New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[bluecoconuts]

Been part of their Carson plan from the get go

So Goldman Sachs is going to fund more than 2 billion dollars into three stadiums? I don't think so. I know they said they would cover losses including upgrades to temporary stadiums if needed, but I still don't think they do to any substantial improvements. Again though, that's not what I'm talking about, it's just the length of staying in a temporary venue.

Exactly why I don't think time is a factor - waiting a couple years will pale in comparison to the revenue streams they can/will capitalize on, particularly those tv contracts. I think that's the real deadline the NFL would have in mind

Those are things they get in Inglewood, plus more, and it's done faster. Dicking around in temporary venues that the NFL already don't really like, and the venues are already iffy about renting to the Raiders, for four years while they try to settle all the missteps by the Carson government, and build on a toxic dump in a less than ideal location, doesn't exactly scream getting it right.

 

[bluecoconuts]

To add to this, how bad must the site be to reclaim that they wouldn't even build a Walmart there!

Was it because the citizens didn't want it (like in Inglewood) or something else?

 

[RamFan503]

To add to this, how bad must the site be to reclaim that they wouldn't even build a Walmart there!

Humor aside, I would think the real question is - How much does Stan know about the site and what will he be able to tell other owners if he has any damning information. They have to realize he chose the Inglewood site over that site. Why? Wouldn't you want to know if you were deciding on which site will take LA?

 

[RamFan503]

I'm pretty sure Walmart failed to build on the Inglewood site too.

Yep. Got voted down. And that may indeed be what happened in Carson. I have my doubts Carson votes down ANYTHING for that property but I really don't know.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Humor aside, I would think the real question is - How much does Stan know about the site and what will he be able to tell other owners if he has any damning information. They have to realize he chose the Inglewood site over that site. Why? Wouldn't you want to know if you were deciding on which site will take LA?

Same token, he could also point out that Spanos' first choice was Inglewood... He just dragged his feat for so long Kroenke went at it alone.

 

[OldSchool]

I'm pretty sure Walmart failed to build on the Inglewood site too.

They couldn't get zoning approval. Different than not wanting to build on a site.

 

[OldSchool]

Same token, he could also point out that Spanos' first choice was Inglewood... He just dragged his feat for so long Kroenke went at it alone.

Something that doesn't get pointed out enough. Stan and Spanos talked about going in on Inglewood together. Then Spanos treated Stan like he was a San Diego politician and just said no and went on to make a deal with another owner.

 

[ChrisW]

They couldn't get zoning approval. Different than not wanting to build on a site.

Do you have a source as to the reason why it wasn't built on the Carson site? I'd like to compare it to the reason it wasn't built in Inglewood.

 

[dbrooks25]

That's an opinion. But I find it hard to believe that top tier status won't at least be part of the approval criteria for the new stadium. I'm not saying that there will be a clause like the dome but that when the project is approved and built, it will likely have to reach that status. It may be the only way the NFL can approve the new stadium, make a case to turn down Stan in his quest to the west, and save face among the owners. If the project falls short of doing that, I think the project is going nowhere.

Of course, it's my opinion. Top tier status could be a part of the approval criteria, but to say that Peacock and Co. should have gone off of Kroenke's proposal during arbitration is off, imo. That was my original point.

 

[OldSchool]

Do you have a source as to the reason why it wasn't built on the Carson site? I'd like to compare it to the reason it wasn't built in Inglewood.

I quoted somebody else making that statement. I do recall reading many articles when Stan first purchased the portion of the Inglewood stadium site that it was initially owned by Walmart but when they couldn't get approval to build a store there so he bought that land. As for Carson ask who I initially quoted.

 

[OldSchool]

Do you have a source as to the reason why it wasn't built on the Carson site? I'd like to compare it to the reason it wasn't built in Inglewood.

And beat you to the punch on asking for proof on the Inglewood comment.

http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/st...-buy-getting-stadium-talks-going-again-013114

Kroenke is a brilliant businessman who made what figures to be another smart business deal. That patch of Earth was previously owned by Wal-Mart, which failed to get public approval for a superstore there, according to the Times. The newspaper reported that the owners of the neighboring Forum had planned to buy the land for parking or additional development.

This should be common knowledge as the rallying cry was he was just buying land his that his wife's company couldn't build on no big deal and all that stuff.

 

[ChrisW]

And beat you to the punch on asking for proof on the Inglewood comment.

http://www.foxsports.com/midwest/st...-buy-getting-stadium-talks-going-again-013114



This should be common knowledge as the rallying cry was he was just buying land his that his wife's company couldn't build on no big deal and all that stuff.

Right, I know about this. I need the reason why it was shot down by Carson.

 

[iced]

Can't see it. If the Carson project is feared to take 4 years IMO they really dock it points. 5 years? Dead in the water. Just my opinion of course but I can't see the NFL wanting a team to play in a temporary stadium for that long. When has that ever been the case?

if they plan on being there for 20+ years and the revenue with Carson is that much more over inglewood (2 teams over 1), it'll be worth it over time.

 

[iced]

So Goldman Sachs is going to fund more than 2 billion dollars into three stadiums? I don't think so. I know they said they would cover losses including upgrades to temporary stadiums if needed, but I still don't think they do to any substantial improvements. Again though, that's not what I'm talking about, it's just the length of staying in a temporary venue.

I'm not going to assume what they will or won't do - I'll go off of their word since its directly come from Goldman Sachs and not some source. how much they put into the renovations remains to be determined - haven't even gotten to that stadium plan yet.

Those are things they get in Inglewood, plus more, and it's done faster. Dicking around in temporary venues that the NFL already don't really like, and the venues are already iffy about renting to the Raiders, for four years while they try to settle all the missteps by the Carson government, and build on a toxic dump in a less than ideal location, doesn't exactly scream getting it right.

You're not going to avoid a temporary venue no matter what - Rams still have to play somewhere while Inglewood is built, and that itself is going to take time.

Faster doesn't mean better - particularly when Carson would make more money over time for the NFL owners than Inglewood as it currently stands

 

[bluecoconuts]

You're not going to avoid a temporary venue no matter what - Rams still have to play somewhere while Inglewood is built, and that itself is going to take time.

Faster doesn't mean better - particularly when Carson would make more money over time for the NFL owners than Inglewood as it currently stands

Of course the Rams will have to play in a temporary venue, but playing in one for two years is a lot different than four or more years. Inglewood also brings in more money with two teams than Carson does with two teams, and offers more benefits than Carson does in terms of the surrounding developments. And Carson would be operating in the red for 30 years, Inglewood doesn't have that issue.

It's widely reported that Inglewood would house two teams, the Rams and either the Chargers or Raiders. If both of those teams get their own new stadiums and Inglewood happens then the NFL would rather that over Carson, and if one of those teams gets a new stadium and the other moves into Inglewood, then they get more money than Carson. If neither of them get a new stadium, then one moves into Inglewood and Kroenke has agreed to help the other. Either way the NFL gets more than they do with Carson.

 

[OldSchool]

if they plan on being there for 20+ years and the revenue with Carson is that much more over inglewood (2 teams over 1), it'll be worth it over time.

The initial plan was for a 40 year lease. And no matter which LA stadium gets built it's the revenues of all 3 teams no matter where each ends up playing.

 

[iced]

Of course the Rams will have to play in a temporary venue, but playing in one for two years is a lot different than four or more years. Inglewood also brings in more money with two teams than Carson does with two teams, and offers more benefits than Carson does in terms of the surrounding developments. And Carson would be operating in the red for 30 years, Inglewood doesn't have that issue.

It's widely reported that Inglewood would house two teams, the Rams and either the Chargers or Raiders. If both of those teams get their own new stadiums and Inglewood happens then the NFL would rather that over Carson, and if one of those teams gets a new stadium and the other moves into Inglewood, then they get more money than Carson. If neither of them get a new stadium, then one moves into Inglewood and Kroenke has agreed to help the other. Either way the NFL gets more than they do with Carson.

Can and will house are 2 completely issues - and i think you can forget Spanos working with Kroenke, especially if you put stock in Roggin's opinion. Davis is the only wild card, but we see he has an inclination to work with Spanos. Just depends on if Kroenke can lure him away from Spanos.

And I don't agree that Inglewood with 2 teams makes more money than Carson - I believe they're about the same because the TV deals are going to be the same regardless of the stadium. It's the right to air the games.

 

[iced]

The initial plan was for a 40 year lease. And no matter which LA stadium gets built it's the revenues of all 3 teams no matter where each ends up playing.

except there's more money with 2 teams in LA over one - more home games to air = more money from TV and advertisers

 

[OldSchool]

except there's more money with 2 teams in LA over one - more home games to air = more money from TV and advertisers

Theoretically, either way the net money earned by the NFL will be evaluated with all three teams no matter where they end up. Also judging by my ventures into Charger forums/websites if they move to LA they stand to lose a large chunk of their fan base.

 

[OldSchool]

Can and will house are 2 completely issues - and i think you can forget Spanos working with Kroenke, especially if you put stock in Roggin's opinion. Davis is the only wild card, but we see he has an inclination to work with Spanos. Just depends on if Kroenke can lure him away from Spanos.

And I don't agree that Inglewood with 2 teams makes more money than Carson - I believe they're about the same because the TV deals are going to be the same regardless of the stadium. It's the right to air the games.

Inglewood's plans right now call for 2 teams. It's been posted here many times.