New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

View: https://twitter.com/JasonPhilCole/status/600401320139436033

That would assume that the Chargers won't be paying rent. The Chargers rent is income that can be borrowed against.

 

[blue4]

So the owners are going to reward Davis for being poor and Spanos for being stubborn and too picky? Then select the stadium that will be built over methane and with a financial burden that could be tough to debt service and be profitable over Inglewood.

Right.

Spanos isn't that popular and Davis isn't. Sure Enos may be newer at the table but he brings stability and offers up an option for team 2 if they don't get their way .

You never know but I doubt it.

Not that I disagree in any meaningful way, but everything I've ever read points to Spanos actually being a popular owner who is viewed by the other owners as playing by the rules over the 14 years. Davis may not be as unpopular as some think due to the fact he is not his father. I've only seen that speculated, not ever confirmed in print.

 

[RamFan503]

I could be wrong, but sounded like location, financing and total team contribution in the SD "plan" were all drastically different than the Chargers had indicated they wanted...

The location is possibly the main stumbling block I see. But the Chargers have even proposed that site themselves in previous discussions.

The team contribution, if all true to what they have in the proposal, seems very team friendly. $300 million plus they keep half of naming rights and half of PSL money? Not sure on that last part but the financing calls for $300 million from Spanos plus the G4 monies. If What is being bandied about in the St Louis proposal is true, that is less money from Spanos than St Louis is expecting from Stan.

As to the financing plan, I remember Fabiani saying he didn't want to hear proposals with the city offering some smoke and mirrors proposal that required a vote in order to happen. This proposal indicates that a vote wouldn't be necessary as it creates no new taxes aside from a hotel tax that would be part of the new development. They are not leaning on developer funds either and that was a previous stumbling block.

This could all be pie in the sky BS from the SD task force but what I see looks like a pretty good plan. No idea though what the response will be from the NFL and Spanos.

Sure looks to me though that if he turns it down, it is mostly because he just wants to block Stan and enrich himself with the LA market. Sound familiar?

 

[bluecoconuts]

btw here's Sam farmers take

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-0408-nfl-stadium-scenarios-20150408-story.html#page=1


It's stuff like that popping up everywhere that makes me reluctant to believe it's not likely to happen

They're not really talking now, but that can change, especially when Fabiani is saying it's an option, that's the key thing. He could have said no, he could have said not at this point even, but he didn't say that. I mean it would be like Demoff saying that Kroenke was thinking about buying into the St Louis stadium, that would be huge news for St Louis fans. That doesn't mean it's going to happen, but it's on the table.

I can see them working together if the NFL directs them that way.

They can go to Kroenke and tell him that they're only going to approve of Inglewood if he plays nice with Spanos.

Tell Spanos that they're going with Inglewood, so he better pick up the phone.

If Kroenke doesn't play ball, then approve Carson. If Spanos doesn't play ball then let Stan go at it alone, or try to take Davis out of the picture to force his hand a little bit. If neither of them go to the table then we're either going to have two different stadiums in LA (but still two teams, which is fine) or Inglewood is built and they can hope that Spanos will move there later.

If I'm Kroenke I want to own the stadium, and set up shop before anyone else. If I'm Spanos I want a split and to go there at the same time. They can negotiate where Spanos throws in some money and they get a split (not 50/50, but possibly 20/80, 30/70), but he doesn't leave San Diego until after Inglewood is built or something to that nature. There's indications that Carson isn't a 50/50 split, so that's not too far out of the question.

If it happens and how it'll happen who knows, but as long as Fabiani says it's an option, then you can't really just take that off the table.

 

[RamFan503]

View: https://twitter.com/JasonPhilCole/status/600401320139436033

Where is he getting those figures? Here's what the proposal says:

Anyone know how this is better or worse than the proposal being offered by the St Louis task force? I haven't seen the real nuts and bolts of what Peacock is thinking. Has he put forth a detailed chart like this?

 

[ChrisW]

Where is he getting those figures? Here's what the proposal says:
View attachment 6351

Anyone know how this is better or worse than the proposal being offered by the St Louis task force? I haven't seen the real nuts and bolts of what Peacock is thinking. Has he put forth a detailed chart like this?

I'm assuming he's using the 300M from the chargers and 173M from the rent to hit 473M. I'm not sure where he bumps it to 800M, though. Maybe with year-to-year upkeep?

 

[The Ripper]

I'm assuming he's using the 300M from the chargers and 173M from the rent to hit 473M. I'm not sure where he bumps it to 800M, though. Maybe with year-to-year upkeep?

The rent is revenue of the stadium the same as it is everywhere else and if they want to borrow against it's their choice. If you include the surcharges and the other half of PSL's, it still doesn't add to 800 million. The other factor is that the stadium's expected cost is 300 million less so it seems that the reporters are using that for the figure.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It then pits Inglewood against Carson and 2 teams against 1, and much to the chagrin of the Ostrich BBTLAR types, leaves Kroenke out of the equation. As long as SD-Oak can maintain any kind of united front, Kroenke is 3rd in line for a 2-seat dinner. He cannot get his way without peeling off one of those two teams.

Problem with that is that Kroenke has far more money than both Spanos and Davis combined, and Inglewood looks to be the stronger proposal at this time. You're essentially saying that two house cats, because they're united, can take down a tiger. Kroenke has a lot more money (weight) to throw around here.

Here's the easiest way - broker a deal with the NFL to sell the Rams for $1.5 billion value to investors in St. Louis (same weird controlling interest % as Mark Davis holds) and to the minority shareholders of the Raiders (53% - entitled to a buy-out at whatever their percentage ownership stake is from $795M value...if they sell, the St. Louis group would have first right of purchase, if not, they could retain their % but still no controlling interest). That would mean a 47% local ownership group with controlling interests, and minority owners from Oakland who would be free to retain their share of the ownership or sell it outright to the majority owners over time.

That puts the Rams in St. Louis, and the 47% of the sale price ($700M) that would cover Mark Davis is given to him to remove him from the equation at a profit. Davis comes out smelling like a rose - $700M is well above his current value in the team and lets face it, he is simply NOT NFL owner rich and won't be in the club 15 years from now no matter what happens now.

Why would local owners want to buy the Rams at more than 150% of their value? From a business standpoint that doesn't really make sense, sure it's nice that they'll have the team, but it's not a smart buy. I'm pretty sure there's a limit to the amount of owners a team can have (Packers predate this rule) and I know that a lead owner must own at least 10% of a team, with his family owning the other 20% (so 30% total), which actually disqualifies Peacock since his net worth is reportedly less than what would be needed... Either way, say the limit is about 20 people, that averages to about 75 million per person, and that's before costs of the stadium. Plus why would Kroenke want to reward the guys who are throwing a huge wrench into his plan, what happens if Davis doesn't want to sell, or the other owners don't want to sell either? There's a lot of issues here that make it far more complicated and time consuming than I see Kroenke willing to put up with.

 

[Hacksaw]

Not that I disagree in any meaningful way, but everything I've ever read points to Spanos actually being a popular owner who is viewed by the other owners as playing by the rules over the 14 years. Davis may not be as unpopular as some think due to the fact he is not his father. I've only seen that speculated, not ever confirmed in print.

But his haircut? lol And not that I'm disagreeing in a meaningful way either, but Spanos hasn't been all that friendly to SD. My Charger buddies all say that if they leave it's Spanos' fault because he want's it his way or bust.
And why does he want LA so much? To increase his value? Save what he 'claims' is 25% of his market? Hey if the Chargers already have fans around here somewhere, why would they stop being Chargers fans just because another team is playing in LA. I smell BS , , or is that methane again?? lol.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm assuming he's using the 300M from the chargers and 173M from the rent to hit 473M. I'm not sure where he bumps it to 800M, though. Maybe with year-to-year upkeep?

That's one of the things I don't get yet. Is rent included in the amounts Peacock says they are expecting from Stan or would it be something like that figure in addition to the owner contribution?

 

[bluecoconuts]

Anyone know how this is better or worse than the proposal being offered by the St Louis task force? I haven't seen the real nuts and bolts of what Peacock is thinking. Has he put forth a detailed chart like this?

I don't believe so no, but if I recall correctly he said they were going to when they got the market study back from the NFL, as well as tweak the stadium in terms of luxury boxes and such. They're still mulling things over though, because he's talked about potentially adding a new tax (hotdog and beer) to help fund the Riverfront stadium.

 

[Hacksaw]

.

This could all be pie in the sky BS from the SD task force but what I see looks like a pretty good plan. No idea though what the response will be from the NFL and Spanos.

Sure looks to me though that if he turns it down, it is mostly because he just wants to block Stan and enrich himself with the LA market. Sound familiar?

Exactly. We haven't seen financials from StL's task force or for Carson..

For those who say Stan can't leave because he is trying to enrich himself and has a stadium plan on the table,, now it looks like SD can claim the same thing. This makes the owners decision a bit more complicated.

On another note, I can't wait for TC to begin.

 

[iced]

The location is possibly the main stumbling block I see. But the Chargers have even proposed that site themselves in previous discussions.

The team contribution, if all true to what they have in the proposal, seems very team friendly. $300 million plus they keep half of naming rights and half of PSL money? Not sure on that last part but the financing calls for $300 million from Spanos plus the G4 monies. If What is being bandied about in the St Louis proposal is true, that is less money from Spanos than St Louis is expecting from Stan.

St.Louis is expecting less money from Stan - $250 million plus the g4 money.

 

[blue4]

But his haircut? lol And not that I'm disagreeing in a meaningful way either, but Spanos hasn't been all that friendly to SD. My Charger buddies all say that if they leave it's Spanos' fault because he want's it his way or bust.
And why does he want LA so much? To increase his value? Save what he 'claims' is 25% of his market? Hey if the Chargers already have fans around here somewhere, why would they stop being Chargers fans just because another team is playing in LA. I smell BS , , or is that methane again?? lol.

Oh I'm sure he's about as popular in SD as Stan is here. I'm talking about amongst the other owners.

As far as Davis, I've just never seen the rumors of his assumed unpopularity confirmed. As far as this situation goes, to me he's been the most upfront and reasonable of the 3 owners who has actually talked money and has largely been rebuffed. So I can't see where the other owners would be inclined to go against him just based on popularity. That's why I don't think it's as unreasonable as some think for the Raiders to make a move.

As to Charger fans not being fans anymore if a team moves to LA that's exactly what I would do. You put my city's name in front of your team and play there I'm a fan. I can see Spanos being worried about a dip in sales.

 

[iced]

Exactly. We haven't seen anything from Peacock's plan which could also be pie. As could Carson. We don't need to see the Rams plan as we can all assume it's solid.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...t-louis-and-san-diego-stadium-financing-plans

San Diego stadium proposal

Team/owner funding: $300 million

Capital from team rent: $173 million (over 30 years)

NFL G4 loan: $200 million

San Diego county: $121 million

San Diego city: $121 million

Gain from sale of Qualcomm stadium land: $225 million

Personal seat licenses: $60 million (of $120 million, split with Chargers)

San Diego State rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)

Bowl games rent: $21.6 million (over 30 years)

Ticket surcharge: $84.7 million (over 30 years)

Additional funding (naming rights, etc.): $50 million (over 30 years)

Total recommended revenues: $1.4 billion

St. Louis stadium proposal

Team/owner funding: $250 million

NFL G4 loan: $200 million

City and state bond extensions: $250 million

Brownfield and Missouri Development Finance Board tax credits: $150 million

Personal seat licenses: $100-120 million

Total recommended revenues: $950-985 million

A few quick notes worth adding here:

• The San Diego stadium proposal clearly asks for more than just $300 million from the Chargers, though the proposal categorizes it as such. The rent money, in particular, looks like a potential sticking point. In St. Louis, there's been no such discussion of rolling rent money into bonds as a way of creating more revenue. As mentioned above, rent money is typically used more for stadium upkeep and things of that nature than a form of revenue to pay off a stadium.
  
  
• It's unclear how San Diego plans to navigate the public portion of the financing. In St. Louis, there are current bonds already in place that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon believes he has the power to extend without a public vote. There are arguments brewing on whether that can actually happen or not but the possibility remains. In San Diego, the proposal doesn't really specify how that $242 million in county and city money is to be obtained and whether or not a vote will be required.
  
  
• One thing worth noting is the similar expectation on the personal seat licenses. Remember, neither San Diego nor St. Louis is a major market with the dollars of, say, San Francisco. So estimates of about $120 million in PSL's is probably about right for markets of similar size.
  
  
• Keep in mind, both of these proposals are fluid and in no way set in stone. The St. Louis plan is much further along than San Diego and it's been estimated that about two thirds of the land has already been acquired in St. Louis via option agreements. But as San Diego sorts through its plans and asks much of the Chargers, the St. Louis proposal is far more reasonable on both sides. That doesn't mean that Rams owner Stan Kroenke will agree to it but clearly, St. Louis is at least offering something more palatable than San Diego is offering the Chargers.

 

[RamFan503]

Here's something I found on BSpn. I am not sure how thorough it has been researched but it at least lends to answering part of my questions. I have to say though that it still doesn't answer what St Louis is asking in the form of rent.
http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...t-louis-and-san-diego-stadium-financing-plans

 

[blue4]

Exactly. We haven't seen financials from StL's task force or for Carson..

For those who say Stan can't leave because he is trying to enrich himself and has a stadium plan on the table,, now it looks like SD can claim the same thing. This makes the owners decision a bit more complicated.

On another note, I can't wait for TC to begin.

I can't get excited about the season until this gets resolved. It only takes 5 mins into any football discussion before someone dumps cold water on your excitement by reminding you that the Rams are moving.

 

[RamFan503]

On another note, I can't wait for TC to begin.

Boy howdy.

 

[Hacksaw]

As to Charger fans not being fans anymore if a team moves to LA that's exactly what I would do. You put my city's name in front of your team and play there I'm a fan. I can see Spanos being worried about a dip in sales.

Agreed. I'm sure they might lose some but not the alleged 25% he's crying about. There are those who choose the city first, nickname second. That said, and speaking from experience, if you are a passionate fan of a team, you don't divorce them and suddenly fall in love with another that easily. Sure no team filled the void in LA but even if they had I'm certain I'd still be a Rams fan and only attend home LA games when the Rams came to town. Most everyone I know feels the same.
This is more about leverage and enrichment. Again IMO.

 

[Hacksaw]

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/p...t-louis-and-san-diego-stadium-financing-plans

thanks Iced..