New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Hacksaw]

-Carson solves all three stadium issues. This looms large in the eyes of the owners. If Inglwood were to happen, the Raiders would likely be left out in the cold. NFL doesn't want that. They wouldn't been haven't the first to share a stadium.

The Raiders involvement was to help Spanos' reactionary move to trump ESK's move. ESK's project offers more. There are alternatives to the Raiders situation and if they are left out, the league likely helps them solve it separately. Their stadium is still capable of holding NFL games. Davis' dad was not liked by the league for obvious reasons and helping him because he's the weakest position isn't doing LA right.

- "California solution." It works.

San Diego and especially Oakland are in CA but are completely different markets. The Raiders are further than Chicago is from StL,, and SD to LA is equivalent to a number of east coast teams with their different markets. Have you been to Calif?

- Spanos and Davis have the votes. They have gone through the process the right way, have waited much longer than Stan, and didn't alienate their fan base on top of it.

Oakland has tried to improve their stadium for a while as has Spanos. The other side of the coin is, is Spanos being fair to SD by refusing all their offers. No different than Stan refusing StL' (if he actually does).
Rams - Chargers works for the 2 teams too, and they will be in a much nicer stadium.
And don't you think that ESK can gather enough votes to block the Charaiders? I don't think the league even want's to make the vote. they'd rather work it out behind the scenes to save one teams face.

- All three teams still have legit fan bases in LA, that's a wash. Im not sure which has the strongest. If I had to guess I'd say they Chargers. That's like a two hour drive for what I hear. I'm not saying they are the same market, but I drive over three hours to STL. Plus it's in the same state. Much different story for OAK, but it still makes sense.

The drive of 200 miles is more like 500 with the LA traffic not to mention SD's. A poll was taken a while back and the Rams where 4 to 1 favorites over the Chargers,, 10 to 1 over the Raiders. It makes less sense than one would think and certainly not a wash.

- I don't think SD will come through on the sweetheart deal like STL is looking more and more to give. Just from breezing that deal, it's over 700 million dollars out of the Chargers's pocket. I've read it's up towards a billion in the fine print. If SD wanted to pay for their own stadium to stay, this would not be an issue.

Spanos has some money. Goldman has offered to find the funding for the deal. Relocation fee and a billion dollar + loan to build the place in Carson.
Why do you think that coming up with less than half the money for a smaller stadium is such a sweetheart deal for Stan? He doesn't even own the place or get much from it. The authority can't afford to give him any concessions as they have to debt service the public part.

-Spanos does not want Stan in LA because his team would be in bad shape. 33% of his fan base/money comes from LA. That's very dangerous for him if Stan takes over that market.

This is why I think they go together. BTW, it's been reported that Spanos is worried about 25% not 33% and mostly from OC not LA. Not disputing the Rams would take some of their market share but if this was so important to him to move to LA, he should have tried to move before Stan decided to.

-A fourth team in CA makes no sense when two out of three teams are struggling with their home markets. There will be at most 2 teams in LA.

Agreed.

-Spanos was seen with Davis eating dinner with high ranking brass. There was only one thing that particular group had in common.

Correct. That is what bore the discussion of possible impropriety from that Clayton article. They could have been saying,' Look Stan's stadium is to sweet to pass up so here is what were going to do for you.....' And ESK's deal blows the others away. Haven't you noticed the rash of pro LA opinions from NFL network and writers every time the owners meetings end?

-Kroneke does not have more money than Goldman Sachs. I only say that because some say "bet on the money." It was never my belief, but if u believe that then that's a big deal.

Goldman Sachs is not lending the money. they are arranging the loans. Those loans need to be repaid. The certainty of that is not nearly as secure as ESK's funding plan. Not even close. Then there is the methane.

Over the coming months you will see the Carson train only picking up steam. The only thing Inglwood has on it is it's timeline of being built. It could be up faster, I believe.

Certain comments made by the league give the impression that sooner would be better than later. With comment to the Carson train, it is making more noise, so is StL. Inglewood is just walking quietly but carrying a big stick.

Look bro, we don't know and I appreciate you listing your reasoning. It could be spot on. My gut is this thing has been in the planning for a while and the winner will be those with the most money and leverage.

And this, SD and Oakland have said they want to remain in their long standing markets and Stan has made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be in StL.,, so if Carson happens then all 3 teams will be playing in their 2nd choice locations. I don't see that happening.

 

[Hacksaw]

Screwy at minimum but what it sounds like is that the land has been "purchased" by the joint venture and in order to get through some financing and tax loopholes, they deeded it back to a pseudo municipal entity (ala Santa Clara). Thus the land is "owned" by the authority that will operate the stadium. If the stadium is not built the land would somehow revert to the city.

I don't really get the deal either. This sounds like Spanos and Davis bought the land and agreed to donate it to the city if a stadium was not built. I have no idea what they paid for it or what the wording was in the transfer. It seems to me that if they actually paid for the land, they are very sure of building the stadium. Otherwise, it is a purely paper transaction. I can't see Spanos or Davis paying millions of dollars for land and then just gifting it to the city of Carson.

Anyone see any details of what was paid and to whom?

I would think that if there was this lawsuit about monies promised that the money generated to the city from the sale of the land would be used to pay that obligation. So confused.

Old School mentioned $250K. Not quite the $90M Stan spent. So I remember a discussion about how the Charaiders won't be liable if something goes wrong in Carson. Could this be part of that maneuver?

 

[mr.stlouis]

The Raiders involvement was to help Spanos' reactionary move to trump ESK's move. ESK's project offers more. There are alternatives to the Raiders situation and if they are left out, the league likely helps them solve it separately. Their stadium is still capable of holding NFL games. Davis' dad was not liked by the league for obvious reasons and helping him because he's the weakest position isn't doing LA right.

San Diego and especially Oakland are in CA but are completely different markets. The Raiders are further that Chicago from StL and SD to LA is equivalent to a number of east coast teams and there different markets. Have you been to Calif?

Oakland has tried to improve their stadium for a while as has Spanos. The other side of the coin is, is Spanos being fair to SD by refusing their offers. No different than Stan refusing StL' (if he actually does).
Rams Chargers works for the 2 teams too in a much nicer stadium.


The drive of 200 miles is more like 500 with the LA traffic not to mention SD's. A poll was taken a while back and the Rams where 4 to 1 favorites over the Chargers,, 10 to 1 over the Raiders. It makes less sense that would think.

Spanos has some money. Goldman has offered to find the funding for the deal. Relocation fee and a billion dollar + loan to build the place in Carson, I don't know. Why do you think that coming up with less than half the money for a smaller stadium is such a sweetheart deal for Stan? He doesn't even own the place or get much from it. The authority can't afford to give him any concessions as they have to debt service the public part.

This is why I think they go together. BTW, it's been reported that Spanos is worried about 25% not 33% and mostly from OC not LA. Not disputing the Rams would take some of their share but if this was so important, he should have tried to move before Stan decided to.

Agreed.

Correct. That is what bore the discussion of possible impropriety from that Clayton article. They could have been saying,' Look Stan's stadium is to sweet to pass up so here is what were going to do for you.....' And ESK's deal blows the others away. Haven't you noticed the rash of pro LA opinions from NFL network and writers every time the owners meetings end?

Goldman Sachs is not lending the money. they are arranging the loans. Those loans need to be repaid. The certainty of that is not nearly as secure as ESK's funding plan. Not even close. Then there is the methane.

Certain comments made by the league give the impression that sooner would be better than later. With comment to the Carson train, it is making more noise, so is StL. Inglewood is just walking quietly but carrying a big stick.

Look bro, we don't know and I appreciate you listing your reasoning. It could be spot on. My gut is this thing has been in the planning for a while and the winner will be those with the most money and leverage.

And this, SD and Oakland have said they want to remain in their long standing markets and Stan has made it abundantly clear he doesn't want to be in StL.,, so if Carson happens then all 3 teams will be playing in their 2nd choice locations. I don't see that happening.

-ESK's deal does not help the Raiders more than Carson. All three stadiums are capable of holding NFL games still. This is about profits. The NFL has a deadline, OAK is almost dead in negotiations. I have read no reports about them being left out. Inglewood hurts Davis and OAK greatly.

- SD and OAK will do better in LA. To be fair, Rams would do better by what LA fans say. IDK


- Goldman Sachs arranged SF's stadium financing successfully. They would do the same for Carson.

- Clearly its not too late for Spanos.

-Agree Spanos turning down money is same as STL turning down Stan. But Spanos didn't terminate the lease to do it and rush into LA. Spanos is in a lot better standing with other owners. It makes a huge difference.

- Inglewood is 160 million dollars more expensive than Carson. Not that much in the grand scheme. I guess that makes it nicer, but not much. But neither are built so IDK which I'd like better.

-STL stepping up to keep its team in a way SD and OAK has not cannot be overlooked.

-Goldman Sachs is not smoke

Thanks, appreciate your opinions.

 

[iced]

Right - and that is just the timeline for deciding if they are going to move up the application date. If they also decide the fee around then, it might be soon enough. Still I think they negotiate the fee and know who is moving before applications are filed.

that's what i'm saying, and what they said...and also what i meant by "the time gap between what the owners find out and when something is announced"

 

[BuiltRamTough]

If the NFL wanted a "California solution" why did they wait until Inglewood was announced to solve the "solution"?


Spanos could of moved to LA all this time no one was stopping him and also if Spanos is so worried about losing the LA market to another team, why then team up with another team (Raiders)?

 

[RamFan503]

Old School mentioned $250K. Not quite the $90M Stan spent. So I remember a discussion about how the Charaiders won't be liable if something goes wrong in Carson. Could this be part of that maneuver?

Pretty sure that was a down payment they talked about shortly after the Carson egg was hatched. Sounds more like earnest money than a real amount for 156 acres in Carson. But there are a lot of potential issues with Carson that could drive up the cost of owning that property - thus driving the value down - and that could very well be why they can't pay what the lawsuit alleges that they promised out of proceeds from the sale of the land.

I suppose also that the two teams have angled in such a way that if something is unearthed in the construction phase, it's the city's baby to deal with.

 

[iced]

If the NFL wanted a "California solution" why did they wait until Inglewood was announced to solve the "solution"?


Spanos could of moved to LA all this time no one was stopping him and also if Spanos is so worried about losing the LA market to another team, why then team up with another team (Raiders)?

To gain the favor of other owners - more revenue means an increase in an owners share. 2 teams brings in more than one.. And my guess is he doesn't want Kroenke's deal - and who could blame him? Whatever Kroenke wants for his stadium in Revenue splits, paying rent,etc. With carson, it's on his terms. Not another owners - he has the deal set up to go through without the Raiders.

And i remember reading before that there had been whispers of the potential team in LA before anything was announced - and after the carson announcement, i remember reading that "it had been in the works for awhile"

 

[RamFan503]

that's what i'm saying, and what they said...and also what i meant by "the time gap between what the owners find out and when something is announced"

K - maybe we're saying about the same thing in different ways? It's cool. Gonna be what it's gonna be anyway - right?

 

[RamFan503]

And i remember reading before that there had been whispers of the potential team in LA before anything was announced - and after the carson announcement, i remember reading that "it had been in the works for awhile"

Well if you listen to people like Bernie, you would assume that the Inglewood deal has been in the works since 2010. I don't buy that and I certainly don't buy that Spanos would have been pushing the Carson deal if not for the Inglewood project.

 

[bluecoconuts]

And i remember reading before that there had been whispers of the potential team in LA before anything was announced - and after the carson announcement, i remember reading that "it had been in the works for awhile"

There were tons of rumors about the Rams returning to LA over the years, especially after Stan bought the Inglewood land. I believe Spanos said that he started looking into Carson and trying to figure something out sometime around late summer/mid autumn of last year, so he probably saw the writing on the wall when Stan bought the land. Or Stan told owners privately that he was going to develop a stadium there (as he's supposed to I think).. He said he teamed up with the Raiders after the Inglewood announcement though, so I think the entire thing has been reactionary.

 

[The Ripper]

-

- Goldman Sachs arranged SF's stadium financing successfully. They would do the same for Carson.

Citigroup did MetLife & Atlanta and now their working for San Diego.



-Agree Spanos turning down money is same as STL turning down Stan. But Spanos didn't terminate the lease to do it and rush into LA. Spanos is in a lot better standing with other owners. It makes a huge difference.

In order to relocate Spanos must get out of his lease.


-STL stepping up to keep its team in a way SD and OAK has not cannot be overlooked.

The Riverfront Stadium costs 600 million to build and all of that is coming from the owner and the NFL. 200 from G4, 250 from Kroenke and 150 from PSL's. The deal is asking for 200 million more from the owner than it should

-Goldman Sachs is not smoke

Their just any investment bank like Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and all the rest.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

To gain the favor of other owners - more revenue means an increase in an owners share. 2 teams brings in more than one.. And my guess is he doesn't want Kroenke's deal - and who could blame him? Whatever Kroenke wants for his stadium in Revenue splits, paying rent,etc. With carson, it's on his terms. Not another owners - he has the deal set up to go through without the Raiders.

And i remember reading before that there had been whispers of the potential team in LA before anything was announced - and after the carson announcement, i remember reading that "it had been in the works for awhile"

Why did they wait to announce Carson until after Inglewood was announced?

 

[mr.stlouis]

- Goldman Sachs arranged SF's stadium financing successfully. They would do the same for Carson.

Citigroup did MetLife & Atlanta and now their working for San Diego.



-Agree Spanos turning down money is same as STL turning down Stan. But Spanos didn't terminate the lease to do it and rush into LA. Spanos is in a lot better standing with other owners. It makes a huge difference.

In order to relocate Spanos must get out of his lease.


-STL stepping up to keep its team in a way SD and OAK has not cannot be overlooked.

The Riverfront Stadium costs 600 million to build and all of that is coming from the owner and the NFL.

-Goldman Sachs is not smoke

Their just any investment bank like Citigroup, Deutsche Bank, Morgan Stanley and all the rest.

- Pretty sure they are on a year-to-year lease. It's not an issue at all.

- I do know they were able to eliminate 100 million dollars from the originally 350 million in bond money, so that's a good sign. Between 120 million in PSL's and 350 million public/other funding, that's close to half the stadium by itself. Therefore, the 600 million you stated is an incorrect figure.

- So you are saying SD proposal is viable. Spanos staying in SD is the only thing that would derail Carson. However, I've read SD is not happy with that proposal. If that's the case, it comes down to the votes.

- Spanos has the votes, Stan does not. Of course this is my opinion.

 

[OldSchool]

- Pretty sure they are on a year-to-year lease. It's not an issue at all.

- I do know they were able to eliminate 100 million dollars from the originally 350 million in bond money, so that's a good sign. Between 120 million in PSL's and 350 million public/other funding, that's close to half the stadium by itself. Therefore, the 600 million you stated is an incorrect figure.

- So you are saying SD proposal is viable. Spanos staying in SD is the only thing that would derail Carson. However, I've read SD is not happy with that proposal. If that's the case, it comes down to the votes.

- Spanos has the votes, Stan does not. Of course this is my opinion.

Nobody has any way of knowing this until the situation plays out and you're just speculating. With that and a lot of other things too.

Also the Chargers lease right now has it set up so that they can get out of their lease every year on Feb 1st.

 

[mr.stlouis]

Nobody has any way of knowing this until the situation plays out and you're just speculating. With that and a lot of other things too.

Also the Chargers lease right now has it set up so that they can get out of their lease every year on Feb 1st.

Yes, I am speculating. Just like the guys who saw Spanos and Davis having dinner with NFL brass at the owners meetings. You are correct.

 

[The Ripper]

Pretty sure that was a down payment they talked about shortly after the Carson egg was hatched. Sounds more like earnest money than a real amount for 156 acres in Carson. But there are a lot of potential issues with Carson that could drive up the cost of owning that property - thus driving the value down - and that could very well be why they can't pay what the lawsuit alleges that they promised out of proceeds from the sale of the land.

I suppose also that the two teams have angled in such a way that if something is unearthed in the construction phase, it's the city's baby to deal with.

250k is what the Chargers and the Raiders must pay to Carson if they don't build a stadium. They paid 20 million for the 11 acres and the remaining land cost $ 2. No one is technically responsible for the land. The only money that the authority will have is the 50 mil from the bond sales and after that they will keep very little in their to shield the money from lawsuits.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

- Pretty sure they are on a year-to-year lease. It's not an issue at all.

- I do know they were able to eliminate 100 million dollars from the originally 350 million in bond money, so that's a good sign. Between 120 million in PSL's and 350 million public/other funding, that's close to half the stadium by itself. Therefore, the 600 million you stated is an incorrect figure.

- So you are saying SD proposal is viable. Spanos staying in SD is the only thing that would derail Carson. However, I've read SD is not happy with that proposal. If that's the case, it comes down to the votes.

- Spanos has the votes, Stan does not. Of course this is my opinion.

From what I've read the Chargers and SD are going to start negotiations from June 1. The proposal is going to look much different then it is now.

 

[The Ripper]

- Pretty sure they are on a year-to-year lease. It's not an issue at all.

- I do know they were able to eliminate 100 million dollars from the originally 350 million in bond money, so that's a good sign. Between 120 million in PSL's and 350 million public/other funding, that's close to half the stadium by itself. Therefore, the 600 million you stated is an incorrect figure.

- So you are saying SD proposal is viable. Spanos staying in SD is the only thing that would derail Carson. However, I've read SD is not happy with that proposal. If that's the case, it comes down to the votes.

- Spanos has the votes, Stan does not. Of course this is my opinion.

PSL's are revenues of the owner and not public money. The original proposal in St Louis had them in there but it has been removed.

Absolutely no one can speculate on the votes until a vote is taken. Just too many variables.

 

[RamFan503]

Carson solves all three stadium issues. This looms large in the eyes of the owners. If Inglwood were to happen, the Raiders would likely be left out in the cold. NFL doesn't want that. They wouldn't been haven't the first to share a stadium.

This is possibly correct. But it also screws up the entire deal if there are any issues that delay it even more or make it actually undoable. Goldman Sachs is a big plus but the potential issues lying underground and a couple other legal issues are a bit of an unknown here and I can't imagine the NFL wants grey areas when it comes to solving the LA market.

Spanos and Davis have the votes. They have gone through the process the right way, have waited much longer than Stan, and didn't alienate their fan base on top of it.

Spanos has alienated plenty over the years. You assume they have gone through the process the right way because it has taken so long. I doubt you have much more than that to go on. Spanos has turned down just about everything because there was not enough public funding or the site that used to be acceptable is not quite to his liking as the down town site.

Davis (daddy) already left Oakland against the wishes of Oak and the NFL. Then he returned to Oak without really getting approval to do so. You think the NFL views that as doing it right? And I'm not talking sound bites from Mr. Saynothingwithacraploadofwords Grubman

No one knows who has what votes in all honesty.

All three teams still have legit fan bases in LA, that's a wash. Im not sure which has the strongest. If I had to guess I'd say they Chargers. That's like a two hour drive for what I hear. I'm not saying they are the same market, but I drive over three hours to STL. Plus it's in the same state. Much different story for OAK, but it still makes sense.

Two hour drive? You may want to try that before holding to that line of thinking.

We could argue the fan base issue all day and the only thing we have that is close to proof is the LA Times poll that showed a much stronger Rams fan base in LA than the other two.

I don't think SD will come through on the sweetheart deal like STL is looking more and more to give. Just from breezing that deal, it's over 700 million dollars out of the Chargers's pocket. I've read it's up towards a billion in the fine print. If SD wanted to pay for their own stadium to stay, this would not be an issue.

If you count the rent Spanos will be paying and not the rent Stan will be paying then discount the money Spanos will receive from PSLs that Stan will be paying, you might be able to come to these conclusions. In all honesty, the splits are pretty equal and the SD stadium is $1.1 to construct.

Spanos does not want Stan in LA because his team would be in bad shape. 33% of his fan base/money comes from LA. That's very dangerous for him if Stan takes over that market.

First off, Spanos' own claim through Fabiani was 25% not 33. Second, that has never been substantiated and the last interview I heard with Fabiani, he just kind of glossed over the question. I don't buy I. But then again, I don't buy much of what Spanos or Fabiani say. Too many years of BS coming from those two. So I suppose I'm biased.

A fourth team in CA makes no sense when two out of three teams are struggling with their home markets. There will be at most 2 teams in LA.

They may be struggling to get "acceptable" deals for a stadium in their home markets but the Raiduhs and Chargers aren't exactly struggling to fill their current stadiums.

Kroneke does not have more money than Goldman Sachs. I only say that because some say "bet on the money." It was never my belief, but if u believe that then that's a big deal.

Goldman Sachs may have more money under their control but they wouldn't necessarily be able to free up more money for this one project or be able to gather more funding toward a single project than Stan and his wife. How much money GS has in all this is a moot point as everyone knows Stan is more than capable of taking care of his end. The only thing that matters is if GS presents a financing proposal that works for them, the two teams, the city of Carson, and the NFL and if Stan does the same. If they sign on the dotted line that they will do it then that part is pretty much equal.

Over the coming months you will see the Carson train only picking up steam. The only thing Inglwood has on it is it's timeline of being built. It could be up faster, I believe.

I think the biggest thing Inglewood has going for it besides being practically shovel ready is that there is relatively little question on what is under the ground once the dozers begin their work. An almost guaranteed 2 year earlier completion date certainly doesn't hurt but the idea that they could start to dig and end up with a toxic wasteland might just give the NFL pause.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

250k is what the Chargers and the Raiders must pay to Carson if they don't build a stadium. They paid 20 million for the 11 acres and the remaining land cost $ 2. No one is technically responsible for the land. The only money that the authority will have is the 50 mil from the bond sales and after that they will keep very little in their to shield the money from lawsuits.

Exactly. Things like this make you scratch your head when it relates to Carson. Why do some people call Carson a bluff but not Inglewood?