New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

@Ripper, you seem to speak in absolutes quite a bit. You need to denote these things as your opinion, because we don't know if it's true of the league or not, and history is against you on this. Teams have either moved because of a rogue owner, or lack of fan support, that I can remember. Can you name me one time when 50% of the cost of the stadium was left on the table? (I realize STL isn't there in financing yet, but just trying to get an example.)

The reason it's absolute is that there will either be money left on the table in SD or St Louis or both. There was money left on the table in Anaheim and Houston which was detailed in the Congressional hearings in 1996 plus the deal in St Louis is less than 40% in public money. If you look at almost all the relocation's there was public money offered but it wasn't enough to keep the team.


You think you can have the stadium financing in place by August?

"Yeah, the financing of this is...not that complicated. You've got a public commitment here of...the bonds are about $229 million, you've got some clean-up of the site...that's about $100 million. Once again these are long-term payments. Then you have the ticket tax, which is about $50 million. On the private side, you've got $600 million, which is made up of the (NFL G4 fund), the team owner about $250 million and you got the stadium licenses, which is about $150 million. The structure of that has been something that's been open for a great deal of time. We're not going to spend a bunch of money building a stadium if we don't get a committment. So this (timeline) acceleration helps us. Because we're depending a commitment and a long-term lease."

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...s-Progress-has-Accelerated-NFLs-Timeline.aspx

 

[ChrisW]

The reason it's absolute is that there will either be money left on the table in SD or St Louis or both.

This is assuming again. Neither STL nor SD have secured funding. There's literally no money on the table at this moment. SD is praying for overtime so they can get a vote in december. STL is closer, but we are still waiting on court decisions. Nothing absolute here, not in the least.

 

[RamFan503]

Didn't see this posted but thought this was interesting

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-believe-election-can-be-held-by-december-15/

Chargers believe election can’t be held by December 15

San Diego officials emerged from Monday’s meeting with the Chargers intent on attempting to hold a citywide election on a new stadium by December 15. The Chargers, unlike the city, made no statement regarding the plan to put the matter to ballot so quickly.

And there’s a reason for the silence. Per a source familiar with the team’s thinking, the Chargers believe it’s impossible, under the applicable election and environmental laws in the State of California, to conduct an election by December 15.

The Chargers specifically believe that, before the San Diego City Council or Board of Supervisors can place a measure on the ballot, they must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. Compliance with the CEQA entails the completion and certification of an Environmental Impact Report, which the Chargers believes will take at least a year.

In this specific case, San Diego claims that the project can avoid the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report because a new stadium replacing an old stadium makes the project exempt from the CEQA. The Chargers believe that, given the size of the project, litigation challenging the city’s approach would be inevitable, which would tie the project up in court for years.

The Chargers apparently fear that the election will be held, the ballot measure will pass, and then the lawsuit(s) will be filed, delaying (and perhaps killing) the project and forcing the Chargers to explain to an electorate that approved the use of taxpayer funds for the construction of the stadium that the franchise can’t wait around for an outcome to the litigation. So the Chargers prefer an outcome that doesn’t entail a public vote.

There’s another reason for not having a public vote — the public in most states currently isn’t interested in voting to use public money to subsidize billionaire sports owners. So it won’t be easy to secure victory in a public election. The team’s concern is that it’ll be even harder to convert a successful vote into an actual new stadium, which that the Chargers could end up tapping the brakes on relocation just long enough to lose the race to L.A.

Pretty interesting. Couldn't you insert any city in the US and make the same claims? So we think Carson is immune to lawsuits? We've seen a few already in St Louis. I have no doubt by the time is said and done, if they decide to build Inglewood, there will be some. Lawsuits in these cases are not an if, they are a when. And when they happen, it has to be looked at how much merit they have. If any city or project has the greatest chances of lawsuits and environmental issues holding it up, it is almost without question going to be Carson. The San Diego site has a stadium on it already. It is zoned for this purpose. Everyone knows what is under the ground. The addition of other axillary projects should be less of a concern environmentally than a huge expanse of asphalt - as is currently on site.

My suspicion is that this is all about blocking Stan from moving the Rams to LA. Spanos wants to keep them out and IMO knows the Carson project has all kinds of holes. He will end up staying in SD as he wants to do anyway, and if it all works as planned, he will do so without the Rams in LA.

Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs has always wanted to be in an NFL ownership situation if I recall right, so loaning money to Carson means they can foreclose on the Chargers if the deal goes south - therefore allowing them to take over the team. If you think about it, Goldman Sachs and their investors may be in a no lose situation if SD actually takes out that loan.

Either way, these statements really look to me to be the same ole same ole coming from Spanos/Fabiani. Nothing is good enough for them and nothing has been good enough for 15 years unless it means next to nothing comes out of Dean's pocket.

 

[The Ripper]

This is assuming again. Neither STL nor SD have secured funding. There's literally no money on the table at this moment. SD is praying for overtime so they can get a vote in december. STL is closer, but we are still waiting on court decisions. Nothing absolute here, not in the least.

There's money in both that don't require a public vote. The 100 million for the clean up and there's money from in SD from both the city and the county that don't require a vote. If both cities had another year the financing could be wrapped up but that's not the way the NFL operates.

 

[ChrisW]

There's money in both that don't require a public vote. The 100 million for the clean up and there's money from in SD from both the city and the county that don't require a vote. If both cities had another year the financing could be wrapped up but that's not the way the NFL operates.

Fair enough. But that money can be re purposed into new developments should a stadium not be built. With the bonds on the Ed, the money disappears when the bonds do.

 

[ramfaninsd]

does anybody know what the rams deal is if they choose riverfront, the chargers proposal has them paying rent. will the rams pay rent if so how much?

 

[The Ripper]

does anybody know what the rams deal is if they choose riverfront, the chargers proposal has them paying rent. will the rams pay rent if so how much?

They haven't released any information on the revenues or any of the details of the lease.

 

[Loyal]

I'm sure those factors played in attendance.

I keep coming back to my gut... IF these Rams move to L.A. and continue to put a losing product on the field, my gut says attendance will drop faster than it has in STL.

Just my opinion, but I believe that all the other options available to L.A. fans (the beaches, mountains, amusement parks, etc.) would become much more attractive than sitting in a stadium watching a losing team.

There's just too many neat things to do in the L.A. area.

So, in the event they do move? They'd better start winning consistently... and fast... the honeymoon might only last two seasons or so IMO.

Well, the average attendence at the LA Coliseum dived in the midst of a 7 NFC West Titles winning streak. I went to a game vs Cleveland in 1973, and the attendence was close to 80,000 (regular season)..I think in 1975 the attendence dropped massively, and the Rams were still winningChampionships...My own opinion was that the Coliseum and it's surrounding area was scaring fans off...The switch from 14 games to 16 games netted about the same yearly attendence figures as it was before 1975 (memory?).....We can't know how Rams attendence will be with a brand new, Palatial, opulent stadium..The team has never had that...JMO

 

[iced]

Pretty interesting. Couldn't you insert any city in the US and make the same claims?

I would imagine that depends on what state and city. Laws vary from state to state, particularly environmental... California has a Smog law - don't have one here in Florida.

The San Diego site has a stadium on it already. It is zoned for this purpose. Everyone knows what is under the ground. The addition of other axillary projects should be less of a concern environmentally than a huge expanse of asphalt - as is currently on site.

They're not rebuilding at the same location... And if they're purchasing land for it, one would think they're going to have go through the process of getting it cleared as well since it's new land to them.

 

[ramfaninsd]

I would imagine that depends on what state and city. Laws vary from state to state, particularly environmental... California has a Smog law - don't have one here in Florida.



They're not rebuilding at the same location... And if they're purchasing land for it, one would think they're going to have go through the process of getting it cleared as well since it's new land to them.

they intend on building the new stadium in the parking lot of the current (qualcom) stadium and play in it until the new one is built.

 

[iced]

I was curious and decided to look at the numbers of the various different stadiums and adjust them for inflation (as the NFL is almost certainly going to do when they're looking over everything)

Here's the raw data:

Now, the Minnesota is at the bottom because I'm not 100% sure on the cost (I went to Wikipedia) and St Louis I've heard that it'll be between 350 and 400. Plus we don't know the total cost, I just kept with 1 billion. Obviusly ignore the "1997" typo under the St Louis year... Either way analyzing things a bit.

Now when we rank the stadiums in terms of total money spent after inflation it ranks as follows:

Indy
Cincinnati
Minnesota
Chicago
Dallas
St Louis (if 400)
Seattle
Denver
Houston
Arizona
St Louis (if 350)
Baltimore
Tennessee
Cleveland
Tampa Bay
Philly
Pittsburgh
Green Bay
SF
Detroit
Washington
NE
NYC


So in terms of actual dollars spent, St Louis is ranked either 6th if it's as high as 400, or 10th if it's down to 350, out of 22 stadiums. Which isn't bad at all really.

If we look at percentage of total project we rank them as follows:
Tampa Bay
Cincinnati
Baltimore
Indy
Cleveland
Denver
Tennessee
Arizona
Chicago
Seattle
Pittsburgh
Houston
Green Bay
Minnesota
St Louis (if 40%)
Dallas
Philly
St Louis (if 35%)
Washington
Detroit
NE
SF
NYC

That puts St Louis at 15th or 17th... Again out of 22 stadiums.

So when we talk about how much teams contributed, the NFL is probably more likely to look at their commitment to the overall project in terms of how much they paid, as well as how much they paid in relation to how far each dollar went. That's assuming of course that they actually look and really care about what the city is offering. However if we're going to throw out a number and say that it's so incredibly high that it's out of the norm of what cities typically offer up for stadiums, that doesn't appear to be the case. It's roughly middle of the pack in terms of dollars, and on the lower end in terms of percentage.



So ultimately what do these numbers mean? Probably not much to be honest, if the NFL decides that Inglewood is the best option and they can take care of all three owners in the process (which seems to be the likely case) and go with it, it probably wont really matter what St Louis is offering. However there are the numbers anyway.

not sure why you believe its $350 million in public money - the total Peacock and Nixon has continually repeated has never been below $400 million, and for awhile it was supposed to actually be $450. The last figure that has been repeatedly thrown out is $400 million, and has never deviated from that. The Total cost of the staduim I believe was $986 billion. Of course that could change during actual construction, but that's been the quoted number.

As to your list, it's not so much percentage as much as the amount that a city is willing to pony up.

http://www.vikings.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf

And According to that one ^^, there's only 3 teams that have more than $400 million in public funding - Cowboys,Colts,and Bengals...But going back the last 10 years, St.Louis would be the 3rd most in public money.

As far as the Viking stadium details here ya go - but also note the stadium is Publicly owned
http://www.vikings.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-plan.pdf

Of course there isn't a set standard for all the stadium deals - For example, Arthur blank is shouldering over a billion for their stadium renovations, with the city chipping in just $200 million. Last quote for their cost was $1.4 billion.... .Vikings? The NFL and Vikings are contributing $525 million to their stadium, with $496 in public funding. That's less than 50% in public funding.

The Rams offer is right on par or within the realistic range of what the NFL is seeking... A big reason why you keep hearing praise from Goodell about their plan - you're not hearing the same thing about SD or Oakland.

Another stadium renovation list

https://cbsminnesota.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/nfl-funding-summary-12-2-11.pdf

 

[RamFan503]

I would imagine that depends on what state and city. Laws vary from state to state, particularly environmental... California has a Smog law - don't have one here in Florida.



They're not rebuilding at the same location... And if they're purchasing land for it, one would think they're going to have go through the process of getting it cleared as well since it's new land to them.

Actually, everyone does in the US. It is called emission standards.

If you are referring to SD - they are building at the same location. Not the same foot print but what is now asphalt parking for the current stadium. They are selling off part of the land - not purchasing land for the stadium.

STL is actually buying new land and will have to have it cleared (partially in process) then likely have some other issues come up like the Native Lands issues and being adjacent to a major river, etc... Not to mention that they are likely not done with lawsuits regarding the bonds and city funding.

Like I said, I don't think any of the potential project sites is in the clear when it comes to future law suits. Fabiani and Spanos have had one excuse after another why the proposals from the city are not good enough. This one really seems disingenuous and predetermined.

 

[iced]

they intend on building the new stadium in the parking lot of the current (qualcom) stadium and play in it until the new one is built.

Ah okay - the whole "Mission Valley" thing threw me off; didn't realize it houses Qualcomm as it is. what are they going to do about parking then?

 

[RamFan503]

Ah okay - the whole "Mission Valley" thing threw me off; didn't realize it houses Qualcomm as it is. what are they going to do about parking then?

The parking at Qualcomm is ridiculously huge. I think what they said is that they still will have more parking spots than the other stadium proposals even during construction of the new stadium. That is why they are also proposing to sell off a large chunk of the property to help pay for the new stadium. They have Superbowl parking AFTER selling off that land.

 

[iced]

Actually, everyone does in the US. It is called emission standards.

Yea but in california, your vehicle is required to have a smog test... That's what I meant - that's not here in florida, or other states.. Laws can vary greatly by state..

I mean hell, just look at the alcohol laws for Missouri - particularly St.Louis and Kansas City... No wonder why my irish gf gives me the thumbs up for us to move there

Like I said, I don't think any of the potential project sites is in the clear when it comes to future law suits. Fabiani and Spanos have had one excuse after another why the proposals from the city are not good enough. This one really seems disingenuous and predetermined.

Just wait til a team moves...I wouldn't be shocked at all to see lawsuits from the cities at the NFL that loses a team, like has happened in the past.

I still think the biggest issue for the Chargers is that they don't like the proposal because of time, and things like the sale of land (Which they don't have a buyer for - it's just an estimate...And then there's a legal process to go through to sell the land, etc). While time is against SD, the irony is they've had plenty of it - 14 years. And California has been notorious to avoid using public tax dollars

 

[mr.stlouis]

So word is the Rose Bowl has opened up for somebody next year. My guess is the Chargers.

 

[Loyal]

So word is the Rose Bowl has opened up for somebody next year. My guess is the Chargers.

Yep, it's open for somebody..They did some major upgrades for the College Championship Series.Top notch College stadium now, but still not up to NFL standards...Yet, it's the best football stadium in LA pre Inglewood/Carson

 

[ramfaninsd]

Yea but in california, your vehicle is required to have a smog test... That's what I meant - that's not here in florida, or other states.. Laws can vary greatly by state..

I mean hell, just look at the alcohol laws for Missouri - particularly St.Louis and Kansas City... No wonder why my irish gf gives me the thumbs up for us to move there



Just wait til a team moves...I wouldn't be shocked at all to see lawsuits from the cities at the NFL that loses a team, like has happened in the past.

I still think the biggest issue for the Chargers is that they don't like the proposal because of time, and things like the sale of land (Which they don't have a buyer for - it's just an estimate...And then there's a legal process to go through to sell the land, etc). While time is against SD, the irony is they've had plenty of it - 14 years. And California has been notorious to avoid using public tax dollars

as long time resident of san diego i am of the opinion that the chargers have had no interest in staying in san diego they have rejected everything the city has proposed without a counter offer whatsoever.

 

[ramfaninsd]

Ah okay - the whole "Mission Valley" thing threw me off; didn't realize it houses Qualcomm as it is. what are they going to do about parking then?

if it gets done which to me is doubtful most would have to park in off site areas that some do now and they take shuttles there is also the trolley that drops you off right at the stadium.

 

[OldSchool]

So word is the Rose Bowl has opened up for somebody next year. My guess is the Chargers.

Pat Haden, former Ram QB and current USC Athletic Director has said he already has an agreement with an NFL team to house them for the 2016 and 2017 seasons.