New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Sum1]

This is what I find very intriguing. If he is dead set on moving to LA, why wouldn't he just come out and have Demoff say how bad the project is - pretty much killing it. I'd even hazard to say that it should be encouraging for St Louis that he hasn't done exactly that.

I continue to believe Kroenke wants in LA, not "out" of St.Louis...he's probably loving the backup plan he has.

 

[RamFan503]

I continue to believe Kroenke wants in LA, not "out" of St.Louis...he's probably loving the backup plan he has.

Probably right.

 

[iced]

Bonds are at 229 million. That's from Nixon

Public money is $400 - that's what i meant

First the tv contracts are adjusted for the markets so the effects take place immediately.

Could have sworn I remember hearing before from others (and I think you) that they wouldn't benefit from it until 2020..

But there is also local tv revenue...Regardless, there is the TV benefit..

Goldman is a lender and that's it. Covering costs increases debt levels so they can say what they will cover but the NFL will determine how much they can borrow.

They're not borrowing from the NFL, so they don't dictate what they can and can't cover.

Sachs has pledged A TON of money - from the cost of the stadium itself to the losses to the renovations of other stadiums. However, given the size of the market, they feel they can recover their money (A'la Santa Clara, New York)

Yes, there's a gap but he will sell apart of the team for the the required amount if needed. The real problem is the NFL only wants one stadium in each market and there's already one in the Raiders home market so their relocation application can be rejected on that basis alone.

He has no desire to sell the team. And I don't think the NFL is going to tell Davis he can't renovate or build a new stadium - the big problem is getting public money, which there is none, and won't be any, which kills any chance of a deal in Oakland.

They will if the team can't afford it and if the debt in Carson isn't acceptable.

They can't force an owner to do anything; and the money they'll generate alone in the TV contracts won't be any cause for concern for Debt.

They bought only 11 acres and they paid 20 million for it. The rest the rights were bought for $ 2 so if the land was worth something they would have actually bought it outright..

-sigh- they have the land secured, that's all that matters.

 

[iced]

Fair enough. So now how does what St Louis is offering Stan compare favorably to what Spanos is getting from SD? It appears by what the article is saying that possibly the most lucrative deal an NFL owner has is the deal Spanos has in SD. Is his wanting to get an even better deal from the city acting in good faith more so than what Stan and the organization as a whole has been dealing with? Is the city of STL offering anything close to that deal? Maybe they will. But does that play into the equation? Probably.

St.Louis's deal is more favorable because of the time line. Think the NFL spoke loud and clear they're done waiting on SD and Oakland at this point. The only difference is St.Louis's plan should be wrapped up quicker and doesn't have any lingering contingencies after court, like selling land, passing the vote, etc. These are all things that delay land/financial security for a proposal, and time is not on their side. The NFL isn't going to call a plan viable unless it meets their criteria, and doesn't have any potential contigencies that will screw up or throw off the plan (hence, Spanos's fear of their inability to get around a vote,after meeting with them three separate times). Just like the balls in St.Louis's court to come up on their end of the deal, so is San Diego

 

[iced]

Why not? If the revenues aren't there plus allowing a city to circumvent the lease is a bigger issue than turning down money. What would happen in Cincinnati or Houston with their leases since they have top tier requirements. We all agree it was a bad deal but other cities have the same clause so solving the St Louis issue may create more issues down the road in other markets. The NFL is looking at the future and what precedents are set by the current situation.

Exactly why the NFL doesn't want owners to be able to walk away from public money

 

[RamFan503]

St.Louis's deal is more favorable because of the time line. Think the NFL spoke loud and clear they're done waiting on SD and Oakland at this point. The only difference is St.Louis's plan should be wrapped up quicker and doesn't have any lingering contingencies after court, like selling land, passing the vote, etc. These are all things that delay land/financial security for a proposal, and time is not on their side. The NFL isn't going to call a plan viable unless it meets their criteria, and doesn't have any potential contigencies that will screw up or throw off the plan (hence, Spanos's fear of their inability to get around a vote,after meeting with them three separate times). Just like the balls in St.Louis's court to come up on their end of the deal, so is San Diego

I'm talking about from an owner's standpoint which I have to believe will be a real consideration.

 

[iced]

That's what I'm asking, what is there left to negotiate on other than naming rights and some ticket sales? If PSL's are off the table, and ownership is off the table, what is left? I'm genuinely curious, what exactly is left to negotiate on the stadium that would convince Kroenke to take the deal if he's cold on it now.

Don't know - but there are plenty of details of Peacock's plan that has not been released and I'm not going to speculate or assume until we hear from him,

San Diego isn't exactly some tiny market, and since there are other sources of funding, they would only need to fund a little bit. I'm not saying they can use the exact same model as Carson, but I'm dubious they couldn't do anything in San Diego. Either Goldman Sachs is an expert in doing this, having done it many times for many different stadiums in many different cities, as said by you, or they're not. I'm going to say that a company this big could do it if they wanted to. I just don't think they want to at this time.

Yet if an invester thinks its a bad investment they're not going to invest. Whether or not they can is irrelevant - it's whether they want to, and the returns are there. Clearly, it's not.

Just because they haven't come out and said he has worked in good faith, doesn't mean they're saying he hasn't. Maybe they haven't been asked that question yet, as far as I know nobody has asked them if he has, and they haven't said he hasn't either. You're denying the antecedent there, it doesn't work.

I'm just connecting the dots. Spanos is the only one who has, while we've heard several rumors that it's a known fact that he's not working with St.Louis.. Even Goodell has had to address the many complaints from Peacock. I've seen nothing at all that suggests Kroenke has been acting in good faith or that the league believes he has - you're denying the antecedent as well.

Honestly, I'm not sure how much they care.

If they didn't care it wouldn't be a situation they're trying to avoid

If the NFL says they're going with Inglewood instead of Carson I think he would. If they tell Kroenke they're going with Carson, he could just push ahead anyway, knowing he has the money and will be done building long before Carson. I don't think he will, but he has that option, Spanos doesn't. .

Except all indications from Kroenke's camp have been he's going to respect the leagues decision. not worth speculating til we hear otherwise.

Again, that it essentially saying that Stan has to buy into the Riverfront stadium, and you can't do it. You can't say that "They just take Carson and then everyone gets a new stadium, but Stan isn't forced to take the Riverfront stadium if he doesn't want it!" If they are denying him because of that stadium, they're essentially telling him he has to buy in, and if he doesn't then they don't have three fixed stadium issues. If the one owner who seems to actually want to stay in their current market, Davis, stays in there in a new stadium, that sounds like the only way to ensure all three guys are happy unless something changes quickly.

Then he'll go lease to lease.

You seem to suggest he can and will do whatever he wants, regardless of what the league says or does - as if has them from a position of power. he doesn't.

Well money talks, if Stan fixes the cross ownership issues, and he's been playing ball with the stadium, which is has been, and offers the best solution why not reward him? Especially if he's the only one trying to help out all three guys.

That's a big if - considering he hasn't done it in the 4-5 years and has already been given a year extension.

And Inglewood doesn't offer the best stadium solution - that's something from Kroenke's camp thats been put out with little to no substance to back it up. I guess we should take everything from Chargers camp as gospel then

 

[iced]

I'm talking about from an owner's standpoint which I have to believe will be a real consideration.

That's what I'm saying - no owner is going to approve a stadium that lacks the land and financing secured. not even St.Louis's. the problem is time.

Do you think the owners are gonna ask Spanos to wait more time to "see if" San Diego can come through on their end? I don't - and I don't think they'd do the same thing for St.Louis if they were in the same position.

The problem for the owners becomes which city(s) actually nail down all the important aspects before their relocation meeting/decision. If San Diego doesn't come up with a way around the vote and work out the kinks, then it never reached a viable level.

 

[The Ripper]

Public money is $400 - that's what i meant

Could have sworn I remember hearing before from others (and I think you) that they wouldn't benefit from it until 2020..

But there is also local tv revenue...Regardless, there is the TV benefit..

It works both ways in the contracts. The other owners would benefit,

They're not borrowing from the NFL, so they don't dictate what they can and can't cover.

Sachs has pledged A TON of money - from the cost of the stadium itself to the losses to the renovations of other stadiums. However, given the size of the market, they feel they can recover their money (A'la Santa Clara, New York)

NY was Citi not Goldman. Yes, the NFL can and will enforce how much a team can borrow. There are very few bylaws that the NFL will enforce outside of ones that relate to the CBA, debt levels is one. The NFL won't allow a Montreal Expos or LA Dodgers situation. Goldman will be paid and paid well plus the investors will want guarantees for the guarantees that are extended for the teams so what's the collateral that will need to for the guarantees. It won't be the stadium so what is it.

The word feel doesn't exist when it comes to financing. I have gone against Goldman a number a times they have 2 main weaknesses one is arrogance and the other is that they don't discount their fee. They want their money.

He has no desire to sell the team. And I don't think the NFL is going to tell Davis he can't renovate or build a new stadium - the big problem is getting public money, which there is none, and won't be any, which kills any chance of a deal in Oakland.

Davis said he would sell a minority interest in the team for the $400 million to cover the deficit for the stadium construction. Public money isn't needed just the land which they do have available.

They can't force an owner to do anything; and the money they'll generate alone in the TV contracts won't be any cause for concern for Debt.

Yes, they can no G-4 and a high relocation fee will kill the Carson project. It doesn't quite work like that for debt, the increase in tv contracts won't be enough. Look at the financials in Carson the numbers won't work without G-4 or if the PSL's don't come in at the levels they predict or with a high relocation fee..

-sigh- they have the land secured, that's all that matters.

But not for long.

 

[OldSchool]

They would have to change their rules to allow G4 money in Carson. Their own rules state you cannot get the loan if the stadium involves a change of the teams home market. And it also requires equal money from public and private. And before you link me articles showing it in stadiums financing plans yes I've seen it all I'm saying is the way the G4 wording is now Carson and Inglewood would not apply for it.

 

[The Ripper]

I'm just connecting the dots. Spanos is the only one who has, while we've heard several rumors that it's a known fact that he's not working with St.Louis.. Even Goodell has had to address the many complaints from Peacock. I've seen nothing at all that suggests Kroenke has been acting in good faith or that the league believes he has - you're denying the antecedent as well.

Sorry, I can see a lot of your points but not this. Goodell has already said they all have so that all that matters. Good faith includes the team. 2005 and 2006 giving the CVC an extension for the first tier review. Plus on Kroenke's not acting on good faith the Riverfront Stadium proposal came 23 months after the arbitration decision. It doesn't matter if the decision wasn't feasible, when you lose a decision the losing party needs to come back with the alternative.

 

[iced]

Sorry, I can see a lot of your points but not this. Goodell has already said they have so that all that matters. Good faith includes the team. 2005 and 2006 giving the CVC an extension for the first tier review. Plus on Kroenke's not acting on good faith the Riverfront Stadium proposal came 23 months after the arbitration decision.

Link? I find this hard to believe, and definitely something that would have been covered by all local St.Louis analysts including shane grey. Definitely can't find any quotes from Goodell on it

 

[iced]

NY was Citi not Goldman.

Never said it was. I mentioned NY/Santa Clara for size of the market and the type of investment (dictated by the size)

Yes, the NFL can and will enforce how much a team can borrow. There are very few bylaws that the NFL will enforce outside of ones that relate to the CBA, debt levels is one. The NFL won't allow a Montreal Expos or LA Dodgers situation. Goldman will be paid and paid well plus the investors will want guarantees for the guarantees that are extended for the teams so what's the collateral that will need to for the guarantees. It won't be the stadium so what is it.

I think you're getting Debt level confused with what a team can borrow from the NFL, not an investor.

Davis said he would sell a minority interest in the team for the $400 million to cover the deficit for the stadium construction. Public money isn't needed just the land which they do have available.

That's interesting - although I wonder if he'll find a buyer. Forbes has the Raiders worth listed at $970 million - $400 million for minority interest? Hey if he can get it done more power to him, but lol, good luck.

Yes, they can no G-4 and a high relocation fee will kill the Carson project. It doesn't quite work like that for debt, the increase in tv contracts won't be enough. Look at the financials in Carson the numbers won't work without G-4 or if the PSL's don't come in at the levels they predict or with a high relocation fee..

Except they have increased the debt levels which can take place of the G4 - if you noticed when reading the financing plan they said they could use the G4 loan OR borrow the amount in debt from the NFL.

I didn't mean the increase from before and after - I mean the price itself. Each teams share last year was just over $200 million, and it's only going to keep increasing like the salary cap.

 

[The Ripper]

I think you're getting Debt level confused with what a team can borrow from the NFL, not an investor.

No, it's the total debt that the team can carry. The amount the money from the NFL onlymatters for equity between the other NFL clubs. The league doesn't want a team to have debt that could potentially put it in bankruptcy. That's there only real concern.

That's interesting - although I wonder if he'll find a buyer. Forbes has the Raiders worth listed at $970 million - $400 million for minority interest? Hey if he can get it done more power to him, but lol, good luck.

In his market there's a decent chance of finding an investor plus the value of the team doesn't matter. Look at the returns that have come from owning an NFL team over the years. Plus, I would imagine a investor would want the first shot at purchasing the controlling interest in the team if it needed to be sold.

Except they have increased the debt levels which can take place of the G4 - if you noticed when reading the financing plan they said they could use the G4 loan OR borrow the amount in debt from the NFL.

Borrowing outside the G-4 or a similar loan program is a violation of the CBA. http://thesportsesquires.com/wp-con...collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

I didn't mean the increase from before and after - I mean the price itself. Each teams share last year was just over $200 million, and it's only going to keep increasing like the salary cap.

The tv revenues go for the operation of the team and if they had to use for debt service the operations would suffer. They want to move to LA to make more money and if they have to use their shared revenues to cover the debt the move wouldn't be a good business decision.

 

[RamFan503]

That's what I'm saying - no owner is going to approve a stadium that lacks the land and financing secured. not even St.Louis's. the problem is time.

Do you think the owners are gonna ask Spanos to wait more time to "see if" San Diego can come through on their end? I don't - and I don't think they'd do the same thing for St.Louis if they were in the same position.

The problem for the owners becomes which city(s) actually nail down all the important aspects before their relocation meeting/decision. If San Diego doesn't come up with a way around the vote and work out the kinks, then it never reached a viable level.

But are the owners going to approve a stadium deal offered to one of their owners that is not commensurate to what other owners are getting paid? Will they view the money Spanos is pulling out of SD and say, "yeah - you need a new deal." or are they going to look at what STL is offering and say, "Sorry, great stadium plan and all but we can't ask an owner to pony up for that kind of ROI"? I don't know the answer but I suspect some form of that question will come up. I can't see them trying to tell Stan that the stadium proposal meets their approval if it offers him a far lower ROI than other owners (Spanos) are turning down. It just seems that the revenue streams SD is paying (beyond the disabilities act settlement) are far better than what it appears right now that STL is offering Stan.

So an owner that has the wherewithal to build his own stadium is going to be told he has to take an offer that - from what it appears right now - is far worse than he already has, just so that the city can get a new stadium out of it and rebuild THEIR blighted area?

I'm really trying to see where this really makes sense for a guy like Stan. He's not getting PSL monies. He's not getting that new tax on beer and dawgs. He apparently wouldn't be getting any parking revenues. He has to share ticket and luxury box sales with the other owners. He won't be able to benefit from other events held in the Dome or the new digs. He won't get SB monies or prestige.

It honestly appears that the way Peacock is trying to sell the new stadium to the public is that it is a pretty one sided deal compared to what Spanos is getting.

All this could change or maybe has already been discussed behind closed doors between the STL stadium authority and Stan/Demoff. I don't know. But these details seem to be vital to a deal being struck to keep the Rams in STL. And I don't for a second think the other owners won't consider them.

 

[blue4]

Yeah - the NFL has a history of moving the cross ownership goal posts every time an owner crosses the rule. They've done it something like four or five times already. I don't think even they like the rule - especially with soccer not even included in it. No one within the NFL has said he hasn't been meeting the bylaws. The fans of St Louis certainly would like to make that case and it may be true. But I can agree to a point with these possible issues.

I do however find it amazing that anyone can honestly look at what was in place before Stan took control and buy what you're selling. From the front office, to the money spent on the coaching staff, to the community efforts, to the level of talent on the field, this organization as a whole is night and day better than before Stan bought the controlling interest. At the same time, the NFC West went from the NFL's worst division to the best division. If you think other owners haven't seen that, they would have had to have their head stuck in the sand. It is almost uncontested among anyone covering the NFL. Why would I assume those entrusted to provide owners with info on the state of other NFL teams a positive report on the state of the Rams? Because to fail to do so would likely cost them their jobs for being ignorant. Just my opinion of course.

Anyway - if you want to respond, I'll give you the last on this subject as far as I'm concerned. I think we both might at least agree that it may not really matter either way. Someone brought it up as a reason owners would hold the Chargers in higher regard as far as the LA market goes. I'm not sure a case can be made for that.

Cheers blue.

The only point I would make now would be that while I agree with you that the Rams are night and day better than before, they still aren't better then over half the other teams. I'm not trying to sell that the Rams aren't improved. I don't think I'm doing a very good job getting what I'm trying to say across. I'm not trying to sell anything. All I tried to do is point out that just because WE think the Rams are average, does not mean everyone else automatically thinks that as well. I agree that the Rams are improving. I agree that the division has improved. Where I don't agree is the belief that other owners and their talent scouts and representatives will buy the idea that 6-10 is improving. The division has improved. Our 3 year record says we have not kept pace. We have lost more every year Stan has been in control. A look at our offseason roster still, after 3 years and more high round draft picks than anyone I know of, shows an offense full of holes and questions. Will some owners view that as bad or as a good start who can tell? My original point, that the Rams can't claim equal billing with the Chargers when selling team success, stands up I believe. I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of someone with no skin in the game. I'm not trying to say we aren't improved.

Anyway, as you said it probably doesn't matter. I should have just went to sleep earlier as work already sucks.

 

[RamFan503]

I think you're getting Debt level confused with what a team can borrow from the NFL, not an investor.

Whether a team borrows from the NFL or GS's investors - it is still debt level. They all need to be paid back in a relocation situation.

That's interesting - although I wonder if he'll find a buyer. Forbes has the Raiders worth listed at $970 million - $400 million for minority interest? Hey if he can get it done more power to him, but lol, good luck.

That is actually something I was wondering. Who in their right mind is going to offer Moe roughly 100% above current value in hopes that it might give them a ROI. Doesn't really add up. But heck - that's a good deal if he can pull it off. Does that investor also want to buy some swamp... er... uh... railroad land in Florida?

Except they have increased the debt levels which can take place of the G4 - if you noticed when reading the financing plan they said they could use the G4 loan OR borrow the amount in debt from the NFL.

If they borrow - it is a loan. It must be paid back with interest and is part of the debt taken on by the borrowing team.

In his market there's a decent chance of finding an investor plus the value of the team doesn't matter. Look at the returns that have come from owning an NFL team over the years. Plus, I would imagine a investor would want the first shot at purchasing the controlling interest in the team if it needed to be sold.

Assuming Davis would put that clause into the minority sale price, I still don't see the other owners allowing Davis to essentially do a stock split on his portion of the team. Now he may sell a minority interest to HELP him fund a stadium - but I can't see any chance he would be able to do it for the entire $400 mil.

 

[iced]

No, it's the total debt that the team can carry. The amount the money from the NFL onlymatters for equity between the other NFL clubs. The league doesn't want a team to have debt that could potentially put it in bankruptcy. That's there only real concern.

And yet they seem to have no problem with the Falcons racking it up - even with this article being old and the construction costs have risen since then, their debt was at $850 million

http://thefieldsofgreen.com/2014/12...ease-signifies-nfl-financial-strength-future/

So not really sure I'm seeing the point here. Falcons stadium in that article was $1.1 billion - it's currently at $1.5 billion. And the team I believe is covering those over run costs. Wondering if that puts them at $1.25 billion in debt, or just anywhere around a billion.

However according to their figures for Carson, recouping money is not supposed to be an issue for them, particularly investors at $100 million a year (santa clara by comparison is at $75 million through interests and fee's.. Of course they expect those numbers to be higher in Carson.

In his market there's a decent chance of finding an investor plus the value of the team doesn't matter. Look at the returns that have come from owning an NFL team over the years. Plus, I would imagine a investor would want the first shot at purchasing the controlling interest in the team if it needed to be sold.

Well it is interesting - but it also doesn't make their plan viable yet either. I'm more curious to see if they'll find a taker, especially if Davis is going to remain majority owner.

Borrowing outside the G-4 or a similar loan program is a violation of the CBA. http://thesportsesquires.com/wp-con...collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf

No, they can create a fund - they did it for the niners with a stadium authority

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000...help-49ers-pay-for-new-stadium-in-santa-clara

They also did it for the Falcons

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...-million-loan-for-new-atlanta-falcons-stadium

The tv revenues go for the operation of the team and if they had to use for debt service the operations would suffer. They want to move to LA to make more money and if they have to use their shared revenues to cover the debt the move wouldn't be a good business decision.

I was pointing it out as a source of revenue to the team.. of course moving to LA brings in other revenues - and that $200 million is only a portion of what they make, albeit the biggest.

 

[iced]

Whether a team borrows from the NFL or GS's investors - it is still debt level. They all need to be paid back in a relocation situation.

Check out the debt level of other teams, particularly atlanta. once again they're doing what they want lol

That is actually something I was wondering. Who in their right mind is going to offer Moe roughly 100% above current value in hopes that it might give them a ROI. Doesn't really add up. But heck - that's a good deal if he can pull it off. Does that investor also want to buy some swamp... er... uh... railroad land in Florida?

lol exactly

If they borrow - it is a loan. It must be paid back with interest and is part of the debt taken on by the borrowing team.

Of course but i'm talking about debt level from the nfl vs in general.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Don't know - but there are plenty of details of Peacock's plan that has not been released and I'm not going to speculate or assume until we hear from him,

I'm just saying, I'm not sure what they have to convince him, and it doesn't look like they have much.

Yet if an invester thinks its a bad investment they're not going to invest. Whether or not they can is irrelevant - it's whether they want to, and the returns are there. Clearly, it's not.

Again, I know they don't want to, I'm dubious that they can't. San Diego's economy is growing at record paces, it may not be as lucrative as LA, but it's doable.

I'm just connecting the dots. Spanos is the only one who has, while we've heard several rumors that it's a known fact that he's not working with St.Louis.. Even Goodell has had to address the many complaints from Peacock. I've seen nothing at all that suggests Kroenke has been acting in good faith or that the league believes he has - you're denying the antecedent as well.

It's not a well known fact, because Demoff is working with the task force, and they seem to be working in good faith. Peacock may have whined to the NFL about not working with Kroenke, but it sounds like they said "Send someone" and he sent Demoff, and it seems that made the NFL happy, because it hasn't come up. Only from St Louis media types who say that isn't good enough. That's also not denying the antecedent, denying the antecedent is If A then B, not A, therefore not B.

In other words think of it as:

If someone speaks English, they are human.
Someone doesn't speak English, therefore they are not human. Doesn't work.

If they NFL says someone is working in good faith, then they are working in good faith.
They haven't said Kroenke is working in good faith, therefore he is not working in good faith.

Same logical fallacy, it doesn't work.

If they didn't care it wouldn't be a situation they're trying to avoid

According to who? As far as I know other than Policy, there hasn't been anything on that, and frankly I don't trust Policy, he has an agenda to push.

Except all indications from Kroenke's camp have been he's going to respect the leagues decision. not worth speculating til we hear otherwise.

No, the only thing anyone has said is they believe Kroenke will allow the NFL to vote on relocation, they didn't say he would listen to the vote or anything, they just said they felt he'd let them vote.

Then he'll go lease to lease.

You seem to suggest he can and will do whatever he wants, regardless of what the league says or does - as if has them from a position of power. he doesn't.

So then it doesn't solve all three issues. I'm not saying he can do whatever he wants, but I'm saying that denying Inglewood doesn't automatically solve all three stadium issues.

That's a big if - considering he hasn't done it in the 4-5 years and has already been given a year extension.

And Inglewood doesn't offer the best stadium solution - that's something from Kroenke's camp thats been put out with little to no substance to back it up. I guess we should take everything from Chargers camp as gospel then

Yeah, he's supposed to have it fixed by this year.

And Inglewood offering the best solution doesn't just come from Inglewood, it comes from most of the media who has looked at both plans. Independent economists who looked at what each site would be expected to generate, people who see that the Inglewood project offers more because it's part of a larger complex and in a better more central location. The only thing that Carson has going for it is that they don't need to negotiate the second team already, otherwise I don't see anything that makes it better.