New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[den-the-coach]

I think that's his point, that he probably can't just write a check and cover it. If you take both my properties and my retirement I'm worth a bunch, on paper. Right now I could write you a check for $385 if I didn't feel like eating until next Thursday. But I can get the money for much more than that to buy another property with credit that I have, 401k loans, etc and have no problem meeting those payments. I imagine it's the same for Stan, only on a far far larger scale.

I'm not sure, he's worth 5.3 billion and his wife is worth more I don't believe Stan's mouth doesn't write a check his ass can't cash.

 

[drasconis]

You could be right drasconis but I am curios, how do you know this to be true? I know most investors like to use OPM so I'm not disputing you assertion, but loan repayment obviously changes his cash flow numbers.

I don't "know" it, but I can look at the items that go into his worth and and reasonably assume he doesn't have $1.5 B in cash. Could I be wrong, yes, but in theory for him to have that much cash he would need sell something large from his holdings and there has been no record of that I have seen. Let me be clear I do NOT believe he has any credit issues or that financing of the stadium isa problem for him in the least....

 

[drasconis]

It doesn't really matter, does it? Because in the end Stan can just right the checks, it doesn't really matter where he gets the money because he can cover it.

Don't think it matters in the end. The basis for it is that there was discussion that if there were issues (such as cost overruns) Carson would require additional investment possibly which may or may not be easily obtained by GS and Kroenke doesn't have that issue, but it was put forth like he is just pulling the money out of his pocket. In all likelyhood he is getting financing to pay for the stadium (leveraging equity elsewhere) and if there is cost overruns or issues then he will need to get additional financing to cover those. I would presume in both Carson and Inglewood the financing would be presettup to handle reasonable cost overruns (i.e. Kroenke probably has financing in place for up to $2B but only plans on $1.7-1.8 of it, and I would assume that GS would do similar for Carson, this would be standard business practice for somethig like this.)

The fact is both sides have long history and experience with such proejcts they will have covered their bases and have a good idea as to how all costs will be covered at this point. I am just saying that SK is going to do the same thing Carson is doing he is going to finance the project it isn't going to come "out of his pocket" like me paying for mcdonalds. As rich as he is it is unlikely he is liquid to that extent (heck that would be VERY rare).

 

[Hacksaw]

Okay I'll come clean...I loaned Stan the money.

More proof of the money in LA....

 

[den-the-coach]

Okay I'll come clean...I loaned Stan the money.

Okay then how much do you have left to lend? If any, count me in and you know I'm good for it @RAMSinLA

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Bernie - Ya but there isn't enough parking in Inglewood...

Hmmmm

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-inglewood-20150322-column.html


All sides approach

HKS describes the stadium as "four-sided," which means the venue is accessible and approachable to the public from 360 degrees. There would be no fenced-off areas at ground level such as loading docks, mechanical yards, dumpsters and the like. That would all be below ground and accessible via tunnels located near the stadium. VIP, event-level parking could also be accessed through the tunnels. Counting the underground and surface parking, 9,000 spaces would be dedicated to the stadium alone, with others in the nearby office and retail buildings. Backers of the Inglewood stadium estimate they would need a total of about 21,000 spaces for an NFL game, and say there would be roughly 45,000 spaces within a mile of the stadium on game days.

 

[blue4]

I'm not sure, he's worth 5.3 billion and his wife is worth more I don't believe Stan's mouth doesn't write a check his ass can't cash.

But I'd bet he doesn't have that to just write a check. Nobody's saying he's not good for the money, just that he doesn't have the total cost of a stadium sitting in his checking account.

And this is billionaire marriage we are talking about. Not what's mine is yours and vice versa. It's prenups, this land is your land, this land over here is mine.

 

[The Ripper]

The stadium is less than 1/3 of the total cost for the project in Inglewood so I don't think anyone has to write a big check to get the stadium built.

 

[Angry Ram]

I think this lawsuit yesterday has made me the lowest I felt in the Rams staying. I usually was pretty positive, all these rumors about the Rams leaving and those claming what Stan wanted were just that...rumors.

I have a feeling this lawsuit is going to be much more than an "obstacle." They want to stop it. It pisses me off they just pull something out of their asses on a random day, and flushing all the positive efforts into the sewers.

If this isn't resolved, I know who I'll blame.

 

[bluecoconuts]

what you keep overlooking is the fact that GS has said the will help with losses, that pretty much tells me that they expect there to be costs above and beyond the original number and have funding in place for whatever comes up.

I'm not overlooking that because again, that is all stuff to get the stadium built, and I understand they are promising coverage on that.

 

[bluecoconuts]

But I'd bet he doesn't have that to just write a check. Nobody's saying he's not good for the money, just that he doesn't have the total cost of a stadium sitting in his checking account.

And this is billionaire marriage we are talking about. Not what's mine is yours and vice versa. It's prenups, this land is your land, this land over here is mine.

Nobody is saying that its sitting in his checking account, we all know he has things diversified and all that. However he's worth that money.

A guy who's worth 100 dollars who is gathering friends to borrow 400 dollars and give you 500 dollars vs a guy who's worth 1,000 dollars who will gibe you 500 dollars.

He might not have the cash on hand, but he has that money elsewhere and can produce it if needed. Davis and Spanos cannot, they're borrowing it. Goldman Sachs is gathering up people to borrow it from.

 

[RamFan503]

been avoiding this but....

Stan is clearly getting loans (or his holding companies are). It just isn't public who through or with. He is worth 6.3 B but that does not mean he has 1.5B in cash laying around...heck 4-5B of that is his equity in sports teams and it is safe to assume that a large amount is equity in his construction company(s). If he is building the stadium using his own cash then he is selling off assets...large #s of them. He is clearly getting financing sources for his stadium they just aren't public since he isn't using public money to get it done or have any need to publicly declare his financing plan...

Beat me to it.

 

[blue4]

Nobody is saying that its sitting in his checking account, we all know he has things diversified and all that. However he's worth that money.

A guy who's worth 100 dollars who is gathering friends to borrow 400 dollars and give you 500 dollars vs a guy who's worth 1,000 dollars who will gibe you 500 dollars.

He might not have the cash on hand, but he has that money elsewhere and can produce it if needed. Davis and Spanos cannot, they're borrowing it. Goldman Sachs is gathering up people to borrow it from.

So basically once again we are all sitting around saying the same thing in different ways. This is what I've been saying.

 

[RamFan503]

I think the difference is that Stan is likely getting the money at a much better rate and therefore his cost of borrowing would be less. Being that Stan has the assets to more than cover the loan and neither Davis nor Spanos do even combined, they will be paying more for their money. Adding in Goldman Sachs probably saves them money in that GS can probably find the best money deals by doing such things as selling points that Spanos and Davis simply can't do. But the bottom line is that Stan's money is almost undoubtedly going to come at a much cheaper rate.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...y-Bad-News-For-Proposed-St-Louis-Stadium.aspx
Bill McClellan: Lawsuit 'Really Bad News' For Proposed St. Louis Stadium
Six state legislators on Wednesday filed suit against Gov. Jay Nixon the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, claiming taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally,” on “an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium.”

Specifically, the suit alleges Nixon's stadium task force’s proposal to extend state bonds to build the stadium is illegal.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bill McClellan jumped in on The Hollywood Casino Press Box Thursday to discuss the lawsuit and its implications on the development of the proposed riverfront stadiun north of the Gateway Arch.

You can listen to the whole thing here:

Bill McClellan talks stadium lawsuit on The Press Box


We also transcribed notable excerpts from the interview, which you can read below:

What's your view on this lawsuit?

"I think this lawsuit would be very hard to go against. If (the stadium task force) want to make the argument the 1988 legislation gave the authority to build multiple stadiums, that's just hard to imagine. I was talking to David Hunn, one of the people who wrote the story...he told me his understanding was originally they were going to try to get the law changed, then they decided against it. I'm thinking they probably figured they'd have a stronger chance of going to court and trying to argue the definition of 'adjacent' rather than get the legislature to issue more bonds to build another stadium. I don't think you can make those arguments to a judge with much of a straight face. I think this is really bad news for the stadium."

With the NFL wanting a firm financing plan sooner than later, the timing of the lawsuit could also pose a problem, right?

"I would suspect when the league looks at this stuff, they had to see this was all kind of built on sand anyways. I know my colleague Bernie Miklasz writes the league trusts Peacock and thinks he's got everything going the right way. But I don't know how you can look at this and say everything is going the right way for the new stadium financing. I think it's all very, very difficult."

Secret deal with Jacksonville?

"If there's some kind of secret deal with (Jaguars owner Shahid) Kahn and Jacksonville, that he's going to try and bring that team here in a couple years but wants a new stadium, this is just the wrong way to go about it. They are alienating people the way they're going about it."

If we lose the Rams, don't you think it makes St. Louis look like less of a city?

"Absolutely. A lot of my colleagues (in the sports department), this is personal to them. They love having a team. It'd be like if you were saying to me they're taking away all the courts of the St. Louis region. Jim Thomas, this is his beat. We're not going to cover the Los Angeles Rams. The sports community takes this very personally."

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Here's the interview^^^

http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Pressbox/052815-5PB.mp3

 

[iced]

You keep saying that I'm talking about stadium financing and I'm not. I'm not an idiot, I know that Goldman Sachs has experience, and I know they know what they're doing and what they're getting into. I've made this point probably 6 times already and you keep coming back to stadium financing and Goldman Sachs having more equity.

Because you keep acting like you know what the investors limits are and where their cut off point is, and acting like these "if's/could/should" scenarios had never dawned on them or as if GS has no idea what they're in for down the line. They didn't become a $85 billion dollar company by doing terrible stadium deals.

I'm saying that when people try to say "Well Goldman Sachs has more money, so they win." that's not how it works. They are an investment bank, meaning that they are lining up loans for the 1.7 billion or whatever for the construction of the stadium. That's what they're doing, that's what they do. If they need to suddenly increase that, then they need to adjust and line up new loans. They don't just open up and put in more money, they need to line those up, it's extra steps. If suddenly the costs go up, or 10 or 20 years down the line there's an issue, that's a competently different thing they need to do. Where Kroenke has an advantage is that he doesn't have to go through any middleman or things like that.

Again, irrelevant. Few ways to look this:

1)you really think an investor, after spending so much money on such a project is going to totally abandon it in 10-20 years?
2)The income the stadium generates, especially over 10-20 years, could easily be put back into "maintenance" or whatever they might need.
3)There are many ways to finance issues through a stadium - with things including revenue coming from ticket sales, the stadium, etc. An example of that would be the G4 loan (Disclaimer: I am not saying they are getting it). Some of the ways to pay that back are over time through stadium money.

I think you're trying to make a non-issue into an issue, and my biggest issue is that you're making assumptions about how investors are going to act when you don't even know who is investing let alone how many or their worth. In the same breath, you're also asserting that they would be unwilling to help at all, especially after generating a ton of money off the initial investment.

And I guess my biggest gripe is that Goldman Sachs has been down this road before; 30 times in the last 10 years - and I'm guessing you could probably take all these concerns and apply to it every stadium deal that is privately funded but not owned by the owner... Or hell, just look at the Santa Clara deal. Do you think they're not gonna be able to fix any future issues?

Doesn't hold water or make any sense. Goldman Sachs has been done this road several times - if there's any body who knows whats coming down the road, it's them.

Additionally, they have said they will cover losses. Again, point is moot. And I think who "finances" their stadium isn't going to matter to the other owners - all they care about is if the Money is there to finance it, period. The money they care about is the one that goes into their pockets, which they stand to get the most from two teams - and by all indications thus far, the only stadium with two teams is Carson. Sure things are subject to change and they may - but I'm not buying any hype of inglewood housing two teams until I actually read something in favor of that saying that, instead of against it.

The numbers may work if everything goers perfectly but the assumptions used for PSL sales and the availability of G-4 loans may not be correct which would alter the numbers and potentially the viability of the financing.

Not sure where you're getting the G4 information, nor do they need it with a $1.7 billion pledge from GS and still have the added option of PSL sales. Even if they don't reach the ridiculous amount of $800 million in PSL, even $400 - $500 million would be more than enough of a safe estimate in the LA area, especially with two teams..and as it stands now they're not needing the extra money.

 

[snackdaddy]

Nobody is saying that its sitting in his checking account, we all know he has things diversified and all that. However he's worth that money.

A guy who's worth 100 dollars who is gathering friends to borrow 400 dollars and give you 500 dollars vs a guy who's worth 1,000 dollars who will gibe you 500 dollars.

He might not have the cash on hand, but he has that money elsewhere and can produce it if needed. Davis and Spanos cannot, they're borrowing it. Goldman Sachs is gathering up people to borrow it from.

Pus, because of the clout his and his wife's money together carry, he can easily borrow part of the money he needs if he doesn't want to divert funds from accounts. The bottom line is, funding is not an issue when it comes to Stan Kroenke. Thats one roadblock he doesn't have to worry about as opposed to the Chargers and Raiders owners.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Because you keep acting like you know what the investors limits are and where their cut off point is, and acting like these "if's/could/should" scenarios had never dawned on them or as if GS has no idea what they're in for down the line. They didn't become a $85 billion dollar company by doing terrible stadium deals.

That connection makes no sense, either of them. First, if you assume I'm saying one thing, instead of refuting that point you go and circle back to what I keep saying I'm talking about? Also they didn't become an 85 billion dollar company by doing terrible stadium deals or good stadium deals or any type of stadium deals.

Again, irrelevant. Two ways to look this:

1)you really think an investor, after spending so much money on such a project is going to totally abandon it in 10-20 years?
2)The income the stadium generates, especially over 10-20 years, could easily be put back into "maintenance" or whatever they might need.
3)There are many ways to finance issues through a stadium - with things including revenue coming from ticket sales, the stadium, etc. An example of that would be the G4 loan (Disclaimer: I am not saying they are getting it). Some of the ways to pay that back are over time through stadium money.

I think you're trying to make a non-issue into an issue, and my biggest issue is that you're making assumptions about how investors are going to act when you don't even know who is investing let alone how many or their net worth. In the same breath, you're also asserting that they would be unwilling to help at all, especially after generating a ton of money off the initial investment.

And I guess my biggest gripe is that Goldman Sachs has been down this road before; 30 times in the last 10 years - and I'm guessing you could probably take all these concerns and apply to it every stadium deal that is privately funded but not owned by the owner... Or hell, just look at the Santa Clara deal. Do you think they're not gonna be able to fix any future issues?

Doesn't hold water or make any sense. Goldman Sachs has been done this road several times - if there's any body who knows whats coming down the road, it's them.

Additionally, they have said they will cover losses. Again, point is moot. And I think who "finances" their stadium isn't going to matter to the other owners - all they care about is if the Money is there to finance it, period.

The money they care about is the one that goes into their pockets, which they stand to get the most from two teams - and by all indications thus far, the only stadium with two teams is Carson. Sure things are subject to change and they may - but I'm not buying any hype of inglewood housing two teams until I actually read something in favor of that saying that, instead of against it.

1) No I don't, hence why I said it doesn't mean they can't get it done, which you didn't include in your quote.
2) I don't think so, Carson is expected to operate at a loss for the first 30 years, I don't know how they will handle maintenance and such, but I don't think it's from that. Because it's a stadium authority they're likely going to put the onus on Carson to maintain it, but if they're waiting 30 years to start seeing money come in from the stadium, it's going to be difficult to do that.

You're assuming I'm saying they're just going to walk away from the stadium and refuse to help, but I'm not. You're also holding Carson alone saying that because they can do it they're the best choice. The problem with that they need to look at Carson compared to Inglewood at times, and when they're talking about financing that's part of the deal. I'm not saying that it's going to stop them from picking Carson, but again it circles back to the first point is the Carson Mayor essentially claiming they have all of Goldman Sachs' equity and they don't. It was a stupid comment then and a stupid comment now.

Also you circled back to initial losses, which I'm not talking about.

 

[iced]

That connection makes no sense, either of them. First, if you assume I'm saying one thing, instead of refuting that point you go and circle back to what I keep saying I'm talking about?

Mentioning their $85 billion had nothing to do with pointing out their equity but their past history of success and obvious experience in this area.

Also they didn't become an 85 billion dollar company by doing terrible stadium deals or good stadium deals or any type of stadium deals.

Yes I'm sure doing 30 stadium deals over the past 10 years had no effect on their net worth or revenue

2) I don't think so, Carson is expected to operate at a loss for the first 30 years, I don't know how they will handle maintenance and such, but I don't think it's from that. Because it's a stadium authority they're likely going to put the onus on Carson to maintain it, but if they're waiting 30 years to start seeing money come in from the stadium, it's going to be difficult to do that.

that's because "the report" doesn't cover all angles of revenue - owners will start be getting money through bunch of various revenue streams, the biggest being TV revenue. This is the biggest reason why I am saying the point is moot - think about it. Last years share was just over $200 million per owner, just in TV. With the presence in LA, expect that number to jump, especially over time..And over 10 years - thats $2 billlion alone in Spanos's or Davis's pockets, 4 billion combined...with still other streams..and that's not even including the big bump in revenue they're going to get once a team is in LA.

That's the biggest reason why "down the line" is irrelevant. and by the way, Carson is expected to be $500 million, with those "initial projections" being claimed incorrect by Fabiani (Of course, but in a mud slinging battle credibility tends to drop on both sides)

http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow/la-sp-sn-carson-football-stadium-study-20150420-story.html

A report funded by the city found that while a stadium would bring jobs and new activity to Carson, having only one team would "generate annual fiscal losses in most of the first 30 years." Fabiani said that conclusion was based on an incorrect assumption that the city would lose $1.4 million in state and federal housing funds. Carson could easily approve that housing elsewhere, he said.

And again, that's only based on one team ^. City "losses" are the not the same thing as NFL losses or what else the owner gets to put in his pocket. They're not gonna sit in Carson losing money for the next 30 years. By the way, one big piece of information that most of your projections are missing

According to Cooper, the report did not factor in additional revenue that could be generated by local advertising, NFL activities, out-of-town fans and big-time events like the Super Bowl.

You're assuming I'm saying they're just going to walk away from the stadium and refuse to help, but I'm not.

That is most certainly the perception you give off when you say things like "Investors have a cut off point" or "are they going to help them down the line" etc.

You're also holding Carson alone saying that because they can do it they're the best choice. The problem with that they need to look at Carson compared to Inglewood at times, and when they're talking about financing that's part of the deal.

Not really - you just can't compare Stadiums, you have to compare the whole big picture. What happens to the other owners? Carson - everyone gets a new stadium, adds another market without subtracting one, and ups the most revenue. Inglewood? Leaving St.Louis market while leaving Spanos and Davis in their old stadiums, left in the cold.

I'm not saying that it's going to stop them from picking Carson, but again it circles back to the first point is the Carson Mayor essentially claiming they have all of Goldman Sachs' equity and they don't. It was a stupid comment then and a stupid comment now.

Also you circled back to initial losses, which I'm not talking about.

No offense, but these assertions that Kroenke has a leg up over Goldman Sachs based on how their financing is done or that the other owners are going to have a problem with their financing is just as ridiculous. If the moneys there up and front, its irrelevant.

You make it sound like they're going to move and not have the income or revenue to fix any future issues down the line - which isn't the case, at all.