New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

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

Its not about me liking it or not, I just imagine the NFL doesn't want to send the message its okay to make promises to them you have no intention of keeping.

 

[iced]

PSLs and ownership? I don't see how they are. I don't see the point in trying to hide what you have to offer you're trying to convince a guy to stay.

who says he's hiding?

I find it more credible he can't get him on the phone to negotiate with lol

So you're saying that there's evidence to support that he's not working in good faith but not that he's not working in good faith? I don't see it, you said that you saw nothing to suggest hes working in good faith or that the league felt he was, which is saying he's not working in good faith. You pointed out that Spanos was the only one who was mentioned to be to this point as evidence that the NFL doesn't think Kroenke is working in good faith. If you're not suggesting that Kroenke isn't working in good faith and the NFL doesn't think he is either, you got a funny way of wording it.

Once again, I have said that they only person they have said is working in good faith is Spanos. K, are we clear on that? Now, no where, does in that one magical sentence did I say "The NFL has said Kroenke isn't working in good Faith." Now, are we clear on that yet?

After that, I gave my opinion how I think his actions will be perceived, particularly in the good faith part.

This is all hilariously forgetting that Peacock and Nixon had to go straight to the NFL to get any kind of inputs on their stadium. think about that. They had to go directly to the NFL to get someone to work with on their stadium - how in the hell are you going to argue "he's working in good faith" when the taskforce had to go to the NFL because Kroenke wouldn't answer the phone or attempt to make contact? Good luck with that.

Of course they all have an agenda, which is why I would take Kroenke saying that they want one team in LA with a grain of salt as well. There hasn't been anything to suggest what Policy, who has a history of being full of crap, is true. It could be, but I'm waiting for more from some more neutral parties.

Sure doesn't seem that way

As far as I know, that wasn't it, if you have something else please share though.

I recall reading in multiple places that Kroenke isn't going to fight the stadium authority and will respect the other owners decision when it comes to relocating. I'm not go==

Getting all three teams into new stadium means you solve all three issues. And I'm saying that selecting Carson doesn't not do that, because if Stan doesn't want the Riverfront stadium, then the Rams still have a stadium issue. Besides, Inglewood solves all three stadium issues as well, two teams go there, and they funnel money to assist the third team. Its the same thing as Carson two teams go, and the third is left to figure it out. The only difference is Kroenke is willing to help out the other guys if needed while they wouldnt help him (not that he needs it).

I think its solves issues because it addresses their current issues with the stadium - If Kroenke had a issue with the stadium, I'm sure the taskforce would be willing to pick up the phone should he dial - they've indicated that many times.

However the problem is one owner is most likely going to be left astray, while Spanos and Kroenke will be fighting over who gets LA (And all indications are Spanos is winning that fight, and San Diego just made it easier for them today

The study did not come from Kroenkes camp, and why would pro LA people be negative towards Carson if its good, or better? That makes no sense.

who said anything about a study? You getting your posts confused?

I was talking about the Inglewood camp's statement "This is the best plan in Inglewood" - the moment that was mentioned, every writer starting throwing it in there, with lots of different writers dissecting it and laughing at it (Particularly the reasoning of team success, which the chargers win hands down)

They're still playing the game. FYI, Fabiani already says that Inglewood is a possibility, almost every writer, who is more connected and more informed that we are, say that Chargers in Inglewood is a possibility. Yet you say its not. Why? Why do you say its not when the Chargers themselves have said it is. You cant really get much more connected than that.

Carson with two teams barely makes more than Inglewood with one team. Inglewood with two teams amokes Carson. Inglewood is being built for two teams.

At this point I don't believe the Rams have ever said that moving to Inglewood was a possibility. Of course because they're working in the project we all connected those dots. However if they didn't that would mean that the one team who have said they could possibly move to Inglewood would be the Chargers.

Fabiani has also said they have the votes to block Kroenke...

"Yea!! we're gonna get the votes to block your move, but we're also open to moving in with you!!!" - riggghttttt.....

If they do or don't, we'll find out, but you saying there any nothing to suggest they would is false. Given that Fabinani himself already said it was a possibility.

Oh, so now you're believing things that Fabinani says? Lol

 

[MrMotes]

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

The question is: Can a city decide a deal it signed with a team is too onerous to live up to and try to get a new deal for less money?

We all know The Rams can sign Sam Bradford to a deal with a 5th year salary they'll probably never pay but can a city do that with a team? By the rules of the CVC lease they certainly can. But how does the NFL see it? After all the NFL is the owners. It's not hard to see how the owners like a system where they can escape a contract with a player they no longer see as a good deal for them. But how will they feel about the precedent of a city doing pretty much the same thing to one of their own over a stadium contract they no longer see as a good deal for the city?

It's a point raised by The Ripper and Ray Hartman, and i think it's a good one...

 

[iced]

The question is: Can a city decide a deal it signed with a team is too onerous to live up to and try to get a new deal for less money?

We all know The Rams can sign Sam Bradford to a deal with a 5th year salary they'll probably never pay but can a city do that with a team? By the rules of the CVC lease they certainly can. But how does the NFL see it? After all the NFL is the owners. It's not hard to see how the owners like a system where they can escape a contract with a player they no longer see as a good deal for them. But how will they feel about the precedent of a city doing pretty much the same thing to one of their own over a stadium contract they no longer see as a good deal for the city?

It's a point raised by The Ripper and Ray Hartman, and i think it's a good one...

Works both ways - how are cities going to feel if an owner can offer a unrealistic proposal and use that as a reason to walk away. You think governments and cities are going to feel more inclined to pony up money and build 2 stadiums within 20 years while allowing a team to walk away?

Look at how many stadiums recently have began to finance stadiums with mostly NFL private money - Santa Clara, MetLife, Carson proposal, Atlanta Renovation... How do you think other cities are going to perceive the NFL if they let a team walk away from $400 million in public money (which is top 5 in most in public money offered).. Why not just tell the NFL owners to go fund their own stadiums out of their own pocket? Particularly with other owners with stadium deals who will need or ask for public money coming up shortly

 

[The Ripper]

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

That's not the way it works neither proposal could trigger the clause, it was triggered on March 1, 2015 because that was the measuring date for top tier requirement. Arthur Blank initiated the stadium so there's no comparison. Plus his not worth excluding the team is over 1 billion so he has the ability to take on more debt.

Each side had a proposal and it was up to the arbitrators to choose either plan or come up with their own. If the proposal wasn't legitimate the arbitrators could have come up with a different plan. They had that ability. The CVC made the argument of losing money because of EDJ being closed but their proposal also had the Dome being closed so the arbitrators rejected the argument.

 

[ChrisW]

The question is: Can a city decide a deal it signed with a team is too onerous to live up to and try to get a new deal for less money?

We all know The Rams can sign Sam Bradford to a deal with a 5th year salary they'll probably never pay but can a city do that with a team? By the rules of the CVC lease they certainly can. But how does the NFL see it? After all the NFL is the owners. It's not hard to see how the owners like a system where they can escape a contract with a player they no longer see as a good deal for them. But how will they feel about the precedent of a city doing pretty much the same thing to one of their own over a stadium contract they no longer see as a good deal for the city?

It's a point raised by The Ripper and Ray Hartman, and i think it's a good one...

I don't understand how the deal wasn't lived up to. It was, top tier stadium or the team opts out. Guess what, the team opted out. It's all part of the deal in itself. The next part is arbitration. They ruled that the Rams figure was closer to the right number to put the stadium back into that top tier status (and I agree. I just think pushing 700M on taxpayers alone was a non starter, along with closing the dome.)

That's where it ends. The North-Riverfront stadium is a completely new deal. A couple of lawsuits away from 50% public funding, and a owner contribution away from strong corporate support.

 

[iced]

That's not the way it works neither proposal could trigger the clause, it was triggered on March 1, 2015 because that was the measuring date for top tier requirement. Arthur Blank initiated the stadium so there's no comparison. Plus his not worth excluding the team is over 1 billion so he has the ability to take on more debt.

Shouldn't be an issue for Spanos then - his net worth is $1.3 billion.

You're missing the bigger picture here though - Atlanta stadium is not the size of LA, and yet they're allowing him to renovate and draw on that much debt... If you don't think they'd do the same for a market size of LA, I don't know what to tell you. I think they will.

Each side had a proposal and it was up to the arbitrators to choose either plan or come up with their own. If the proposal wasn't legitimate the arbitrators could have come up with a different plan. They had that ability. The CVC made the argument of losing money because of EDJ being closed but their proposal also had the Dome being closed so the arbitrators rejected the argument.

The Arbitrator agreed with their plan because it more fit the top tier clause. The only thing the arbitrator could do was pick between the two plans - and the CVC made it easy with their $121 offer, which they agreed to split 50/50 with the team. However just because Kroenke's was ruled in favor, again didn't make it realistic.. And obviously they never found a way around shutting down the EJD for the year, which I think was the biggest hiccup of their problems.

However this still is ignoring the fact that Kroenke's offer was unrealistic from the get go - and nothing has changed since then. It was reported then, still well known fact now.

 

[MrMotes]

Works both ways - how are cities going to feel if an owner can offer a unrealistic proposal and use that as a reason to walk away. You think governments and cities are going to feel more inclined to pony up money and build 2 stadiums within 20 years while allowing a team to walk away?

But who's ultimately making the decision, the mayors of America or the NFL owners?

 

[iced]

But who's ultimately making the decision, the mayors of America or the NFL owners?

Do you think the owners want to go back to the 90's and toss the by laws aside? Or actually make their other owners abide by them? (if that were case, then why put them in in the first place?)

 

[MrMotes]

That's where it ends. The North-Riverfront stadium is a completely new deal. A couple of lawsuits away from 50% public funding, and a owner contribution away from strong corporate support.

Right, but the proposed new deal is worth less than the original deal which the city chose not stick with. And the question is: How will that sit with the NFL?

 

[MrMotes]

Do you think the owners want to go back to the 90's and toss the by laws aside? Or actually make their other owners abide by them? (if that were case, then why put them in in the first place?)

I bet the bylaws are PR as much as anything else. They are pubic after all...

 

[The Ripper]

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.

Blank's net worth is 2.5 billion and over 1 billion with out the team.

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

There is no special fund. It's the G4 or another similar program set up by the NFL. This was one of the main reasons for the lock out. The NFL wanted to increase stadium funding by 18% and that would have taken DGR down by 10%. If the NFL loans money to a team outside of the loan program it is subject to revenue sharing so a 100 million dollar loan actually is 200 million.

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

Policy said earliest the stadium construction is late fall 2017. The cleanup up might be able to be started this year if the funds from the bond offering come in in the next few months.

 

[ChrisW]

Right, but the proposed new deal is worth less than the original deal which the city chose not stick with. And the question is: How will that sit with the NFL?

How is it worth less? It's a totally new project with a price tag of close to $1B.

 

[The Ripper]

Shouldn't be an issue for Spanos then - his net worth is $1.3 billion.

That's the entire family and it includes the team.

You're missing the bigger picture here though - Atlanta stadium is not the size of LA, and yet they're allowing him to renovate and draw on that much debt... If you don't think they'd do the same for a market size of LA, I don't know what to tell you. I think they will

He has personal assets that can be used to offset the loans. Davis and Spanos both have to borrow to get the money.

The Arbitrator agreed with their plan because it more fit the top tier clause. The only thing the arbitrator could do was pick between the two plans - and the CVC made it easy with their $121 offer, which they agreed to split 50/50 with the team. However just because Kroenke's was ruled in favor, again didn't make it realistic.. And obviously they never found a way around shutting down the EJD for the year, which I think was the biggest hiccup of their problems.

However this still is ignoring the fact that Kroenke's offer was unrealistic from the get go - and nothing has changed since then. It was reported then, still well known fact now.

Read the arbitration decision it's right in their the arbitrator could come up with their own plan. The CVC's proposal was not even close to being a valid offer. Kroenke won arbitration and you can complain about the decision but if the arbitrators found it to be unrealistic they could have changed it.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/123413755/Arbitrators-Report-Rams-CVC

 

[iced]

There is no special fund. It's the G4 or another similar program set up by the NFL. This was one of the main reasons for the lock out. The NFL wanted to increase stadium funding by 18% and that would have taken DGR down by 10%. If the NFL loans money to a team outside of the loan program it is subject to revenue sharing so a 100 million dollar loan actually is 200 million.

Except the Falcon stadium was already given a G4 loan - and they've continued to add more money to the project after that. If they're doing it for Atlanta which is a smaller market compared to Carson, there's no reason to believe they won't do it since they can recoup their money faster.

Policy said earliest the stadium construction is late fall 2017. The cleanup up might be able to be started this year if the funds from the bond offering come in in the next few months.

Bonds were authorized already

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-sn-carson-nfl-stadium-land-20150519-story.html

Earlier this month, Carson authorized $50.5 million in bonds to finish the cleanup of the former landfill site.

 

[The Ripper]

How is it worth less? It's a totally new project with a price tag of close to $1B.

600 to 650 million for the stadium.

 

[ChrisW]

600 to 650 million for the stadium.

So you're not going to include all the green space around the stadium? The blighted area clean up? The conversion of the power and light building into more fan experience activities? That's extremely short sighted in this case.

I guess then we won't throw in Stan's NFL headquarters on the east coast. Since we are talking stadiums only.

 

[The Ripper]

Except the Falcon stadium was already given a G4 loan - and they've continued to add more money to the project after that. If they're doing it for Atlanta which is a smaller market compared to Carson, there's no reason to believe they won't do it since they can recoup their money faster.

Total 200 million from the NFL. The NFL may provide bridge loans for initial work but that gets paid back when the PSL's or naming rights are borrowed against.

Bonds were authorized May 19th

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-sn-carson-nfl-stadium-land-20150519-story.html

Authorized is not issued.

 

[The Ripper]

So you're not going to include all the green space around the stadium? The blighted area clean up? The conversion of the power and light building into more fan experience activities? That's extremely short sighted in this case.

I guess then we won't throw in Stan's NFL headquarters on the east coast. Since we are talking stadiums only.

No, it's not part of stadium construction. Just like in Atlanta, NY or even Carson. In SD they the total was 1.4 but the they show 1.1. The total real public contribution in Atlanta is close to 600 million but no one talks about that.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/2015/...g-600m-thanks-to-state-funded-parking-garage/