New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamBill]

Bernie Miklasz talks about the NFL meeting with the St. Louis Stadium task force on Thursday.

Listen to Bernie Talk Stadium

 

[The Ripper]

going back to January 11 - $985

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_0b74d08b-1231-5f28-8d3d-6953dfa4f09d.html

It was in the presentation by Peacock plus multiple sources 985 was the max and low of 860 .

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_07b205e5-34cd-5d54-997b-991dce328e84.html

 

[The Ripper]

Its all semantics but considering the funding hasnt been mapped out, and requires a hefty chunk from the owner who seemingly has other plans, its a little unsettling to watch this go over 1 billion already. Imagine what happens once they actually break ground

The other hole when it comes to owner funding is the PSL's. They at least now have moved the PSL's over to the private(Owner/NFL) side but they still use the entire amount as a funding source. It's the owners revenue not Peacock/Nixon and the owner decides how to use it. The direct owner contribution is now 430 million plus the loan which the owner is responsible for and all shortfalls which could come to another $ 100 to $ 200 million.

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2015/07/18/nfl-likely-wont-be-returning-to-anaheim/

NFL likely won’t be returning to Anaheim
Posted by Mike Florio on July 18, 2015

For 15 years, the Los Angeles Rams played in Anaheim. They apparently won’t be returning.

Angels Stadium likely won’t be submitting a proposal to serve as temporary host for an NFL team in L.A., according to Scott Reid of the Orange County Register.

Stadium officials cited scheduling conflicts between baseball and football for September and October games.

With the Rose Bowl also out, it leaves the Coliseum, Dodgers Stadium, and the StubHub Center as the potential options for short-term locations for one or two teams that move to L.A. as their new stadium is being built.

Under the lease to USC, the Coliseum can be used for only one NFL team. But that lease can be changed, especially if someone is willing to pay a lot of money to USC to persuade them to change it.

Of course, Angels Stadium may be trying to do the same thing, playing coy in order to get the NFL to make concessions — or to kick in more cash.

The most intriguing option for a temporary L.A. NFL home continues to be the StubHub Center, which currently has 27,000 seats. AEG, which runs the facility, has not yet decided whether to submit a proposal.

The Raiders, Rams, and Chargers currently are angling for a potential return to Los Angeles, the city where each team once resided.

 

[blue4]

I havent seen any indication that Stan "wants the Broncos". Unless I missed something, the only reason he's connected to the Broncs is because he owns the other 2 teams. I havent seen Kroenke give 2 chits about the bogus cross ownership rule, so I dont see what makes the Broncs an allure. IMO the only connection between the two is pure media speculation.

I meant local Denver talk radio and such, since he lives in Denver.

 

[iced]

From the article you posted, "The 90-acre facility would cost between $860 million and $985 million, the plan estimated."

Its all semantics but considering the funding hasnt been mapped out, and requires a hefty chunk from the owner who seemingly has other plans, its a little unsettling to watch this go over 1 billion already. Imagine what happens once they actually break ground

$200 million from the owner and then $250 in G4 Loan isn't a hefty chunk from the owner. Peacock has mentioned they planned on $400 (used to be $450) in public and $600 million from the NFL, totaling a billion.

I've always looked at this from the high end and numerous times saw articles quoting it at $986 million - to me this is nothing new.

Is there a minimum teams have to spend to avoid the penalties? Yes there is and are the Rams spending just the minimum to avoid the penalties? No they're not they're spending pretty darned close to the cap. My original point was the owner allows the front office to spend money. If he was a frugal guy like say Mark Davis he would tell them to pay just a fraction over the minimum to avoid the fines. Raiders the first year this rule was in affect spent only 69% of the cap and last year they spent only 89% of the cap. As a result the Raiders need to spend 99.3% of the cap each of the next two years minimum or they will have to write checks to all their players for that 4 year period the difference in what they spent and what they should have spent.

That is the point of what I said, our owner doesn't mess with the possibility of that penalty he allows the team to spend their cap. Under Stan the lowest percentage of the cap we've spent was 86.4%, his first year as owner(There was a $3.5 million rollover from the previous year for money unspent.). 2013 we were actually over the cap and in 2014 we spent $131,556,332 of our $131,823,529 cap we left a grand total of $267k.

So because he's following the rules and not subjecting himself to future penalties (Which would be a dumb move) that somehow reinforces your point?

Not in my opinion, but to each his own

 

[The Ripper]

I am not really understanding the point on the salary cap. His US based teams spend the money. The issues or accusations of not spending come out of last summers transfer window with Arsenal. At the annual general last October there were questions in regards to a payment to KSE and that the team was keeping a 50 million pounds in reserves instead of spending on transfer players to keep up with the spending for other clubs. Kroenke was being compared with the Glazers and how they are running Man U. The lack of planning in regards to management.

 

[OldSchool]

So because he's following the rules and not subjecting himself to future penalties (Which would be a dumb move) that somehow reinforces your point?

Not in my opinion, but to each his own

He could be following the rules and spending the bare minimum every year and still not be subjecting himself to the future penalties. All he has to do is spend 90% of the cap each year and he's in the clear.Doing that would save him millions each year, for 2015 only spending 90% would save him $14 million in salaries. My point was and still is he hires sports people to do the sports jobs and doesn't get in the way of them doing it. That is a good owner in my book. I understand it's hard to give him any credit for anything but how he handles the day to day operations as an owner, IE letting the sports people do it, is how a lot of people want an owner to act.

 

[iced]

He could be following the rules and spending the bare minimum every year and still not be subjecting himself to the future penalties. All he has to do is spend 90% of the cap each year and he's in the clear.Doing that would save him millions each year, for 2015 only spending 90% would save him $14 million in salaries. My point was and still is he hires sports people to do the sports jobs and doesn't get in the way of them doing it. That is a good owner in my book. I understand it's hard to give him any credit for anything but how he handles the day to day operations as an owner, IE letting the sports people do it, is how a lot of people want an owner to act.

It's a smart way to do business, by hiring sports guys and let them do the work. Majority of the teams that use this model have success with it. However, his other actions, particularly the ones directed to the fan base, may cause a lot of people to have a different opinion on whether he is "a good owner"

 

[RamFan503]

It is relevant as that's been in effect since 2011. There are some teams that had to spend a lot of money this year or they were facing some serious penalties.

Ahem...Khan....ahem.

 

[iced]

Ahem...Khan....ahem.

Isn't he also one of those owners who stays out of the way?

I don't think there's a question about his financials either - he's put some money into that stadium... Looks like to me he's like Kroenke in that he hired football people and he lets do the work.

I mean hell look at the Eagles - they went extremely cheaper, and chip kelly is getting all the credit for i...

not to many owners meddle into the affairs - only ones i can think of offhand are the broncos, raiders, cowboys, and redskins..

think most of them let their Front office handle the roster and FA - i'm sure they have some input,but i would think most of the credit/criticism should be aimed at the GM's/Front office, not the owners.

 

[dieterbrock]

$200 million from the owner and then $250 in G4 Loan isn't a hefty chunk from the owner. Peacock has mentioned they planned on $400 (used to be $450) in public and $600 million from the NFL, totaling a billion.

I've always looked at this from the high end and numerous times saw articles quoting it at $986 million - to me this is nothing new.



So because he's following the rules and not subjecting himself to future penalties (Which would be a dumb move) that somehow reinforces your point?

Not in my opinion, but to each his own

450 mill from an owner who isnt showing interest in the project is a pretty huge chunk.
And the 860-985 million isnt new but what is new is the fact that the 860 is sure in the rear view mirror, apparently the 985 is too. Cant wait to see what's next. I figure they'll keep it under 1 billion as long as they can. Once that dam bursts, it will get real interesting

 

[iced]

450 mill from an owner who isnt showing interest in the project is a pretty huge chunk.
And the 860-985 million isnt new but what is new is the fact that the 860 is sure in the rear view mirror, apparently the 985 is too. Cant wait to see what's next. I figure they'll keep it under 1 billion as long as they can. Once that dam bursts, it will get real interesting

$450 million pales in comparison to the Two billion plus he'll be spending to get to and build in LA...

And don't forget after the most recent survey they believe they can get $200 Million PSL's, as opposed to the $100-$120 they initially estimated.

 

[RamFan503]

This notion that Kroenke is a good owner is a bit surprising to me. Here in CO, he is very disliked. Avalanche and the Nuggets have been turned into third tier franchises and it never seems like it matters to the kroenke family. He beefs with local fishermen fishing in his giant lake that he bought. There are numorous things that have happened. If we people in CO can get pissed off about small stuff like that, i think the local st. louis residents have a serious gripe that should not be shrugged off.

I think that is interesting. I have friends in Boulder and also one in Denver and he has about the opposite take. In fact it was my buddy in Denver that told me about Kroenke insisting on keeping Karl on at his normal salary while he was going through his medical issues and couldn't coach the team.

People may get pissed about the lake but if he bought the property it sits on, I'm not sure I blame him with what I've seen Joe six pack do to the shores and the lake itself. I fish a lot of areas and it just astounds me the messes some people think is ok to leave. Unfortunately, it only takes a few to ruin it for everyone. I don't know the specific issues on that lake so I'm only making assumptions on that. But if he owns it or the access to it, he owns it.

Stan is spending the money. In fact, he is spending like a drunken sailor on coaching staff and the organization as a whole. The owners first job is spending money on the organization. It's not like owners spend top level money and then tell everyone they don't have to perform as mediocrity is just fine. Just spend my money and we're aces. RIGHT! He's spending the money in Denver and he's spending the money in St Louis.

I'm fine with fans in the Lou not liking the guy as he is potentially making plans to move the team. But I fail to see how what he is doing in Denver as somehow being a bad owner. The fact is that several teams have fallen to mediocrity. Hell - the Lakers are doing it right now. I suppose I don't put that as much on the owner as some. I figure if he is spending the money, he will want results. It may not happen with every regime he puts in place but eventually lightning will strike.

Can't say that aside from the stadium issue that I've seen Stan do anything less than try to build a winner.

So because he's following the rules and not subjecting himself to future penalties (Which would be a dumb move) that somehow reinforces your point?

Not in my opinion, but to each his own

He's not spending the floor, he's spending at or near the cap. He wouldn't have any penalties by spending at the floor. If he is giving Demoff the entire cap to spend - which we see is the case - then he is not being some sort of cheap owner not interested in winning. Of course he is interested in winning it all. Otherwise, he would be spending only what he was required.

It's a smart way to do business, by hiring sports guys and let them do the work. Majority of the teams that use this model have success with it. However, his other actions, particularly the ones directed to the fan base, may cause a lot of people to have a different opinion on whether he is "a good owner"

I might be pissed at him too if I lived in the Lou. Not sure how much canceling one fan event and replacing it with a lower key event would mean to me. It would more have to do with moving the team - of course. But the idea that Stan has somehow insulted the fan base or directed anything negative at the fan base, simply isn't true.

These kinds of negotiations and maneuvers suck for the fan base no matter where they happen. And St Louis is no different than most other NFL markets other than Stan isn't spewing a bunch of rhetoric and negativity like we see in many stadium ordeals.

 

[The Ripper]

$450 million pales in comparison to the Two billion plus he'll be spending to get to and build in LA...

And don't forget after the most recent survey they believe they can get $200 Million PSL's, as opposed to the $100-$120 they initially estimated.

PSL's are still Kroenke's and the sales numbers only have a confidence level of 70% for the current season ticket holders and 39% for new purchasers.

 

[RamFan503]

Isn't he also one of those owners who stays out of the way?

I don't think there's a question about his financials either - he's put some money into that stadium... Looks like to me he's like Kroenke in that he hired football people and he lets do the work.

I mean hell look at the Eagles - they went extremely cheaper, and chip kelly is getting all the credit for i...

not to many owners meddle into the affairs - only ones i can think of offhand are the broncos, raiders, cowboys, and redskins..

think most of them let their Front office handle the roster and FA - i'm sure they have some input,but i would think most of the credit/criticism should be aimed at the GM's/Front office, not the owners.

But in Kroenke's case, it makes him a bad owner in Denver and St Louis. That is the point that was being attempted. It's baseless.

 

[iced]

But in Kroenke's case, it makes him a bad owner in Denver and St Louis. That is the point that was being attempted. It's baseless.

Not a point made by me - my only contention was him "Spending money in Free agency makes him a good owner" isn't so

 

[iced]

I might be pissed at him too if I lived in the Lou. Not sure how much canceling one fan event and replacing it with a lower key event would mean to me. It would more have to do with moving the team - of course. But the idea that Stan has somehow insulted the fan base or directed anything negative at the fan base, simply isn't true.

These kinds of negotiations and maneuvers suck for the fan base no matter where they happen. And St Louis is no different than most other NFL markets other than Stan isn't spewing a bunch of rhetoric and negativity like we see in many stadium ordeals.

It's not just as simple as cancelling one fan event - it's also the moving of practices to the place that he's rumored to be moving too...taking away fan events and practices local fans could attend..

You may not think its a big deal - but i'd bet my bottom dollar that people in St.Louis do, and you will hear about it more and more the closer we get to it. Bet on it

He's not spending the floor, he's spending at or near the cap. He wouldn't have any penalties by spending at the floor. If he is giving Demoff the entire cap to spend - which we see is the case - then he is not being some sort of cheap owner not interested in winning. Of course he is interested in winning it all. Otherwise, he would be spending only what he was required.

requoting myself

"think most of them let their Front office handle the roster and FA - i'm sure they have some input,but i would think most of the credit/criticism should be aimed at the GM's/Front office, not the owners."

 

[dieterbrock]

I don't see how it's not relevant? The NBA and NHL also have salary cap floors, and both the Nuggets and Avalanche spend pretty close to the cap ceiling. They don't have issues spending with getting money to spend, and Kroenke wasn't exactly pulling the trigger on the Ryan O'Reilly trade or anything like that.

Kroenke fired coach of the year George Karl because he couldnt get past 1st round of playoffs. Paid his salary and hired the "it" guy Brian Shaw whom was just fired. So I dont know anything about the soccer but I havent seen him reluctant to spend a buck

 

[RamFan503]

Not a point made by me - my only contention was him "Spending money in Free agency makes him a good owner" isn't so

Haven't seen FA come up but even you said the model is a good one. Hire Basketball, Hockey, Football people, let them spend the money and stay out of the way. The point that started all of this was the suggestion that he is hated in Denver for being a bad owner and ruining the teams. Last I heard, there was no issue with moving a team in Denver. So the point was being proffered based on what he has done in Denver. Doesn't appear to be a valid argument.