New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

So then what do you make of Kroenke's actions? From his unwillingness to communicate to putting Practices in LA/Oxnard area?

I'm just saying - I see Spanos and Fabiani meeting with the city, and not moving practices to LA as opposed to Kroenke being the opposite.

And Jerry Jones little speech on the "Flavor of LA" did him no favors, except for maybe the LA area

He's not misleading anyone and not talking until there's on offer on the table that he feels is reasonable is just standard business. Spanos and Fabiani meet with the city but they keep changing the goal line. This is how Fabiani's works and it's well documented over the last 30 years. Plus he wrote a book with Lehane, Masters of Disaster which documents it.

The comment on Jerry Jones is just speculation on doing him no favors, how does anyone know that other owners don't feel the same way.

 

[RamFan503]

I think the fact that the Spanos and Fabiani have met with San Diego three times in the last month over negotiations is telling enough - even if it didn't result in a deal, when you compare how Kroenke has dealt with St.Louis.

I have only heard that Spanos said he would - not that he actually has. Do you know he has? I realize he has sat down with the previous mayor and that ended very quickly and with Spanos dismissing their plan with no counter.

I don't condone with how they have handled things - but I don't see how one could compare the two and come out saying that Kroenke has been on the same level..

Useless meetings for show may not be Stan's way of doing things. Think of how much crap Fabiani got in SD circles when he issued that last edict about not wasting their time with proposals unless they came with something serious. What constitutes serious to them? History would say very little money coming out of Spanos' pocket and a downtown location. Is that negotiating in good faith?

Even Jerry Jones I bet sat in all his stadium meetings - do you really think if an owner was serious about building a stadium he would just send someone, or show up himself?

Maybe he did. I don't know. I don't see the relevance4 though - honestly.

 

[RamFan503]

IIRC the biggest thing to do with that was closing the dome for those renovations, causing a huge loss of income for the city... I think that was the biggest sticking point, and something they never worked around.

A shame Dave Peacock wasn't working on it then...

Kinda like imagine how this team would look if Snead were here then as opposed to Devaney

An estimated $20 million per year? A $20 million that they didn't have booked yet and apparently hadn't achieved previously. And that is assuming they would have to close down the convention center as well which they apparently would not except during portions of the renovations. And I agree that it is a shame Peacock was not working on it then. I don't think he would have let the CVC do what they did.

 

[RamFan503]

I'm just saying - I see Spanos and Fabiani meeting with the city, and not moving practices to LA as opposed to Kroenke being the opposite.

I believe the Chargers have held several practices in LA over the years. Several teams have. I'll admit that the timing is suspect with the Rams right now but...

Problem is that if there was anything real behind the practices in LA, it seems it would work better as a leverage ploy than anything having to do with moving there. Is it really that advantageous toward Inglewood? We already see the bring back the Rams crowd at every presentation and photo op. Is seeing Rams fans in Oxnard really going to impress the NFL?

 

[iced]

He's not misleading anyone and not talking until there's on offer on the table that he feels is reasonable is just standard business.

Compare to other offers recently around the league I think its very reasonable - however I will give you that without the financing decision I see no reason why he'd agree to it yet...

but at the same token you're not going to convince me its about money when: 1) he's clearly willing to spend atleast $2.5 billion to move to LA and build a stadium as opposed to $250 here and G4 loan, 2) he hasn't given the perception that he's even genuinely interested.. I don't believe you could easily argue that for Spanos - and I really don't think SD has still have put up a plan that's viable... Yet we've heard atleast one owner, granted it was Mark Davis who has no options, like the plan; however I think he would love that deal, since $400 million seems to be the gap he's seeking in Oakland

The comment on Jerry Jones is just speculation on doing him no favors, how do you know that other owners don't feel the same way.

I have no idea - I'm just saying I can see how it would easily go both ways

 

[iced]

I have only heard that Spanos said he would - not that he actually has. Do you know he has? I realize he has sat down with the previous mayor and that ended very quickly and with Spanos dismissing their plan with no counter.

They've met multiple times

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/June-16-2015-Statement.pdf

Useless meetings for show may not be Stan's way of doing things. Think of how much crap Fabiani got in SD circles when he issued that last edict about not wasting their time with proposals unless they came with something serious. What constitutes serious to them? History would say very little money coming out of Spanos' pocket and a downtown location. Is that negotiating in good faith?

But more importantly is Fabiani right - and will the other owners agree with him? If they all feel the Chargers' lawyers have come to that conclusion, it's hard to believe the NFL taking that risk on their proposal (that has its own time problems as it is)

 

[iced]

An estimated $20 million per year? A $20 million that they didn't have booked yet and apparently hadn't achieved previously. And that is assuming they would have to close down the convention center as well which they apparently would not except during portions of the renovations. And I agree that it is a shame Peacock was not working on it then. I don't think he would have let the CVC do what they did.

Is that $20 million a year or $20 million in profit? Because I could have sworn the number was higher if we're talking total revenue; profit would be different because otherwise they could/would be taking in losses

 

[iced]

I believe the Chargers have held several practices in LA over the years. Several teams have. I'll admit that the timing is suspect with the Rams right now but...

Problem is that if there was anything real behind the practices in LA, it seems it would work better as a leverage ploy than anything having to do with moving there. Is it really that advantageous toward Inglewood? We already see the bring back the Rams crowd at every presentation and photo op. Is seeing Rams fans in Oxnard really going to impress the NFL?

In my opinion based off of the time I was there ('06-'10, drove by their practice site atleast twice a day), the number of Cowboy fans trumped any other fan there, especially if any Ram Fans. That's also including special military days they offered us (in hindsight i wish i would have went to just meet players cause that's pretty cool as it is, but for whatever reason I never had any interest lol...although I think a lot of it had to do the smell of the place every time i drove by)

 

[RamFan503]

They've met multiple times

http://www.voiceofsandiego.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/June-16-2015-Statement.pdf

View attachment 7247



But more importantly is Fabiani right - and will the other owners agree with him? If they all feel the Chargers' lawyers have come to that conclusion, it's hard to believe the NFL taking that risk on their proposal (that has its own time problems as it is)

And where is Spanos listed as attending?

Is that $20 million a year or $20 million in profit? Because I could have sworn the number was higher if we're talking total revenue; profit would be different because otherwise they could/would be taking in losses

I would be shocked if the CVC has ever made anywhere near $20 million in net profit in a given year even with the Rams in the Dome. IIRR though, they discussed the potential of a $20 million loss in convention and event business.

Y'know - I think @LesBaker has a pretty good background in this area. Maybe he can chime in. I don't know what some of these conventions even pay to rent a place like that out. Pretty sure he does. And I know for sure he wouldn't hesitate to tell me I'm all wet on this. At least we could then figure out maybe what events the dome has hosted in the past and have an idea.

 

[Goose]

This is probably nothing more than conjecture however I thought it might be worth sharing.

 

[bluecoconuts]

1) he's clearly willing to spend atleast $2.5 billion to move to LA and build a stadium as opposed to $250 here and G4 loan, 2)

Gotta spend money to make money right? I've seen articles that suggest that it's more for his family, that while he won't see the returns so much, but his family would see significantly higher returns than if they stay in St Louis. That added to the prestige of an NFL team in LA could indicate why he's willing to spend so much more in LA.

No different from Carson, Chargers are willing to spend money there, but not San Diego, same with the Raiders. Apparently Goldman Sachs can't make it work in San Diego, but they can drop almost 2 billion in LA (which I still don't really believe)...

 

[The Ripper]

but at the same token you're not going to convince me its about money when: 1) he's clearly willing to spend atleast $2.5 billion to move to LA and build a stadium as opposed to $250 here and G4 loan, 2) he hasn't given the perception that he's even genuinely interested..

It's the return on investment and if you can get a better return in LA even with the additional cost then it's worth it. There's a quote from the NFL about the Rams going to St Louis that the revenues would be higher in the short term but would suffer on a long term basis and that could be one of the reasons that we haven't seen the NFL assessments for St Louis. The other issue is that the task force had a blueprint for a stadium from Kroenke that they ignored in the Riverfront Stadium and one of the main things he wanted was a stadium that could host a Super Bowl.

I mean you could easily argue that for San Diego - and I really don't think they still have put up a plan that's viable... Yet we've heard atleast one owner, granted it was Mark Davis who has no options; however I think he would love that deal, is $400 million seems to be the gap he's seeking in Oakland

SD has more public money, the site and stadium proposal that would be able to host a Super Bowl.

In regards to the Raiders there has to be a reason why there were a no show for the event in Carson last night and until the financial details of the proposal are released no can say that there's $400 million gap.

 

[RamFan503]

In my opinion based off of the time I was there ('06-'10, drove by their practice site atleast twice a day), the number of Cowboy fans trumped any other fan there, especially if any Ram Fans. That's also including special military days they offered us (in hindsight i wish i would have went to just meet players cause that's pretty cool as it is, but for whatever reason I never had any interest lol...although I think a lot of it had to do the smell of the place every time i drove by)

Except that other teams have held their practices in the LA area besides the cowgirls.

 

[bluecoconuts]

This is probably nothing more than conjecture however I think it might be worth sharing.

Did Randy say if that somebody was actually a somebody and not just a ball boy or something? "Somebody" told that chick in LA that the Rams were announcing they were moving in August too...

 

[iced]

And where is Spanos listed as attending?

http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/sports/San-Diego-Chargers-City-Negotiations-305895891.html

Confirmed attendees in the downtown office tower setting: Mayor Kevin Faulconer, City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, County Supervisor Ron Roberts and the city's negotiating experts, along with Chargers board chairman Dean Spanos and Spanos' special counsel Mark Fabiani.

I would be shocked if the CVC has ever made anywhere near $20 million in net profit in a given year even with the Rams in the Dome. IIRR though, they discussed the potential of a $20 million loss in convention and event business.

Y'know - I think @LesBaker has a pretty good background in this area. Maybe he can chime in. I don't know what some of these conventions even pay to rent a place like that out. Pretty sure he does. And I know for sure he wouldn't hesitate to tell me I'm all wet on this. At least we could then figure out maybe what events the dome has hosted in the past and have an idea.

agreed - i can't recall the numbers, nor do I want to speculate at this point either and put false info...

Put up the @LesBaker bat symbol!

 

[The Ripper]

Is that $20 million a year or $20 million in profit? Because I could have sworn the number was higher if we're talking total revenue; profit would be different because otherwise they could/would be taking in losses

The CVC proposal also had closing of the Dome so their would have been loses for their proposal too.

 

[iced]

It's the return on investment and if you can get a better return in LA even with the additional cost then it's worth it.

Agree with this

There's a quote from the NFL about the Rams going to St Louis that the revenues would be higher in the short term but would suffer on a long term basis and that could be one of the reasons that we haven't seen the NFL assessments for St Louis. The other issue is that the task force had a blueprint for a stadium from Kroenke that they ignored in the Riverfront Stadium and one of the main things he wanted was a stadium that could host a Super Bowl.

This I would like to see - because I kind of feel differently if the Rams and Demoff truly gave their opinions on the last river front update, then why wouldn't they be included?

SD has more public money, the site and stadium proposal that would be able to host a Super Bowl.

In regards to the Raiders there has to be a reason why there were a no show for the event in Carson last night and until the financial details of the proposal are released no can say that there's $400 million gap.

SD's "more public money" is contingent on finding a buyer for their land at that price - and as we all know, negotiations are not where you start but where you finish... And that to me is like Davis finding a buyer for $400 million but only at a minority interest - unless you have someone lined up to buy it, it's not secure (plus the "timeline" for completing the purchase and finding a buyer,when time isn't on their side)

 

[The Ripper]

This I would like to see - because I kind of feel differently if the Rams and Demoff truly gave their opinions on the last river front update, then why wouldn't they be included?

You have posted it. The Rams proposal for arbitration.

SD's "more public money" is contingent on finding a buyer for their land at that price - and as we all know, negotiations are not where you start but where you finish... And that to me is like Davis finding a buyer for $400 million but only at a minority interest - unless you have someone lined up to buy it, it's not secure (plus the "timeline" for completing the purchase and finding a buyer,when time isn't on their side)

It wouldn't be as hard to find a buyer as you think.

Davis wants a minority buyers so he doesn't have to relay on Floyd Kephart. Kephart has said he has the investors and we won't know until it's released. The timeline is Davis's not anyone else's so if he has a deal then it will be delayed.

 

[iced]

It wouldn't be as hard to find a buyer as you think.

I disagree - you have to find a buyer that would be interested, at that particular price, for that site..but more importantly they don't have one listed - their speculation that they could get someone to do it is no different the NFL than Peacock/Nixon believing they will get their bond extensions..Yea they believe it could - but until that money is actually there and present, the NFL isn't going to rely on it - especially since I doubt the owners are going to ask Spanos to "wait and see" while the future of LA is in the balance

 

[iced]

You have posted it. The Rams proposal for arbitration.

what i have posted is that they gave their thoughts into their stadium - not that they rejected Kroenke's requirements for a stadium, nor has he ever made it known..he's never said what he likes or dislikes about the riverfront - if anything, the only perception is that he's never cared for anything in St.Louis.

Hard to imagine/assume he couldn't sit down with the task force and build an awesome stadium as he see's fit; especially if he's willing to spend damn near 2 billion in a different market.