New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
bluecoconuts
Legend
Again, that stupid quote from the mayor talks about the stadium, the NFL has discussed security beyond construction of the stadium. Is Goldman Sachs going to issues out loans in 10 years if they find themselves in trouble?
How does that make sense? Can they even do that? I don't see why the NFL would give them one fee to split.
The Ripper
Starter
Money is always an issue. There's a point that the returns won't make financial sense for a project to continue.
It's a possibility. They could say that the fee for the market is X but it's way to early for a reporter to guess on how they will do it since they just retained the company to figure it out.
John Clayton and Wagoner Talk Stadiums & Relocation
ESPN’s John Clayton returns from the owners meetings talking L.A. move with Rams Reporter Nick Wagoner. They review the situations in STL, SD, and LA. Plus, how would realignment work if SD and Oakland end up in LA. Clayton puts huge significance in seeing Davis and Spanos having dinner with some other owners the first night of the owners meetings....that it represents a shift of momentum towards Carson.
Listen to Clayton/Wagoner Talk Stadiums
ESPN’s John Clayton returns from the owners meetings talking L.A. move with Rams Reporter Nick Wagoner. They review the situations in STL, SD, and LA. Plus, how would realignment work if SD and Oakland end up in LA. Clayton puts huge significance in seeing Davis and Spanos having dinner with some other owners the first night of the owners meetings....that it represents a shift of momentum towards Carson.
Listen to Clayton/Wagoner Talk Stadiums
bluecoconuts
Legend
I guess I just don't see how you can enforce that. I mean couldn't Kroenke refuse to pay that on the grounds the Rams built that market over half a a century, and are building a stadium on their own dime, how does the NFL defend that? Seems like a weird standard to set if you're trying to make money.
The Ripper
Starter
That's why they brought in an outside firm to come up the fee. There are so many variables that will come into play before the fees are decided.
Laurinaitis Talks Possible Move & Rams Fans Frustration
Fox 2 Sports reporter Charlie Marlow talks it over with Rams middle linebacker James Laurinaitis. Among the topics they discuss; teammate Chris Long’s new charitable foundation, how they need to start fast in 2015, how he’s dealing with all of the L.A. moving talk, and his understanding Rams fans frustrations with all of the relocation rumors.
Watch Laurinaitis Interview
Fox 2 Sports reporter Charlie Marlow talks it over with Rams middle linebacker James Laurinaitis. Among the topics they discuss; teammate Chris Long’s new charitable foundation, how they need to start fast in 2015, how he’s dealing with all of the L.A. moving talk, and his understanding Rams fans frustrations with all of the relocation rumors.
Watch Laurinaitis Interview
They have said they would cover all the initial losses. And it's not like they don't have the capability - if net worth is the measuring stick, Sachs has that in spades - $86.5 billion according to forbes. (Kroenke is 6.3)
Yea, I'd say money is on the Carson side. You could easily apply all those questions to Kroenke himself - he's forking over more money than Sachs (atleast 2.2 billion at a $500 million relocation fee, and thats before the moving vans are included)
Wagoner mentioned it here, and of course the owners can do that. They can set it at whatever they want
Last edited:
bluecoconuts
Legend
You're talking about two separate things. First, Goldman Sachs isn't throwing all their money behind the project, they are an investment bank, there is a limit they will hit before the investment is no longer worth it. Which is why saying that they have more money is worthless.
Second I'm not talking about getting the stadium built. Again I'm talking long term security, that has nothing to do with building the stadium or initial losses. That's about what might happen down the line. Unless they have a guarantee from Goldman Sachs to lend them more money if needed, then that's pointless. That's a question that Kroenke can easily answer.
They built that market and then they abandoned it. I don't see how anyone can call that building a market. They've been gone 20 years not 20 months. I would think that the guy who's been against Spanos claiming any of the LA market despite his claims of a presence there and the fact that he's the closest wouldn't back a tenuous b.s. claim like that. Kroenke could refuse to pay, but the NFL could bill him whatever they want and keep whatever money they want. He may win the right to move in court but I doubt he wins the right to reap all the benefits of moving and none of the costs. At the end of the day he's a powerful man, but he's not Darth Vader. If he moves it will cost him, and he's no doubt well aware of that.
No they aren't spending all their money on their project - but having more resources to draw from isn't a negative. Especially if you run into problems down the line (can happen to Kroenke just as easily).
And with 2 teams in one stadium, that's a pretty damn good return on an investment
I don't know if they've guaranteed them long term or not - I'm sure thats something they'll consider..of course with two teams after a certain period of time how much help would they need? (especially with the g4 loan at their disposal after a long period)
it also seems a bit short sighted that Goldman Sachs wouldn't help them - given they're pledging the whole stadium cost of $1.7 billion and has already promised to cover any initial losses. I'd say its safer to assume they'd be helped instead of turned away
The way the G4 loan guidelines are worded neither of the LA area stadiums will qualify. They have to have a minimum if public funding and the stadiums can't be involved in a change of home market.
You forgot to add "and abandoned it 20 years ago..."
Saying the Rams built the Los Angeles market as it currently exists is 100% disingenuous. They built exactly squat there and as far as I know, there is still no physical stadium on the Inglewood property, just an outline of a cleared former horse track that COULD house a stadium eventually...but even that would have no claim to having "built the market". The LA market is so heavily sought because of its population and potential to advertisers, period. The Rams have zero to do with that.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Why would they though? They need to get that money from various banks, if they can't get them then they're SOL, right? Goldman hasn't offered any guarantees before, have they? Studies are saying its going to take 30 years to set a net gain, so they could have issues with money if suddenly they need it. That's with two teams as well, if it was one team its 40+ years, the return isn't actually all that much for the first few decades, because they have to pay back all the various banks that they borrowed from. They're not just borrowing from Goldman Sachs, they're borrowing from a bunch of different banks that Goldman Sachs is setting up. At least that's how they've done it before and from what I read a whole ago were doing again.
I think that's the main difference between them and Kroenke, its his own money. If costs goes up, its not a big deal, because its his money. If there's an emergency and suddenly he needs to drop another half a billion into the market for whatever reason, its not a big deal because he has it. There's no worry of any issues down the road because Kroenke has the funds on hand, he doesn't need to go anywhere.
And Kroenke played a part in it.You forgot to add "and abandoned it 20 years ago..."
The Ripper
Starter
You forgot to add "and abandoned it 20 years ago..."
Saying the Rams built the Los Angeles market as it currently exists is 100% disingenuous. They built exactly squat there and as far as I know, there is still no physical stadium on the Inglewood property, just an outline of a cleared former horse track that COULD house a stadium eventually...but even that would have no claim to having "built the market". The LA market is so heavily sought because of its population and potential to advertisers, period. The Rams have zero to do with that.
The Rams built the market is a fact as well as that they abandoned the market. The owners will decide subjectively which one is more significant.
This is what I'm talking about - I don't care about the why's and how's because more than likely those types of details aren't going to be released. The only thing that is relevant is whether or not The Raiders/Chargers agreed to whatever their terms are - and quite frankly I doubt other owners will care. It's not their deal - They just want the added Revenue from two teams, most of which is gonna come from a boost in TV Market's share.
And if it's a model that's been used before with success, then i fail to see the issue
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
bluecoconuts
Legend
I don't think he actually would, it just seems to be a weird way to put it, because he probably could. If the Raiders left Oakland for 13 years, and that was their excuse for not needing to pay a fee, couldn't Kroenke argue on that same logic? Especially if market studies are showing that the Rams are still a town favorite? If 20ish years in a market was enough to excuse a 13 year absent, then 50 years should be able excuse a 20 year one. Especially if there's talks of "righting a wrong" as some mentioned before.
Again, I don't think Kroenke would do that, I think he would much rather play ball. However it sounds like he could potentially make that case if he felt he needed. That would of course mean he's just up and moving without permission, and taking on a court case against the NFL.
It just seems strange to assign the fee as a flat one based on the market, rather then based on the teams (or a flat fee that everyone has to pay). Same with going to an independent group, given they talked about wanting to control the process. What if that group determines a really low fee for the Rams, a slightly higher one for the Raiders, and an even higher one for the Chargers, but the NFL would rather Carson? Or the opposite and they would rather Inglewood? I always thought they wanted to set it up their own way. It sounds like either they don't mind, or they want an excuse to price someone out of the market, and then say "well, we didn't set it up!" To shift blame away.
bluecoconuts
Legend
TV revenue wouldn't change until 2022 or whenever the contract is up correct? I expect either stadium has two teams by then.
What sets this apart is that its a competition between two stadiums. Now you're looking at a stadium with possible question marks on long term security, location, timeline, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status