New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • 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
Not open for further replies.

RamBill

Legend
Joined
Jul 31, 2010
Messages
8,874
Chargers-Carson Negotiations Started Earlier Than Suspected: Complaint
By Gene Cubbison and Andie Adams

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/loc...Chargers-Stadium-Start-Tuesday-305780461.html

As the Chargers and local government negotiators prepare to sit down at the bargaining table Tuesday, court documents say the team allegedly began talking about a stadium with Carson city officials in mid-2013 – farther back than anyone suspected.

In an amended complaint filed against the city of Carson, Richard Rand, a real estate developer, says he started trying to find Carson an NFL team in 2008. In 2012, his company Rand Resources signed an exclusive agreement to be the city’s agent for an NFL deal.


But the lawsuit alleges another company, U.S. Capital, began working with the city on a similar mission in at least the summer of 2013, meeting with NFL team representatives “including the San Diego Chargers, about relocating to Carson,” the document says. Rand Resources wants $56 million in damages.

That timeline, if true, would mean the Chargers set the ball rolling on a Carson stadium deal about a year earlier than previously believed.

The team has maintained that a Carson stadium would be their “Plan B” and their first choice would be staying put in San Diego. Chargers Chairman Dean Spanos will be discussing that “Plan A” Tuesday with Mayor Kevin Faulconer.

“The timing is right,” said Tony Manolatos, the spokesman for Faulconer’s Citizens Stadium Advisory Group (CSAG). “The city and county are on good financial footing, so that's encouraging."

But sources told NBC 7 the back-and-forth between city and county officials and the team has turned “toxic” -- a word that does not raise expectations already on the low side.

Is Team Spanos inclined, at this early stage, to engage on the overall framework of the Mission Valley redevelopment plan that CSAG rolled out?

"If they're confident saying that, I think we're headed toward a major campaign toward a new stadium in Mission Valley,” said the Voice of San Diego’s Scott Lewis, who has extensively covered the Chargers’ stadium dilemma. “If they're not willing to say that, then we may have an indication that the Chargers told them this whole framework is not something they're interested in."

There's reason not to rush things too much. In this high stakes poker game, early bet-hiking and bluff-calling could result in needless "lose-lose" outcomes.

But the Bolts don't want to lose a race to the L.A. market with Stan Kroenke, the multibillionaire owner of the St. Louis Rams who has bought up land in Inglewood for a stadium of his own.

"He has more money than God, and his wife has more money than him,” said Manolatos. “He wants to build a stadium in Inglewood; he was blowing things up this weekend to prepare that stadium. So he's driving a lot of this. And Stan has the money, he has the land. So everybody is sort of trying to play catch-up with Stan."

Conventional wisdom says the Chargers are reacting to Mission Valley site and financing plan put forth by CSAG and Faulconer with "the sound of one hand clapping” at best.

They've gotten so far along with their "Plan B" in Carson that the San Diego city and county negotiating team will need fallback proposals from their financial consultants and breathing room from the NFL to pull out a Hail Mary that the Bolts will embrace.

"There are too many people in San Diego, and they have such a strong presence here in San Diego to just jump ship and go to another city. They'd be risking a lot,” said Little Italy resident Deanna Degidio.

Even among longtime Charger fans, there's a sense that maybe the team has overstayed its welcome.

"You know, we want a winner -- and at any cost,” said El Cajon resident Dennis Cooley. “So I think it's time for a new team. Hiring good people. Gotta get a new ownership in here at get a winner on the field."

During Tuesday’s time at the negotiating table, Faulconer and Spanos are expected to come up with a game place for the proposed 65,000-seat stadium in Mission Valley.

The CSAG financing plan includes a $1.1 billion price tag and has the Chargers paying for $300 million of it. The proposal also banks on the city selling 75 acres of public land for $225 million.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip

That's some nonsense blog post written by someone that has no clue about financial planning. Mark owns 47% of the team. The tax has already been paid. Plus, the team is already set up as a limited partnership so they can't set up an irrevocable trust. The family would need to own 100% of the team to change the structure which they don't.

Green Bay is the smallest market in the NFL.
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 Sportsbook Champion
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
11,921
Except if the NFL tells him he can't? And if that were the case, we'd be hearing a lot more about litigation by now - which a lot of people have reported that by all indications he won't fight the NFL on their decision (Which makes sense, considering the Backlash the NFL could do in return)
Same as the cross ownership rule?
Money talks my friend and Stan Kroenke is the richest if not second richest owner in the NFL if I'm not mistaken. Dude knows how to pull all the right strings. If NFL ownership was so against him moving him buying land and preparing it for a stadium would have rained down a shitstorm on him by now. Isn't going to happen because behind the scenes all the owners care about is more money. Secret deals go on with those dudes.
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
You act like San Diego has given a viable stadium plan, which they haven't. Public Funding has always been their biggest issue, and continues to be. Do not even try to compare Riverfront to their stadium.

Much more public money in SD than the Riverfront Stadium proposal,
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Same as the cross ownership rule?
Money talks my friend and Stan Kroenke is the richest if not second richest owner in the NFL if I'm not mistaken. Dude knows how to pull all the right strings. If NFL ownership was so against him moving him buying land and preparing it for a stadium would have rained down a shitstorm on him by now. Isn't going to happen because behind the scenes all the owners care about is more money. Secret deals go on with those dudes.

Oh please - other owners have already pouted their chest about stadiums relocation - including Rooney himself,whom of which is on the La relocation committe and discussed having the belief in being able to stop an owner from going rogue through litigation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/

“I think we’re comfortable that we could stop a team legally from moving if it didn’t go through the process,” Rooney said. That process ultimately consists of 24 owner votes approving the move, which means that only nine owners can block relocation.

Rooney specifically went on the record with Farmer in order to further undo damage potentially done by Jerry’s Sunday comments to the New York Times — comments that were largely overlooked and ignored given the story lines emerging from the outcome of his team’s game against the Packers.

“I don’t agree with Jerry on that point,” Rooney told Farmer. “The majority view is that there’s a process the teams are going to have to go through, and I think everybody understands that in terms of the teams that may be interested, I expect that the process will be observed, and hopefully it will be an orderly process.”

whether or not they can do it in the end is debatable - but it definitely does not align with your line of thinking that kroenke has friends in all the right places and can do he wants.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
You can't compare where we're at today to 30 years ago - completely different era

It is a different era, there is far less of an appetite for any public funding, and that's not going to change regardless of what happens with St Louis.

You act like San Diego has given a viable stadium plan, which they haven't. Public Funding has always been their biggest issue, and continues to be. Do not even try to compare Riverfront to their stadium.

Why isn't there's a viable plan? I agree there are issues there, but are there not issues with the riverfront stadium? In terms of public funding, are there are not issues with the riverfront stadium? Why do the issues make San Diego not viable, but St Louis still is? And San Diego has tried to get numerous deals off the table, but were stopped by Spanos because they weren't good enough. Finally they decided to just put fourth a deal anyway, regardless of what the owners thought. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it?

I see them losing leverage with the smaller markets - obviously the big markets like Dallas, NY, Greenbay, etc. will be fine... its the smaller ones that I'm thinking about that will be getting the shaft.

I still don't see why they would care. Again, if the smaller markets didn't care that LA or Houston got left out in the cold, both top 10 markets, why are they suddenly going to care about St Louis? Why is the message "it doesn't matter so don't bother" (which makes no sense) instead of "Put fourth something that excites them, not just anything"?
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
Oh please - other owners have already pouted their chest about stadiums relocation - including Rooney himself,whom of which is on the La relocation committe and discussed having the belief in being able to stop an owner from going rogue through litigation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/



whether or not they can do it in the end is debatable - but it definitely does not align with your line of thinking that kroenke has friends in all the right places and can do he wants.

Kroenke can and so can Spanos. No debate, The NFL will talk a good game but they won't stop an owner from moving and neither can a city. SD is posturing with a threat of a lawsuit but it will fail.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Much more public money in SD than the Riverfront Stadium proposal,

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2015/5/18/8620187/san-diego-chargers-stadium-proposal-los-angeles

A New $1.1 billion venue that could be the future home of the San Diego Chargers was revealed on Monday afternoon by a city task force. However, early reports indicate there is reason to be skeptical about the possibility of it ever coming to fruition because of a financing plan that's not expected to pass muster with the team or the NFL.

The proposed open air stadium would be built in Mission Valley, a community just north of downtown San Diego. What makes the proposal notable is a financing plan that wouldn't rely on increased taxes for San Diego citizens.

The Citizens Stadium Advisory Group (CSAG) plans call for a funding breakdown that leans heavily on contributions from the team and the NFL. In documents released by the CSAG, more than $1.4 billion can be accounted for without increasing taxes. That includes $300 million from the Chargers, $173 million in bondable construction capital from the team's rent, $200 million from the NFL's stadium fund, $121 million from the County of San Diego, $121 million from the City of San Diego and $225 million from the sale of 75 acres of land. They also suggest more than $100 million can be raised from fans who can purchase Personal Seat Licenses for the new stadium. The plan as currently constituted will not require a public vote.

The plan would still require an environmental impact study.

Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani released a brief statement saying that the team would begin reviewing the new stadium plan.

Still, Daniel Kaplan of the Sports Business Journal says that NFL officials will not be very receptive to the plan:


View: https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/600306255450673153


This plan is viewed by some as a potential starting point for working out a stadium plan that all parties can agree to that would also keep the Chargers in San Diego. In previous discussions, the team's ownership has been reluctant to contribute more than $200 million to any stadium project, and the NFL has sought a funding formula that splits the cost more evenly between the team and league and local, public funding sources.


A tiger isn't gonna change his stripes
 

Corbin

THIS IS MY BOOOOOMSTICK!!
Rams On Demand Sponsor
2023 Sportsbook Champion
Joined
Nov 9, 2014
Messages
11,921
Oh please - other owners have already pouted their chest about stadiums relocation - including Rooney himself,whom of which is on the La relocation committe and discussed having the belief in being able to stop an owner from going rogue through litigation.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/01/17/rooney-rattles-the-legal-sword-at-kroenke/



whether or not they can do it in the end is debatable - but it definitely does not align with your line of thinking that kroenke has friends in all the right places and can do he wants.
Im sorry but they only need a 2/3 vote to move and as discussed there are about 4-5 teams right now that would be a definite no but several are up in the air while the rest are in favor. It's just like majority rules in congress bro, You watch House of Cards? lol
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Same as the cross ownership rule?
Money talks my friend and Stan Kroenke is the richest if not second richest owner in the NFL if I'm not mistaken. Dude knows how to pull all the right strings. If NFL ownership was so against him moving him buying land and preparing it for a stadium would have rained down a shitstorm on him by now. Isn't going to happen because behind the scenes all the owners care about is more money. Secret deals go on with those dudes.

He's the second richest owner, behind Seattle's Paul Allen.

In terms of cross ownership, Stan got an extension, but he needs to inform the league how he plans on fixing the issue by June and have it fixed by later in the year (October or November?)... Of course he could always say "I'll stay in St Louis if you waive that rule indefinitely" but I'd say he's going to move it over to his son or something.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Why isn't there's a viable plan? I agree there are issues there, but are there not issues with the riverfront stadium? In terms of public funding, are there are not issues with the riverfront stadium? Why do the issues make San Diego not viable, but St Louis still is? And San Diego has tried to get numerous deals off the table, but were stopped by Spanos because they weren't good enough. Finally they decided to just put fourth a deal anyway, regardless of what the owners thought. Sounds somewhat familiar, doesn't it?

The issues with Riverfront are completely different. While I agree it's success/failure is determined by if they get the bonds, I see no reason why they can't. The court ruled in favor of Peacock last time - I don't see why they'd change their ruling. I mean nothing is certain, but that is completely different than San diego.. They are contingent on finding buyer for land at their price of $225 million. There is NO guarantee that would happen..That's completely different than saying having all the public money secured. There are too many contigencies on that deal, and apparently the owners aren't fond of what they're being asked of eitherl

I still don't see why they would care. Again, if the smaller markets didn't care that LA or Houston got left out in the cold, both top 10 markets, why are they suddenly going to care about St Louis? Why is the message "it doesn't matter so don't bother" (which makes no sense) instead of "Put fourth something that excites them, not just anything"?

again, different time era.. i'm talking going forward, not back 20 years
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
250 million in St Louis is less than the land sale in San Diego plus both the county and city are both contributing combined which is more than the Riverfront.

its $400-$450 million in St.Louis, and you keep ignoring the fact that the San Diego deal is an estimate, it's not a lock deal. You don't know if someone is gonna buy that land for $225 million.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
Im sorry but they only need a 2/3 vote to move and as discussed there are about 4-5 teams right now that would be a definite no but several are up in the air while the rest are in favor. It's just like majority rules in congress bro, You watch House of Cards? lol

2/3 vote?

No he needs 24 owners to say yes; you can already count 2 are saying no (Spanos & Davis)
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
The issues with Riverfront are completely different. While I agree it's success/failure is determined by if they get the bonds, I see no reason why they can't. The court ruled in favor of Peacock last time - I don't see why they'd change their ruling. I mean nothing is certain, but that is completely different than San diego.. They are contingent on finding buyer for land at their price of $225 million. There is NO guarantee that would happen..That's completely different than saying having all the public money secured. There are too many contigencies on that deal, and apparently the owners aren't fond of what they're being asked of eitherl

There's no guarantee that the lawsuits wont delay the bond extension? Or that voters wont refuse a vote? Hell without Kroenke's input there's no funding at all, and it's pretty unlikely that Kroenke rushes out of his sweetheart deal in St Louis anyway. There's no guarantee of anything in any of the cities.

again, different time era.. i'm talking going forward, not back 20 years

You're not answering my question, why is the message going to not only not try, but refuse to work with the team, which again makes no sense, and not to offer up something that excites the owner/team?
 

The Ripper

Starter
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
794
Name
Rip
its $400-$450 million in St.Louis, and you keep ignoring the fact that the San Diego deal is an estimate, it's not a lock deal. You don't know if someone is gonna buy that land for $225 million.

It's 250 from the bond extension that's all. Nothing else is counted as public money. Debate it all you want but that's the way it's classified according to the NFL

The land will sell easily. It will be surrounding an NFL stadium.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.