assumptions like that there has been no subsidence, the grounds not sinking or that they don't find any other toxic chemicals. It's just to early to know. If it was easy the site would have been ready years ago.

There's also Dodger Stadium which is still around and it seems that's the site for the Raiders.

I also feel I'm losing my mind, because I don't remember saying what you replied to on the final part of your post.

Don't worry I don't remember either. I was watching NCAA Lacrosse Semi Finals . The team I played for Merrimack College lost in overtime.

 

[The Ripper]

G4, bylaws, cross ownership none of it means a thing. That's the precedent that is being set.

They never have and never will. The NFL has had problems with the cross ownership bylaws since the NFL/AFL merger and relocation issues since the 80's. As long as everything is subjective and not objective nothing will change.

 

[iced]

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.

The $140 million over 40 years was for the city from Carson stadium - I don't think that number includes private investors

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/04/20/51148/report-2-teams-needed-to-make-carson-stadium-profi/

According to documents released by the city of Carson on Monday, consultant AECOM estimated that with two teams installed, the city budget would see a net fiscal gain in each of 40 years. Over time, the city could realize approximately $140 million from rent and other fees.

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.

They alluded earlier that the high end of the relocation fee could be around $500 million - and with the assumption that Rams having to possibly pay in the five hundred range of it. Here's an article by the blue that is a good example of what i'm talking about with national media (also has some good info on relocation fee's in it so not totally worthless lol)

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/04/05/l-a-transfer-fees-could-be-up-to-500-million/

L.A. transfer fees could be up to $500 million per team
Posted by Mike Florio on April 5, 2015, 8:20 AM EDT

If/when (when) one or more NFL teams relocate to Los Angeles, the owners will be required to fork over a significant transfer fee.

Per NIck Canepa of U-T San Diego, that amount could be up to $500 million per team.

The league’s relocation policy expressly states that a relocating team “will ordinarily be expected to pay a transfer fee to the League,” aimed at compensating other teams for the loss of the opportunity to move to the new market themselves and/or accounting for the enhanced value of the franchise arising from the move.

With Steve Ballmer buying the NBA’s L.A. Clippers for more than $2 billion last year, it’s safe to say the move of an NFL team to Los Angeles will enhance its value, dramatically. Because the factors include comparison of revenue streams and franchise value in the old market and the new market, it’s possible that, for example, the Rams and Chargers would face different transfer fees, if they move.

The relocation policy also gives the Commissioner discretion to adjust the transfer free based on the NFL’s interest in encouraging the move or discouraging the move. In other words, the NFL will once again be able to do whatever it wants to do.

The most prudent approach would be to negotiate all aspects of relocation between the team(s) that will be moving and the league office before ownership votes on the move. If an impasse is reached, an owner can decide to defy the rest of the NFL and move without paying a transfer fee or accepting any other terms. While the NFL believes it can impose its will on specific franchises, the late Al Davis proved when moving to L.A. more than 30 years ago that the antitrust laws prevent a collection of independent businesses from telling one specific business where to do its business.

That’s the ultimate leverage for the Rams, Chargers, and/or Raiders this time around. It requires a willingness to alienate the league office and most if not all other owners, but keeping up to $500 million could provide a strong incentive to deal with getting the cold shoulder at ownership meetings.

Now is this a good example of what i'm talking about? They're passing along information as if it was factual (or at least according to their source that their quoting). When I went to the link, I didn't see anything in there saying that the fee had been announced, or hell even rumors - I kept seeing "what it should be." Of course now everytime I click on the link it wants me to log in, and i'm not makin' an account lol.

Also, total speculation on my part - but I wouldn't be shocked at all to see the Raiders pay a lesser amount to move to Carson but in turn getting a smaller share of their split between Spanos and Davis..Again, just speculation - but without having the deep pockets I only wonder if they'll have some arrangment where its like Spanos gets 55/45 or 60/40 as opposed to 50/50

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.

Except for St.Louis he would need $450-500 just for the stadium itself - before relocaton and costs of moving.

I don't think it's just Sachs thats investing - I would bet they have a ton of private investors, and i expect the carson deal to look pretty similar to Levi's stadium. Not exact, but some similarities.

 

[iced]

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.

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

long article (2 pages) and crunched for time, but i've read it before so I'll just paste from the article

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

It was Feb. 2, 1996, that then-owner Ken Behring announced his plan to relocate the Seahawks -- which makes the 10th anniversary of the franchise's darkest hour seem even more surreal in light of the Seahawks' appearance Sunday in Super Bowl XL.

"It was a very weird time," Strong said.

Moving vans hauled equipment out of the team's Kirkland headquarters on a Sunday morning. Players did their offseason workouts at the Rams' old facility in Anaheim. Because Behring had ordered the closure of the team's facility, the coaches and front-office staff were trying to do business from a Bellevue hotel.

Behring's plan was halted when the NFL threatened to fine him $500,000 a day until he returned the Seahawks to Seattle, and after King County had filed lawsuits against him.

That led to billionaire Paul Allen purchasing an option to buy the franchise, which became a done deal in June 1997 after voters approved funding for what it is now Qwest Field.

The rest has become the flip side of club history, highlighted by the Seahawks' victory over theCarolina Panthers on Jan. 22 in the NFC Championship Game that lifted the franchise into its first Super Bowl.

 

[Oyster]

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

The unique part of this whole relocation drama is that city that's being considered is Los Angeles. If Kroenke or another owner wanted to move to any other city than L.A., I feel that the NFL wouldn't even entertain the idea.

 

[The Ripper]

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

long article (2 pages) and crunched for time, but i've read it before so I'll just paste from the article

http://www.seattlepi.com/sports/foo...-10-years-ago-the-Seahawks-nearly-1194634.php

Dig deeper. What you read is not always correct. King County got an injunction against the Seahawks for breaking the lease which prevented the team from playing anywhere else. The talks for the sale of the team started at the end of February. The price was set 2 weeks before the owners meeting. The NFL threatened a lawsuit in February and by the time of the threat of fines the team was already in the process of moving back. The fines threatened were minimal and if they could get out of the lease the NFL would have approved the move. Behrens case fell apart before the owners meeting and would have lost in court. They didn't have a lease to play in So Cal or a lease for a practice facility. John Shaw negotiated the deals and he didn't believe that the team was serious.

Was there any benefit to the NFL in their bid for an antitrust exemption by preventing the Seahawks move? The answer is no. The NFL was still pushing congress for the antitrust exemption. They wanted this settled in court and they knew that the Seahawks would lose because the team had a rock solid lease that prevented the team from playing anywhere else.

 

[bluecoconuts]

The problem with any type of clean up is that there are no guarantees and the estimates are based on a number of assumptions like that there has been no subsidence, the grounds not sinking or that they don't find any other toxic chemicals. It's just to early to know. If it was easy the site would have been ready years ago.

There's also Dodger Stadium which is still around and it seems that's the site for the Raiders.

Yeah, I think they need to haul away 4 feet of dirt throughout the entire site, destroy it, lay down that plastic sheet, and then haul in a bunch of clean dirt to lay down.. Then there's the 300ish thousand a year for upkeep. They need to do that either way though, if not for the stadium for the strip malls that are the backup plan. I think the teams are on the hook for the 300K per year though.

I didn't think about Dodger Stadium, that would probably work, I believe Magic Johnson said he'd like the Raiders back.

The $140 million over 40 years was for the city from Carson stadium - I don't think that number includes private investors

http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/04/20/51148/report-2-teams-needed-to-make-carson-stadium-profi/

Yeah, I'm not sure how they ran the projections, if they included what would go back to investors or not.

They alluded earlier that the high end of the relocation fee could be around $500 million - and with the assumption that Rams having to possibly pay in the five hundred range of it. Here's an article by the blue that is a good example of what i'm talking about with national media (also has some good info on relocation fee's in it so not totally worthless lol)

Yeah, 500 million for LA, assuming if they 'quote' that to Kroenke, they'd need to do it for the Raiders and Chargers. While I know they give themselves flexibility, if it was that large of a gap it could cause Stan to call foul. I don't imagine St Louis would demand that type of money though.

Except for St.Louis he would need $450-500 just for the stadium itself - before relocaton and costs of moving.

I don't think it's just Sachs thats investing - I would bet they have a ton of private investors, and i expect the carson deal to look pretty similar to Levi's stadium. Not exact, but some similarities.

Yeah, so if they can get the 500 million for the stadium, then help for the cost of moving/relocation. I don't know how much it costs to move everything, but it shouldn't be that much more than LA. Unless Goldman Sachs is paying for that too, but I can't imagine that the Raiders are essentially going to move cost free. I know it's multiple investors most likely, but it still seems plausible they could get investors for St Louis too. There was murmurs that they were going to get some to help pay for the Riverfront stadium already.

Levi's stadium uses about 200ish million from the Public though.

Also, total speculation on my part - but I wouldn't be shocked at all to see the Raiders pay a lesser amount to move to Carson but in turn getting a smaller share of their split between Spanos and Davis..Again, just speculation - but without having the deep pockets I only wonder if they'll have some arrangment where its like Spanos gets 55/45 or 60/40 as opposed to 50/50

That's kind of what the 49ers offered, but the Raiders didn't want to be tenants, which is part of why I don't think a Raiders/Rams split would work (it also makes me doubt a Rams/Chargers split too, I think Spanos would rather pay for half of Inglewood than be a tenant, but Kroenke would need convincing)... It's going to be complicated and egos will need to be set aside either way.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I've been wondering. With all the talk about setting precedence, who ultimately loses if the guideline bylaws get circumvented? I don't mean in this case specifically.

Fans? That's about it, the NFL probably wins either way. Whatever gives them the most flexibility.

 

[Hacksaw]

Fans? That's about it, the NFL probably wins either way. Whatever gives them the most flexibility.

So if the NFL wins either way, and considering the fact that most teams are bound to their markets by lease agreements or not wanting to break their legacy bond in the first place, all this precedent speak is somewhat moot.

Also if 2 teams end up in Los Angeles, that's it for it's leverage and availability. What other market would people want to go to anyway? ,,, other than possibly St Louis.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So if the NFL wins either way, and considering the fact that most teams are bound to their markets by lease agreements or not wanting to break their legacy bond in the first place, all this precedent speak is somewhat moot.

Also if 2 teams end up in Los Angeles, that's it for it's leverage and availability. What other market would people want to go to anyway? ,,, other than possibly St Louis.

I think Toronto would be a good market, they already have the NHL, NBA, MLB, and MLS. I think that would be the logical choice.

Portland perhaps, but it's not as good as Toronto. There's always a place to go though.

I think the NFL owners would want to have the most flexibility as they can, potentially backing themselves into a corner probably wont make them rest easy.

 

[Hacksaw]

Yeah, I think they need to haul away 4 feet of dirt throughout the entire site, destroy it, lay down that plastic sheet, and then haul in a bunch of clean dirt to lay down.. Then there's the 300ish thousand a year for upkeep. They need to do that either way though, if not for the stadium for the strip malls that are the backup plan. I think the teams are on the hook for the 300K per year though.

I didn't think about Dodger Stadium, that would probably work, I believe Magic Johnson said he'd like the Raiders back.

It's a lofty task to seal a methane pool with a PVC liner when you have caisson pilings penetrating it every 20 feet to hold the stadium up above the loamy soils there. i believe they would go closer to 40 feet down too.

MJ mentioned the Rams and offered Dodgers stadium if they came back. Later he mentioned either team but the Rams were his first mention. This was a few years back when AEG was making a lot of noise.

"Johnson is a huge NFL fan who was a season ticketholder for the Raiders and Rams before the franchises fled Los Angeles after the 1994 season"
Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Sports11:10 p.m. EST February 10, 2015

 

[Hacksaw]

I think Toronto would be a good market, they already have the NHL, NBA, MLB, and MLS. I think that would be the logical choice.

Portland perhaps, but it's not as good as Toronto. There's always a place to go though.

I think the NFL owners would want to have the most flexibility as they can, potentially backing themselves into a corner probably wont make them rest easy.

Perhaps one team to LA is preferred then.
Toronto would be a good city. I wonder what the Argonauts / CFL would think of that?

 

[bluecoconuts]

It's a lofty task to seal a methane pool with a PVC liner when you have caisson pilings penetrating it every 20 feet to hold the stadium up above the loamy soils there. i believe they would go closer to 40 feet down too.

MJ mentioned the Rams and offered Dodgers stadium if they came back. Later he mentioned either team but the Rams were his first mention. This was a few years back when AEG was making a lot of noise.

"Johnson is a huge NFL fan who was a season ticketholder for the Raiders and Rams before the franchises fled Los Angeles after the 1994 season"
Jarrett Bell, USA TODAY Sports11:10 p.m. EST February 10, 2015

I didn't know he mentioned the Rams too, I would expect them go to to the Rose Bowl though. It's a shame that UCLA is locked into the Rose Bowl for so long, while it has some great history, Inglewood is so much closer to the school.

Perhaps one team to LA is preferred then.
Toronto would be a good city. I wonder what the Argonauts / CFL would think of that?

I'm sure they could learn to deal with it, haha. Honestly I think one team to LA would be smarter, but the NFL seems to think two is better. If they do two teams having one go first would probably be better as well, but it doesn't seem that'll be how it goes. Personally I think one team in LA and the Chargers in San Diego would be just fine, LA would be LA, Anaheim and below San Diego. I believe most in San Diego are Ducks fans, and their putting their AHL team down there as well.

But that's just my opinion.