New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ramfaninsd]

20 years ago -

the same guidelines they're going to apply to oakland and san diego? I mean this important for those who put stock in Roggin's "connections" or "opinion"

Still can't wait to see what happens if the financing comes through and the NFL allows a move.. a finger to St.Louis twice in 25 years especially with that much public money on the table?

Lol good luck with future public funding

wouldn't be a shock at all to see future owners have to negotiate less or none at all...particularly those in smaller markets

san diego has a proposal with alot of public money on the table too but the chargers even though they meet with csag reject and criticize. i hardly call that meeting the guidelines.

 

[Goose]

Exclusive: Oakland stadium deal "worst by far" for Raiders, experts say
By Matthew Artz martz@bayareanewsgroup.com ©Copyright 2015, Bay Area News Group
POSTED: 06/26/2015 11:38:16 PM PDT39 COMMENTS| UPDATED: ABOUT 10 HOURS AGO

OAKLAND -- The long-awaited financing plan for a new Raiders stadium is a lousy deal for the team and will make a potential return to Los Angeles look even more attractive, stadium finance experts said after being briefed on the proposal obtained by the Bay Area News Group.


The plan, submitted to Oakland and Alameda County leaders Monday by San Diego-based businessman Floyd Kephart, includes a provision that the Raiders sell 20 percent of the club to Kephart's New City Development, LLC for $200 million.

That transaction would be a bargain for Kephart's firm, but it's hardly the only red flag for the Raiders, said Marc Ganis, president of the consulting firm SportsCorp Ltd. and a veteran of numerous NFL stadium deals, including the one that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles.



Football fans listen to the national anthem before an Oakland Raiders' game against the Buffalo Bills at the O.co Coliseum in Oakland on Dec. 21, 2014. (Nhat V. Meyer/Bay Area News Group)

"This is not just the worst stadium proposal I've seen," he said. "It's the worst by far."

The proposed $900 million, 55,000-seat facility adjacent to the O.co Coliseum would be financed entirely by the Raiders, the NFL and future stadium revenues. The Raiders would have to dip into sponsorship revenue and naming rights fees to help repay $300 million in loans needed to offset an estimated funding gap.

And, other than parking garages, the stadium would get no subsidy from the surrounding "live-work-play" technology campus Kephart plans to build on the rest of the sprawling Coliseum complex. The plan includes 4,000 homes, a shopping center, 400 hotel rooms and several office buildings.

"I can't think of any sports team owner that would take a proposal like this even remotely seriously," Ganis said, noting that San Diego has proposed a major public subsidy for a new Chargers football stadium. "It's so one-sided and so bad, that it's almost as if local leaders are saying 'we can't really do anything, so go ahead and leave.' "

Raiders officials did not return calls Friday, and Kephart declined to comment.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said she could not comment because "Kephart's submittal is confidential." The City Council is scheduled to discuss the plan Tuesday in a private meeting. If the council and Alameda County Board of Supervisors sign off on it, they would then begin negotiations with the Raiders in hopes of building a new stadium by 2020.

Local officials turned to Kephart late last year to resuscitate the project known as Coliseum City after two major developers gave up on it.

The project has always been a difficult balancing act.

Kephart must satisfy the Raiders, who are working with the San Diego Chargers on a $1.7 billion stadium in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson, where more corporate money is expected to be available to offset construction costs.


Oakland Raiders fans cheer during a preseason NFL game against the Oakland Raiders at O.co Coliseum in Oakland on Aug. 15, 2014. (Ray Chavez/Bay Area News Group)
And he must satisfy local officials who are adamant about not helping pay for a stadium after taxpayers took a bath on the deal that brought the Raiders back from Los Angeles two decades ago.

Further complicating matters, the Oakland A's are also considering a new stadium at the Coliseum site but have ruled out building one next to a new football stadium or working with Kephart.

Kephart's solution, laid out in a 19-page presentation obtained by this paper, is a $4.2 billion development with the following provisions:

• Kephart's New City Development would purchase about 90 acres at the Coliseum site from the city and county for $116 million.

• The city and county would use $80 million from the land sale toward the construction of parking garages needed to serve the proposed homes, shops and offices.

• New City would reserve a parcel through Jan. 1, 2019, as a possible stadium site for the Oakland A's.

• Infrastructure improvements are projected at $100 million, with the money coming from grants.
  
  As for building the $900 million stadium, $200 million would come from the NFL and another $200 million would come from the sale of seat licenses to season ticket holders, with the Raiders responsible if the revenue doesn't materialize.
  
  In addition to $300 million in borrowed funding, the Raiders would contribute $100 million of their own money and another $100 million by investing half the proceeds of selling a piece of the team to New City.
  
  Sports business analysts said they couldn't recall another stadium deal that required an NFL owner to essentially self-fund a stadium and sell off a piece of the team to do it.
  
  "This does create a scenario by which Los Angeles becomes more attractive," said Robert Boland, a professor of sports business at New York University.
  
  The proposal did not mention whether the team or city would be responsible for cost overruns. It also didn't name Kephart's financial partner, although sources have said that it is The Baupost Group, a major Boston-based hedge fund.
  
  
  deal points

• New City buys 20 percent of Raiders for $200 million.

• New City buys most of Coliseum site for $116 million, based on recent appraisal.

• City leases land under stadium to Raiders for $250,000 per year.

• City and county put $80 million from land sale toward parking garages. New City puts $107 million toward parking garages.

• City and county are responsible for paying the nearly $100 million in debt on O.co Coliseum from prior renovation.

• City and county can issue new bonds to pay for community benefits such as affordable housing.

• Oakland A's will have a space for a ballpark development reserved until Jan. 1, 2019.

• The Golden State Warriors will be allowed to extend their lease at Oracle Arena.

• Football stadium to be completed by 2019; hotel to be completed by 2020; housing, retail, office to be completed by 2022.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/breaki...ive-oakland-stadium-deal-worst-by-far-raiders

 

[OldSchool]

Looks like a pretty favorable deal honestly. That's less money than they're saying they'd pay in Carson. Davis has already said he's willing to sell a minority share of the company to pay for a stadium.

 

[bubbaramfan]

I'm confused. St. Louis wants to build a stadium, (currently called the Ed Jones Dome). So they put it to the voters to approve funding for it. It passes, they build the Dome. Now St. Louis wants another stadium. This time they do everything they can to Not put it to a vote. Is there anyone who can explain this logic?
This kind of thinking won't help St. Louis when the NFL owners make a decision. Its not going to help them that they made a contract with the Rams to bring them there, and then did not live up to it. Why make a promise you know you can't keep? (keeping the ED in top tier of stadiums) If they started thinking about a stadium as early as 2011, they had plenty of time to put that up for a vote. Oh, I forgot, you can only vote for the first stadium, you just have to take and pay for the second one because you voted for us and we know what's best for you. I just love that logic.

 

[dbrooks25]

I'm confused. St. Louis wants to build a stadium, (currently called the Ed Jones Dome). So they put it to the voters to approve funding for it. It passes, they build the Dome. Now St. Louis wants another stadium. This time they do everything they can to Not put it to a vote. Is there anyone who can explain this logic?
This kind of thinking won't help St. Louis when the NFL owners make a decision. Its not going to help them that they made a contract with the Rams to bring them there, and then did not live up to it. Why make a promise you know you can't keep? (keeping the ED in top tier of stadiums) If they started thinking about a stadium as early as 2011, they had plenty of time to put that up for a vote. Oh, I forgot, you can only vote for the first stadium, you just have to take and pay for the second one because you voted for us and we know what's best for you. I just love that logic.

Not for you to worry about, let this be a concern for the citizens of St. Louis. Again, the majority who seem to be concerned about this the most are people who don't even live in the St. Louis area. I do wish this thing could have been put to a vote just to shut some people up, though. I have no doubts that it would have passed.

 

[Big Willie]

Well, they play games in London. Seems to me the NFL is at least considering adding out of country markets to their brand. I could happen one day.

I think if/when it happens in London, the league would control the process because of the scheduling and time zone issues. I think London happens though expansion, not the relocation of an existing franchise.

 

[The Ripper]

I think if/when it happens in London, the league would control the process because of the scheduling and time zone issues. I think London happens though expansion, not the relocation of an existing franchise.

Bigger issues than scheduling, the CBA doesn't comply with the labor laws.

 

[RamFan503]

Not for you to worry about, let this be a concern for the citizens of St. Louis.

Let's not go with attitude - eh? Any member is free to discuss the issues surrounding the stadium and possible relocation of our team. And like it or not, there are still questions surrounding this issue.

 

[RamFan503]

Oh, I forgot, you can only vote for the first stadium, you just have to take and pay for the second one because you voted for us and we know what's best for you. I just love that logic.

Your post certainly could have gone without this bit of snarky finale.

 

[tonyl711]

Not for you to worry about, let this be a concern for the citizens of St. Louis. Again, the majority who seem to be concerned about this the most are people who don't even live in the St. Louis area. I do wish this thing could have been put to a vote just to shut some people up, though. I have no doubts that it would have passed.

i love how these people think St Louis try to put down every thing we have done to get a new stadium built, i guess they think every other stadium but ours is done in only the most honorable way there is, but us damn St Louisians have the gall to circumvent a vote that is not needed, how dare us? but you know what? try to call us out all you want because our stadium plan is farther along than any of the others who have had twice as much time to deal with this.

 

[The Ripper]

i love how these people think St Louis try to put down every thing we have done to get a new stadium built, i guess they think every other stadium but ours is done in only the most honorable way there is, but us damn St Louisians have the gall to circumvent a vote that is not needed, how dare us? but you know what? try to call us out all you want because our stadium plan is farther along than any of the others who have had twice as much time to deal with this.

Twice as much time St Louis has had since 2005 and in 2007 it was made very clear when Georgia wouldn't agree to waive the top tier requirement again in 2015.

 

[dbrooks25]

Let's not go with attitude - eh? Any member is free to discuss the issues surrounding the stadium and possible relocation of our team. And like it or not, there are still questions surrounding this issue.

Yeah, I hear you. That kinda stuff gets under my skin a little is all. It's all good.

 

[dbrooks25]

Twice as much time St Louis has had since 2005 and in 2007 it was made very clear when Georgia wouldn't agree to waive the top tier requirement again in 2015.

Man please, who thinks about putting up another stadium 10 years after building the first one? I'm pretty tired of this being brought up. The first tier clause is why we are here, no denying that, but c'mon.

 

[RamFan503]

Yeah, I hear you. That kinda stuff gets under my skin a little is all. It's all good.

Yeah man. I get yuh. I just need to bring it up when I see it. You've been a great part of the back and forth here. I don't want to stymie that. Thanks for the response.

 

[RamFan503]

Twice as much time St Louis has had since 2005 and in 2007 it was made very clear when Georgia wouldn't agree to waive the top tier requirement again in 2015.

Man please, who thinks about putting up another stadium 10 years after building the first one? I'm pretty tired of this being brought up. The first tier clause is why we are here, no denying that, but c'mon.

It's pretty hard to figure which topic has been beat to death the most but that one is right up there.

Sure can't wait for some sort of decision in all of this.

 

[DthOn2Legs]

I think if/when it happens in London, the league would control the process because of the scheduling and time zone issues. I think London happens though expansion, not the relocation of an existing franchise.

When London happens, the NFL is going to corrupt some processes to help ensure that team is successful as early as possible. Mark it down.

 

[The Ripper]

Man please, who thinks about putting up another stadium 10 years after building the first one? I'm pretty tired of this being brought up. The first tier clause is why we are here, no denying that, but c'mon.

It's equally valid or invalid the same way as SD. The 14 years has been disputed there the same way as the timeline in ST Louis

 

[dbrooks25]

It's equally valid or invalid the same way as SD. The 14 years has been disputed there the same way as the timeline in ST Louis

Yeah, I don't like comparing San Diego's situation with St. Louis'. Say what you want, but the fact is the Chargers have been trying to get San Diego to build a stadium much longer and we're talking about a stadium that was built in 1967.

 

[blue4]

I don't live in SD. I don't know the ins and outs there. I know the stadium is old. I think it's been at least ten years since they started talking about a new stadium, I remember reading about it. I don't know who's at fault for no stadium being built.

What I do know is comparing STL situation with SD is comparing apples to doughnuts. There is no similarities other than both cities are now involved in this mess. I know that wondering why and criticizing St Louis for not starting plans on a new stadium in 2005 is silly. We were one year from the playoffs, the dome rocked every Sunday, and the facility was a mere ten years old. The bathrooms were still in mint condition for God's sake. So I can't speak for SD, but the criticism on this is invalid. Because it's completely divorced from reality. Top tier? Certainly open for criticizing, hindsight it was dumb, born of desperation. But to criticize for not starting in 2005 is completely invalid.

People forget that, while we are the 21st size market and have a few million people around here, the people who are building and paying for the new stadium are only about 350,000. Things are going to get creative. There are far more crooked deals trying to shovel in Stan's Wal-Mart's then what's going on to build this stadium.

Let's also not underestimate the importance of committed owner. I imagine if it was still Georgia either the dome would still be in play with some modest improvements or the g4 loan would have already cleared and Riverfront would be underway. Not because she was a good and fair person, because she wanted to be here. We're not only fighting the realities of a small city building a stadium, we're fighting an ownership that works to stymie our efforts. Does anyone really think if a vote were to happen that Stan and his money wouldn't be quietly involved with ads and support for the opposition? That the principals of democracy would hold sway and no outside money from interest groups would be used to run campaigns?

So, trying to compare us to SD or Oakland isn't fair. What they have to do is easier. Just float a decent plan, and their owners will stay. We've already done enough here to satisfy what Davis and the Raiders want from Oakland for sure.