New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[dbrooks25]

@dbrooks, I respect your fandom, however my problem is with that statement by Moostache about remaining fans while the team is losing. Especially in regards to saying that "LA fans should be happy". It is presumptious and inconsiderate for the poster to say the STL fans carried the cross when many people from Calif, including myself, witnessed many of the same games he did in the EJD. Most of the Ram fans in California have watched the Rams lose ( live and on TV) way more games than he has ever experienced.

If you (STL fans) love the Rams and want them to stay in St Louis, great!, I respect that. However, when the argument comes in about how the Rams have had losing seasons there, you lose my interest and I can't relate anymore. Fans from California would be glad to take the Rams back in an instant regardless of their W/L record.

I get what you're saying. The only reason Rams fans in St. Louis bring up the losing seasons here is because many outside of St. Louis love to think we are a baseball town exclusively and don't support the Rams. Our counter is that the team has been woeful, yet we still support them well. I get there are many fans in California, but St. Louis fans are the ones who get criticized when it comes to attendance and the stupid "baseball town" reference.

 

[RamzFanz]

In terms of contracts you need to be care using the word "broke". That's not what happened. A clause was triggered that allowed the Rams out early. No agreement was broken. If there was broken agreements there would be lawsuits.

Arizona and Houston are pushing the limits on the top tier. The NFL lists top tier stadiums as far as game day experiences go, and yes Super Bowls probably do figure into it somewhere. The Stadium has been designed so far with the fan experience in mind. The green spaces, to the HUGE entrance that looks directly onto the field attribute to this. Also, keep in mind, we don't know what it can expand to, so it may be able to expand to the lower end of the Super Bowl seating limits.

In addition, Saint Louis DID agree to upgrade the dome so it's not as if they just ignored the clause. They simply couldn't come to terms with the Rams.

 

[bluecoconuts]

For someone that supposedly wants the Rams to stay in STL, you sure do give a lot of reasons as to why St. Louis shouldn't have the team.

I'm starting to believe what you think is what you truly want.

Believe what you want man, them being in LA doesn't help me one bit, them being in St Louis does. I'm just having issues being convinced they're going to stay without letting my personal feelings take over.

 

[dbrooks25]

St Louis broke their end of the agreement in terms of the top tier clause, that's why we're in this miss. There are other cities who have this same clause (which I didn't actually know).. So if they let St Louis break that part of the lease and then offer up something that doesn't qualify into the top tier, then it's setting a bad precedent for the other cities.

In terms off what makes a stadium "top tier" I'm not really sure how the NFL qualifies it. My guess is size, ability to host the superbowl, and things like that.

So the top tier was what, the top 8?

Dallas, Indy, SF, Houston, Arizona are probably all above it, some easily, they're new or relatively new stadiums that the NFL can put multiple Super Bowls in no problem. Minnesota's plan tops the Riverfront, and whichever LA stadium would also likely top it. Because of the low number of seats and press boxes (requirements for top tier) it probably pushes it behind NY and a few others.

Isn't the top tier thing exclusive to the EJD? If so, he gives a flying fugg about whether or not the Riverfront stadium reaches "top tier?" Isn't it all about building a facility that the Rams, community, and NFL like? We all know the NFL does approve of the stadium, so who gives a shit about top tier at this point?

 

[bluecoconuts]

In terms of contracts you need to be careful using the word "broke". That's not what happened. A clause was triggered that allowed the Rams out early. No agreement was broken. If there was broken agreements there would be lawsuits.

Arizona and Houston are pushing the limits on the top tier. The NFL lists top tier stadiums as far as game day experiences go, and yes Super Bowls probably do figure into it somewhere. The Stadium has been designed so far with the fan experience in mind. The green spaces, to the HUGE entrance that looks directly onto the field attribute to this. Also, keep in mind, we don't know what it can expand to, so it may be able to expand to the lower end of the Super Bowl seating limits.

Focusing on words asside, its still setting the precedent that a city can agree to something in the lease to make things more attractive for the team, and then not follow through with that agreement. It doesn't put the NFL in a good spot.

Also I was looking around. I know that seats, boxes, TVs, etc all add to the top tier stuff. The lack of seats and boxes probably hurts St Louis, and being an outdoor stadium, with not enough parking probably takes the Super Bowl from them. That's why I'm not sure it'll hit top tier. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it might not qualify.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Isn't the top tier thing exclusive to the EJD? If so, he gives a flying fugg about whether or not the Riverfront stadium reaches "top tier?" Isn't it all about building a facility that the Rams, community, and NFL like? We all know the NFL does approve of the stadium, so who gives a crap about top tier at this point?

That's what I thought, but others were saying its not. Cincinnati apparently has one, as some others. If it was only St Louis, it might not be as big of a deal, but if its other cities, I can see the NFL handling it differently.

 

[Sum1]

Focusing on words asside, its still setting the precedent that a city can agree to something in the lease to make things more attractive for the team, and then not follow through with that agreement. It doesn't put the NFL in a good spot.

Also I was looking around. I know that seats, boxes, TVs, etc all add to the top tier stuff. The lack of seats and TVs probably hurts St Louis, and being an outdoor stadium, with not enough parking probably takes the Super Bowl from them. That's why I'm not sure it'll hit top tier. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it might not qualify.

They followed through with the agreement. The building is not in the top tier, therefore the Rams have an option to continue on the 30 year lease or they can go year-to-year. Nothing unfulfilled at all. I still can't understand why people don't see the difference here.

Further, this part of the lease was put in because the city wanted a 30 year lease and the Rams wanted a 10. This was the compromise. Both parties have acted in good faith in that regard.

 

[ChrisW]

Focusing on words asside, its still setting the precedent that a city can agree to something in the lease to make things more attractive for the team, and then not follow through with that agreement. It doesn't put the NFL in a good spot.

Also I was looking around. I know that seats, boxes, TVs, etc all add to the top tier stuff. The lack of seats and TVs probably hurts St Louis, and being an outdoor stadium, with not enough parking probably takes the Super Bowl from them. That's why I'm not sure it'll hit top tier. That doesn't mean it's bad, but it might not qualify.

You have to focus on the words in a contract, it's the whole point of the legalese. Words like "trigger" and "break" mean totally different things in the scope of the contract.

What we've heard from Bernie on the market study is that the fan support is there, but the corporate support is light. Now we don't have exact figures, because they haven't released it yet. But I'm wondering if season tickets being less this year is the corporate support holding out until there's a commitment to the city. As far as parking is concerned. They can add more, it's not that hard. If more land is attained across the highway, they can build a garage or 2. Don't just focus on the scope of this project alone. There's always room for growth.

 

[The Ripper]

Isn't the top tier thing exclusive to the EJD? If so, he gives a flying fugg about whether or not the Riverfront stadium reaches "top tier?" Isn't it all about building a facility that the Rams, community, and NFL like? We all know the NFL does approve of the stadium, so who gives a crap about top tier at this point?

No, it's in a number of cities Cincinnati, Houston and KC. The reason it's a big deal is because it will effect other cities in their negotiations so Cincinnati can tell the Bengals we won't do the renovations because the NFL won't back you.

 

[Sum1]

You have to focus on the words in a contract, it's the whole point of the legalese. Words like "trigger" and "break" mean totally different things in the scope of the contract.

What we've heard from Bernie on the market study is that the fan support is there, but the corporate support is light. Now we don't have exact figures, because they haven't released it yet. But I'm wondering if season tickets being less this year is the corporate support holding out until there's a commitment to the city. As far as parking is concerned. They can add more, it's not that hard. If more land is attained across the highway, they can build a garage or 2. Don't just focus on the scope of this project alone. There's always room for growth.

My boss was told from one of the teams attorneys that the ticket sales themselves are actually better than last year but the lack is on the corporate side. Unfortunately, that is the part that matters. However, if you think that the corporate support isn't a result of the losing and the alienating going on from Kroenke, you're sorely mistaken.

 

[bluecoconuts]

They followed through with the agreement. The building is not in the top tier, therefore the Rams have an option to continue on the 30 year lease or they can go year-to-year. Nothing unfulfilled at all. I still can't understand why people don't see the difference here.

Further, this part of the lease was put in because the city wanted a 30 year lease and the Rams wanted a 10. This was the compromise. Both parties have acted in good faith in that regard.

So when NFL teams agree to a lease to keep the stadium in the top tier, and the cities decide that it's not worth it, you think the NFL will be happy if they make an offer that is less than their agreement? I don't.

You have to focus on the words in a contract, it's the whole point of the legalese. Words like "trigger" and "break" mean totally different things in the scope of the contract.

What we've heard from Bernie on the market study is that the fan support is there, but the corporate support is light. Now we don't have exact figures, because they haven't released it yet. But I'm wondering if season tickets being less this year is the corporate support holding out until there's a commitment to the city. As far as parking is concerned. They can add more, it's not that hard. If more land is attained across the highway, they can build a garage or 2. Don't just focus on the scope of this project alone. There's always room for growth.

Its hard to force Stan to stay there on the promise of growth. Who's going to pay for that? He already had those issues before, and they're setting him up to work with the same people he had those issues with. What is going to convince the city to spend more money when they couldn't do it last time when there was a contract saying they were supposed to?

 

[Sum1]

So when NFL teams agree to a lease to keep the stadium in the top tier, and the cities decide that it's not worth it, you think the NFL will be happy if they make an offer that is less than their agreement? I don't.



Its hard to force Stan to stay there on the promise of growth. Who's going to pay for that? He already had those issues before, and they're setting him up to work with the same people he had those issues with. What is going to convince the city to spend more money when they couldn't do it last time when there was a contract saying they were supposed to?

Ok, you don't like the agreement that the Rams agreed to and it was fulfilled. Noted.

 

[dbrooks25]

No, it's in a number of cities Cincinnati, Houston and KC. The reason it's a big deal is because it will effect other cities in their negotiations so Cincinnati can tell the Bengals we won't do the renovations because the NFL won't back you.

When I say exclusive to the EJD I'm not talking about it being exclusive to this city. What I was asking was if the top tier thing will move to the new Riverfront stadium. Again, the NFL seems on board with it, so why the fuss about top tier thing with the new stadium?

 

[Moostache]

Hearing lots of noise on this about the league and the three owners seeking a back room deal that allows everyone to get what they want....who knows if its true or not, really doesn't matter for wanton speculation anyway!!

Here's a way for that to happen - put the Raiders and Chargers in Inglewood, have Kroenke bank roll it and allow him to apply G4 money to Inglewood to offset the expenses in St. Louis.

Yes, that would mean Kroenke "paying" for 2 stadiums, but if he were to gain access to $500M in G4 money for L.A ($250 M each for the Raiders and Chargers franchises), and another $250M in G4 Money for StL, you would be talking about enough money for him to build in St. Louis without spending any more money than he is already willing to spend in L.A. AND he would be a landlord to 2 teams, host to future Super Bowls, partner with NFL Network, and owner of the St. Louis Rams until he decides to sell (and eventually obtain the Broncos from the Bowlen family after Pat dies). Throw in a semi-permanent exemption from cross-ownership rules to sweeten the deal and I can easily see a crass opportunist like Enos Stanley Kroenke saying yes to that.

Here's a breakdown...

STL projected stadium costs - $950 M
STL projected public funds - $450 M
shortfall for NFL/Owner - $500 M

IF $750 M in G4 funds were to become available - a necessary concession from the league to help smooth out the LA situation and appease all parties; Kroenke's share of the STL stadium essentially drops to ZERO (in fact, in this scenario, he would have an extra $250M to throw at Inglewood that he currently would not be getting. That $250M would defray significant costs on the Inglewood project, and he could also seek to have some contributions ($200 M each?) from Spanos and Davis...

So, If Ingelwood is going to cost $2B to build, Kroenke could:
1) Have $250 M in G4 money from the league for playing ball in all of this
2) $200 M from Spanos
3) $200 M from Davis
4) reduce his expected lay out of $2B down to $1.35 B
5) avoid paying any relocation fees (currently the number sounds like $500M as a likely figure)

He would also never really "pay" for the St. Louis stadium because any money he did end up fronting to the project would be recouped in the eventual sale of the Rams at a value significantly higher than the current $1.3 B market rate (based on the sale of the Bills). You would be talking about allowing Kroenke to not only build in L.A., but to do so at a 35% sale price FROM WHAT HE IS ALREADY WILLING TO SPEND ANYWAY!

We're talking about a guy who to date has not said anything at all about his intentions beyond building a stadium in LA. Well, this scenario - admittedly far-fetched and 100% speculative - would solve an awful lot of problems and make the best outcome for the league a very real solution!

Chargers get LA and keep the Rams out.
Raiders get a new home.
Rams get a new home and long-term future in St. Louis.
St. Louis gets rewarded for their commitment to building.
Kroenke gets an LA Stadium and the perks of owning it.
The league can say (with some plausibility) that cities that work with it will retain their franchises, those that don't...not so much.

 

[Sum1]

When I say exclusive to the EJD I'm not talking about it being exclusive to this city. What I was asking was if the top tier thing will move to the new Riverfront stadium. Again, the NFL seems on board with it, so why the fuss about top tier thing with the new stadium?

It just depends on what the agreement will be with the new stadium.

I think that is an important factor on a few different levels. I expect the deal to be very creative.

 

[The Ripper]

When I say exclusive to the EJD I'm not talking about it being exclusive to this city. What I was asking was if the top tier thing will move to the new Riverfront stadium. Again, the NFL seems on board with it, so why the fuss about top tier thing with the new stadium?

I would doubt if any city would put that in another lease. It might be a deal killer for Kroenke but there's no way St Louis would agree to it.

 

[MrMotes]

Focusing on words asside, its still setting the precedent that a city can agree to something in the lease to make things more attractive for the team, and then not follow through with that agreement. It doesn't put the NFL in a good spot.

Exactly.

It's like when a team cuts a player because they don't want to pay what the contract calls for for but would sign him for less. Except here, that player is free to sign with another team.

St. Louis has cut the Rams from the CVC deal because they didn't want to pay the high salary on the back end of the deal. Now they want the Rams to sign for less without the option to shop around. There's a good chance that not only Kroenke will find that unacceptable, the NFL may well see it exactly the same way...

 

[Sum1]

Exactly.

It's like when a team cuts a player because they don't want to pay what the contract calls for for but would sign him for less. Except here, that player is free to sign with another team.

St. Louis has cut the Rams from the CVC deal because they didn't want to pay the high salary on the back end of the deal. Now they want the Rams to sign for less without the option to shop around. There's a good chance that not only Kroenke will find that unacceptable, the NFL may well see it exactly the same way...

No, it's actually more like the player has a clause in his contract that if he reaches a certain amount of yards he is due a bonus that the team has the option of paying or not. If they choose not to pay it the player now has the option of continuing on his deal for the full duration or optioning out every year thereafter.

In each case, the team/city takes a risk that the player/team is considered a "free agent"...but the difference is that there isn't a bylaw for the players association that states they need to try and make it work with their team before exploring other options.

Alas, the NFL does have this bylaw...but will it be followed is the real question. Not whether the fans have shown up or any of the other spin...which is exactly what it is, spin to try and make it look like St. Louis has done everything to lose the franchise when they are doing much more at a much faster rate than what most markets have done at almost any time in NFL history. And I don't assume to say it's some conspiracy against St. Louis with some malicious intent, just the unfortunate timing of what is going on in the league.

 

[iced]

Exactly.

It's like when a team cuts a player because they don't want to pay what the contract calls for for but would sign him for less. Except here, that player is free to sign with another team.

St. Louis has cut the Rams from the CVC deal because they didn't want to pay the high salary on the back end of the deal. Now they want the Rams to sign for less without the option to shop around. There's a good chance that not only Kroenke will find that unacceptable, the NFL may well see it exactly the same way...

Other way around - the Rams triggered the clause, not St.Louis.. And Kroenke's offer was for something he knew wouldn't happen - asking for over $700 million in upgrades without offering or stating how much the Rams would be willing to cover.

No recent stadium or going back 10 years has had a city be on the hook for over $700 money in public money...

meanwhile Arthur blank is racking up NFL Debt (cap was $250, he's over $850 now) while covering $1.3 billion of the $1.5 billion stadium redesign

It's amazing to me how many people think Kroenke's offer is legit while ignoring one of the biggest issues with their renovation - the EJD wouldn't be in use for a year, causing a loss of income for the city and the CVC while the Rams have to find another place to play in the mean time

 

[iced]

The owners have the money. The Spanos's and Davis don't.

I'm hesitant to believe that - otherwise Blank wouldn't be racking up a billion or more in debt...

Given the size of the Carson and seeing how much they're backing Arthur's stadium renovation, I don't think the NFL is going to have a problem with their financing plan, particularly if Goldman Sachs is covering losses..

Again, Athur has more than 3x the debt limit, and yet the NFL has continued to loan them more money.

Yes, that was G-4 money not a separate loan from the NFL. The G 4 like G 3 is an agreed exception to the revenue sharing with the players.

Per the carson plan (and stadium authority's or coming up a special fund is something the NFL has done in the past)
http://www.boltsfromtheblue.com/2015/4/22/8465563/some-thoughts-about-the-carson-stadium-project

• The NFL will provide $200 million per team, either with a special fund -or- amending their bylaws to allow the teams to receive money from the G4 loan program.

However I truly wonder if this is needed or not since Goldman sachs has pledged to cover the amount of the stadium, which pretty much renders this irrelevant

Their pledge - http://www.dailybreeze.com/sports/2...rd-to-ensure-construction-can-start-this-year

Goldman Sachs has promised up to $1.7 billion for the Carson project, said Tim Romer, a municipal finance manager for the bank.