New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

Kroenke was not part of the negotiations. This was settled before he got the minority interest which didn't become effective until the team became the St Louis Rams. I can't find the article but Shaw said that they thought they could control Kroneke better than Peter Angelos. The top tier clause was added because Fans, Inc wouldn't agree to scheduled maintenance and renovations. Every escape clause came from Shaw, Anaheim and St Louis.

Y'know... you got me thinking about that whole Angelos vs Kroenke thing that was going on back in the 90s. I found this article that is actually quite an interesting read. It gives an insight way back then as to the differences between Kroenke and most would-be sports owners. It also shed some light on what might be a background as to why Kraft would be prejudiced against him. Apparently, the two were bidding against each other to buy the patsies back in the 90s. Who wants to bet Stan cost Bobby a few bucks by making him pay more?

Regardless - it shows that Stan has always handled business this way and the idea that he is going to somehow pick up the phone personally or negotiate in person is just not going to happen. Others do. He doesn't. It is no slight on the city of St Louis or Dave Peacock or the Governor. It's just the way he does business. I'm sure he knows his strengths and weaknesses. You can't expect him to change his business style because some want him to make appearances.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

View: https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny/status/603366275755089921

 

[The Ripper]

if you're gonna call me out, please attempt to be correct

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html



they went from "pledging 10 figures" to pledging the whole cost of the stadium ($1.7 billion) and that doesn't even include PSL's (this has been covered and posted before in this thread, somewhere i think late 200's)

It all comes with a cost? What do the Chargers and Raiders have to put up to get those guarantees. It doesn't matter the projections they always want more for the guarantees. In Santa Clara and others they could if all else fails take the stadium but in Carson no one wants to take title because of the risk. They will prepare for the "what if's", what if the PSL's don't come in as expected or what if no G-4 loans. When it comes down to it they're just a bank and want something in return for the loan.

 

[ramsince62]

if you're gonna call me out, please attempt to be correct

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html



they went from "pledging 10 figures" to pledging the whole cost of the stadium ($1.7 billion) and that doesn't even include PSL's (this has been covered and posted before in this thread, somewhere i think late 200's)

I'm not "calling you out", iced, I'm simply trying in an apparently awkward humorous fashion to point out the obvious. Kronke doesn't need a dime from anyone, he's already well underway by the looks of things and FWIW, I'll bet on his horse any day...Carson may or may not happen depending upon a number of variables and, IMO, remains a pig in a poke.

 

[bluecoconuts]

egardless - it shows that Stan has always handled business this way and the idea that he is going to somehow pick up the phone personally or negotiate in person is just not going to happen. Others do. He doesn't. It is no slight on the city of St Louis or Dave Peacock or the Governor. It's just the way he does business. I'm sure he knows his strengths and weaknesses. You can't expect him to change his business style because some want him to make appearances.

He's exactly like Phil Anschutz in that regards. He sends people to do it for him. He's told them what he wants, and they tell him what they offer.

Also a few tweets about ownership and Carson Stadium.



Not sure exactly what this means, but it sounds like it makes it easier for Davis to keep the Raiders. The extra 50 million I'm not sure if that's about loans or something else.

Also about Carson:

Interesting that they told them to remove the flame. Could mean that they're seriously considering the proposal, or perhaps they want to make sure if it comes down to that one they don't have something they don't like. However, if they're still pissed about Davis to the point they don't want to honor him, why reward his son with LA? Either way, the stadium doesn't really seem to have anything "Raiders" anymore, I always felt the flame was an afterthought anyway, and it was more a Chargers stadium.

 

[iced]

It all comes with a cost? What do the Chargers and Raiders have to put up to get those guarantees. It doesn't matter the projections they always want more for the guarantees. In Santa Clara and others they could if all else fails take the stadium but in Carson no one wants to take title because of the risk. They will prepare for the "what if's", what if the PSL's don't come in as expected or what if no G-4 loans. When it comes down to it they're just a bank and want something in return for the loan.

Except PSL's and G4 loans aren' t the same thing as Carson - Sachs has already agreed to cover any initial losses from the project...and they even puffed their chest at Kroenke about having more money. Not to mention they're covering the cost of the project - before PSL's are included (meaning at the worst this is extra funds).

The financing is covered - and if the Raiders/Chargers agree to it, the other owners won't care because:

• It's not their financial burden to bear while alleviating two fellow owners' needs
• it's that much more of a financial surplus in their pockets (especially with two teams in LA).

 

[bluecoconuts]

they even puffed their just at Kroenke about having more money.

Did Goldman Sachs do this or did the Carson mayor do this? I've only read about him saying that.

 

[RamFan503]

It's not their financial burden to bear while alleviating two fellow owners' needs

But it is in the NFL's interest to have the most financially secure stadium deal in place. They've made that pretty clear.

Did Goldman Sachs do this or did the Carson mayor do this? I've only read about him saying that.

That's what I was thinking.

 

[bluecoconuts]

NFL unsure how much the L.A. relocation fee will be
Posted by Michael David Smith on May 26, 2015, 1:24 PM EDT

It appears inevitable that at least one NFL owner will move his team to Los Angeles soon. One issue that remains unclear is how much that owner will have to pay the other owners for the privilege.

Amid reports that the relocation fee could be up to $500 million, NFL executive V.P. Eric Grubman said it’s just too soon to say how much it will cost a team to move.

“We are not very far along in that,” Grubman said, via ESPN. “They are just sort of designing the analysis, and we’re debating the different ways it can be looked at, and the different time frames it can be looked at. My best guess is that a relocation fee wouldn’t be defined until well toward the end of the process.”

But the NFL can’t wait until the very end of the process to determine the fee because it’s possible that the fee could become a sticking point: If it’s $500 million, that’s a cost that Rams owner Stan Kroenke can afford a lot more easily than Raiders owner Mark Davis or Chargers owner Dean Spanos. Which means that if the other owners prefer to see the Rams as the team that goes to Los Angeles, a good way to do it would be to set the fee at a level that would rule out the Chargers and Raiders.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/05/26/nfl-unsure-how-much-the-l-a-relocation-fee-will-be/

 

[iced]

Did Goldman Sachs do this or did the Carson mayor do this? I've only read about him saying that.

But it is in the NFL's interest to have the most financially secure stadium deal in place. They've made that pretty clear.

That's what I was thinking.

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html

"Inglewood likes to say they have the money, because they have Kroenke and he's worth $6.3 billion," said Carson Mayor Albert Robles. "Actually, we have more money — because we have Goldman Sachs."

To be honest I don't care who has money between Bill gates and steve jobs - all that matters to me is that financing is covered. Period. If Sachs has pledged to cover it, then that means they have their financing covered just as much as Kroenke. I don't need to see a "financing breakdown" when their bank has pledged to cover it. Don't need to why or how - that's up to their investors.

 

[The Ripper]

Except PSL's and G4 loans aren' t the same thing as Carson - Sachs has already agreed to cover any initial losses from the project...and they even puffed their just at Kroenke about having more money. Not to mention they're covering the cost of the project - before PSL's are included (meaning at the worst this is extra funds).

The financing is covered - and if the Raiders/Chargers agree to it, the other owners won't care because:

• It's not their financial burden to bear while alleviating two fellow owners' needs
• it's that much more of a financial surplus in their pockets (especially with two teams in LA).

Who is saying that at Goldman it's coming from the advisory side of the business and there's a brick wall no more glass wall between the investment banking side. They're brutal and will require something in exchange for the guarantees. Yes, the other owners will care there's a thing called debt level that's written in stone unlike the other bylaws. Teams are restricted in the amount of leverage they have and even if the owner wants to do a deal if it puts an undo burden on the team it will be rejected. Goldman isn't a fairy godmother they will demand to get paid back and the terms will benefit them not the teams.

 

[OldSchool]

Interesting quote from that article you linked iced

In Santa Clara, and in Carson, Goldman's plan was to create a public authority to build and own the stadium, using the proceeds of a construction loan raised from private investors. The loan would be paid back using revenue from sponsorships, high-end seating and non-NFL events at the stadium and, in a two-team stadium in Carson, using as much as $800 million in personal seat licenses — upfront payments that allow fans to buy season tickets.

The structure of the deal would also save both teams a lot of money in the long run, said John Vrooman, a sports economist at Vanderbilt University.

Using a tax-exempt public authority to sell personal seat licenses and sponsorships allows the teams to avoid many taxes on those sales, saving them tens, perhaps hundreds, of millions of dollars, Vrooman said. The teams would also avoid property taxes on the building, though they would pay rent and other local taxes on the private use of a public facility.

Neither team would make much if any money until that obligation to GS is paid off. It's also interesting that they're going about this in a way to get out of paying hundreds of millions in tax dollars in a time where most every state is hungry for tax dollars. Definitely one thing Inglewood has over Carson. It's not costing hundreds of millions in lost taxes. The only thing Inglewood does is potentially reimburse Kroenke and his partners in money they spend on infrastructure that the city would normally be on the hook for.

 

[bluecoconuts]

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html

To be honest I don't care who has money between Bill gates and steve jobs - all that matters to me is that financing is covered. Period. If Sachs has pledged to cover it, then that means they have their financing covered just as much as Kroenke. I don't need to see a "financing breakdown" when their bank has pledged to cover it. Don't need to why or how - that's up to their investors.

The financial breakdown isn't what's important, if they have enough to cover the stadium, then great. They'll cover the stadium and make a killing on various interests and returns, it's good for them. The problem that comes into play is the long term security. Is Goldman Sachs going to run back and issue out more loans if they find themselves needing to do so? What happens if there's a financial crisis and it's hard to get fans out to the games, what happens if there's a large earth quake (and Southern California is long due) and there's damage that needs to be repaired, what happens if the valves or whatever they'll use to control the toxic gasses breaks? Those are questions that can jeopardize the long term security, something that the NFL has discussed, and if the teams need to borrow all this money to afford the stadium, are they going to be able to borrow it again?

That's something they don't have to worry about with Kroenke. They don't have to worry about PSL or naming right projections, they don't have to worry emergencies or anything. If the Chargers and Raiders can't offer some sort of guarantee there, then Goldman Sachs having tons of money doesn't help them.

 

[blue4]

The financial breakdown isn't what's important, if they have enough to cover the stadium, then great. They'll cover the stadium and make a killing on various interests and returns, it's good for them. The problem that comes into play is the long term security. Is Goldman Sachs going to run back and issue out more loans if they find themselves needing to do so? What happens if there's a financial crisis and it's hard to get fans out to the games, what happens if there's a large earth quake (and Southern California is long due) and there's damage that needs to be repaired, what happens if the valves or whatever they'll use to control the toxic gasses breaks? Those are questions that can jeopardize the long term security, something that the NFL has discussed, and if the teams need to borrow all this money to afford the stadium, are they going to be able to borrow it again?

That's something they don't have to worry about with Kroenke. They don't have to worry about PSL or naming right projections, they don't have to worry emergencies or anything. If the Chargers and Raiders can't offer some sort of guarantee there, then Goldman Sachs having tons of money doesn't help them.

I gotta be honest, I don't think most of this is going to factor into the decision in a big way. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that all these billionaires and billion dollar companies that have dealt with SoCal before have the Earthquake in mind. Inglewood project has the ease and speed it will move, Carson can potentially solve 3 of the 4 problems without SIGNIFICANTLY abandoning a market in the LONG TERM. I know you disagree that Carson can serve SD, I'm not sure the NFL will share that view. It's going to come down to which of these is viewed as more important, as well as the deals on the table in STL and SD. If Carson is getting ready in time and STL has a good deal ready to go, I imagine Carson will be hard to pass up. However, if SD has a good plan emerging and they move the timetable or something, Inglewood will probably be chosen. These are just top of my head examples, not really debate points. My main point is that earthquake insurance and worrying about Sachs profit margins probably won't matter. I really do think that we have way over complicated what's actually going to happen between these owners.

 

[Moostache]

Relocation fee thought....if the fee is in part to compensate owners for the "market", does that mean a single team moving there would pay double? If the fee is set at $500M, would that mean Oak and SD each have to pay $250M? And if Kroenke went rouge he would owe the full $500M? Anyone have info on this?

 

[Goose]

 

[The Ripper]

Relocation fee thought....if the fee is in part to compensate owners for the "market", does that mean a single team moving there would pay double? If the fee is set at $500M, would that mean Oak and SD each have to pay $250M? And if Kroenke went rouge he would owe the full $500M? Anyone have info on this?

The NFL can set the relocation fee any way they want. In front of congress the NFL said the it was to compensate the NFL for building the market and to recoup any losses the league sustains. The Raiders in their move back to Oakland the NFL did not asses a fee because the Raiders built the market, the tv revenues would have been a wash and that they never should have left Oakland. If a team goes rouge they can asses a fee. When the Chargers claim that a percentage of their ticket sales come from the market,it is to reduce the fee for their efforts in the market. The Rams can also say that they created the LA market for the NFL by calling the city home for 49 years and they still maintain a fan base. The Raiders will also try to claim the same thing but they still have to deal with their statements from the application to relocate where they claim that they failed to develop a fan base in LA.

The NFL could charge a flat fee for relocation to LA and charge 500 for the market or they could set the fee based on the individual teams or a combination of the two.. The other consideration will be is how the fee will be assessed if one team moves this year and another moves a year later. The fees are not paid upfront but paid off over time so if team A moves now and team b moves next year the NFL could adjust team A's relocation fee down or eliminate the remaining payments. The NFL will announce the fee but in the end we will never know what the team actually paid.

 

[blue4]

The NFL can set the relocation fee any way they want. In front of congress the NFL said the it was to compensate the NFL for building the market and to recoup any losses the league sustains. The Raiders in their move back to Oakland the NFL did not asses a fee because the Raiders built the market, the tv revenues would have been a wash and that they never should have left Oakland. If a team goes rouge they can asses a fee. When the Chargers claim that a percentage of their ticket sales come from the market,it is to reduce the fee for their efforts in the market. The Rams can also say that they created the LA market for the NFL by calling the city home for 49 years and they still maintain a fan base. The Raiders will also try to claim the same thing but they still have to deal with their statements from the application to relocate where they claim that they failed to develop a fan base in LA.

The NFL could charge a flat fee for relocation to LA and charge 500 for the market or they could set the fee based on the individual teams or a combination of the two.. The other consideration will be is how the fee will be assessed if one team moves this year and another moves a year later. The fees are not paid upfront but paid off over time so if team A moves now and team b moves next year the NFL could adjust team A's relocation fee down or eliminate the remaining payments. The NFL will announce the fee but in the end we will never know what the team actually paid.

All three teams are full of shit. The Rams and Raiders voluntarily and some would say enthusiastically abandoned the market and the Chargers have not provided any proof of 25% ticket sales. You know if there were actually an impartial official deciding this instead of the NFL a lot of these claims would be laughed at.

 

[The Ripper]

All three teams are full of crap. The Rams and Raiders voluntarily and some would say enthusiastically abandoned the market and the Chargers have not provided any proof of 25% ticket sales. You know if there were actually an impartial official deciding this instead of the NFL a lot of these claims would be laughed at.

That's why I used claim. They build a case for the other owners to vote on. The owners are more involved now than they were when the Rams relocated. There's not going to be any holding back information like Tagliabue did for the Rams. The other owners were never informed that St Louis paid the relocation fee not the Rams.

 

[iced]

The financial breakdown isn't what's important, if they have enough to cover the stadium, then great. They'll cover the stadium and make a killing on various interests and returns, it's good for them. The problem that comes into play is the long term security. Is Goldman Sachs going to run back and issue out more loans if they find themselves needing to do so? What happens if there's a financial crisis and it's hard to get fans out to the games, what happens if there's a large earth quake (and Southern California is long due) and there's damage that needs to be repaired, what happens if the valves or whatever they'll use to control the toxic gasses breaks? Those are questions that can jeopardize the long term security, something that the NFL has discussed, and if the teams need to borrow all this money to afford the stadium, are they going to be able to borrow it again?

That's something they don't have to worry about with Kroenke. They don't have to worry about PSL or naming right projections, they don't have to worry emergencies or anything. If the Chargers and Raiders can't offer some sort of guarantee there, then Goldman Sachs having tons of money doesn't help them.

something tells me money isn't an issue

"Inglewood likes to say they have the money, because they have Kroenke and he's worth $6.3 billion," said Carson Mayor Albert Robles. "Actually, we have more money — because we have Goldman Sachs."