New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Or negotiating? For

The only thing you can say about the Riverfront right now is the court issues - that's it. And numerous times I have said that is up in the air

If that's the case why isn't the financing done. There's no injunction or anything preventing it. What are the revenue streams to the team? Yes, that's one of the key components of viability since if the revenue streams aren't certain financing doesn't matter

With contingencies - for example, having quoting the $225 million they believe they can sell some of the land at without a buyer, which is a guess at its best. Who picks up the tab if they don't get a buyer at their price or at all? That is not the definition of having financing secure.

(And that's not even getting into other issues such as rent)

Sorry, the land will sell. Do you know anyone in real estate in San Diego?

The Chargers are the only team that doesn't pay rent so now they will need to pay, so what, every other team does and they have identified other revenue streams that can pay for the maintenance.

Kroenke knew the CVC would never take such a high deal...It wasn't realistic. He made a huge offer to trigger the clause in the lease and got it. The CVC's offer wasn't realistic either - I'm not a fan of how that situation played out but I don't think either were truly interested in upgrading the dome.

So what. The lease was painstakingly negotiated by both sides and the only requirement was that it complied with the top tier standard. The CVC never had any intention of complying with the lease.

I have a hard time believing the NFL has been working with the city for so long and encouraging Peacock and Blitz just to say "Nope they're leaving", especially again, with them having the only viable stadium come december (assuming Peacock and Blitz get everything wrapped).

Grubman already said that could happen. St Louis could have everything completed but the long term revenues may not be enough to keep the team

NFL will always encourage a city to build a stadium. San Antonio is a great example.

How would it be viable if the owner isn't excited about it which is another one of the things

 

[The Ripper]

Didn't Arsenal just win the FA Cup for the second consecutive year?

That's just a tournament of all the clubs in England and Wales. They finished 3rd in the EPL which is all that matters because they qualify directly into the Champions league and 4th has to play in a playoff to qualify or go to the Europa League.

 

[OldSchool]

That's just a tournament of all the clubs in England and Wales. They finished 3rd in the EPL which is all that matters because they qualify directly into the Champions league and 4th has to play in a playoff to qualify or go to the Europa League.

Just a tournament with a 2 million pound prize They've also won it more than any other club now. Granted it's not the EPL title but it's a nice win. Especially to win it in front of the Prince like that who's favorite team you just crushed haha.

 

[The Ripper]

Just a tournament with a 2 million pound prize They've also won it more than any other club now. Granted it's not the EPL title but it's a nice win. Especially to win it in front of the Prince like that who's favorite team you just crushed haha.

I am a Liverpool fan so I can't give anything to Arsenal.

 

[RamFan503]

The only thing you can say about the Riverfront right now is the court issues - that's it. And numerous times I have said that is up in the air

Only because we don't have Fabiani shitting on everything that is proposed. Sorry but KD has proposed changes and even Peacock has said that they incorporated some of the Ram's suggestions. We don't know enough details to know what might come up after the court decisions. We also have a very vague picture of the real financials for the stadium/city/owner.

Parking, seating, lack of Superbowls, revenue streams, could all be issues creating stumbling blocks. Yet KD is not airing dirty laundry and for the most part I appreciate that neither is Peacock.

With contingencies - for example, having quoting the $225 million they believe they can sell some of the land at without a buyer, which is a guess at its best. Who picks up the tab if they don't get a buyer at their price or at all? That is not the definition of having financing secure.

(And that's not even getting into other issues such as rent)

You assume it is a guess. You have no idea what they are basing it on. Hell, they could have a pretty rock solid idea of what that property would go for and they could sell it at fire sale price for that. You just don't know. I don't even think I've seen Fabiani say that the property wasn't worth that. If I had to guess, that # is pretty damn close to its value in that area and being linked to a new stadium.

And who picks up the tab if there are overages on the Riverfront Stadium? It really is the same thing. Underage, overage, it's just a question that is yet to be unresolved as far as we can see.

As far as rent goes.... How much is the Stadium Authority expecting from Stan? I think I missed that figure.

Kroenke knew the CVC would never take such a high deal...It wasn't realistic. He made a huge offer to trigger the clause in the lease and got it. The CVC's offer wasn't realistic either - I'm not a fan of how that situation played out but I don't think either were truly interested in upgrading the dome.

And yet the CVC totally low balled it. Is that really going to tell the NFL that this same pseudo government agency that will be responsible for the new stadium holds the level of the stadium in as much import as do they? Does it give them a positive impression of what the future holds? I can't think that it helps.

I have a hard time believing the NFL has been working with the city for so long and encouraging Peacock and Blitz just to say "Nope they're leaving", especially again, with them having the only viable stadium come december (assuming Peacock and Blitz get everything wrapped).

And yet you seem to gloss over the fact that the city of SD said the NFL encouraged them to keep working in spite of the lack of support or help from the Chargers. How is that not the same thing?

 

[RamFan503]

I am a Liverpool fan so I can't give anything to Arsenal.

And yet they were in it, Manchester United plays in it, Newcastle U, and many of the top clubs in the world. So - it at minimum would be on a level of winning your conference if not higher.

Just sayin' - it doesn't exactly say loser.

 

[drasconis]

What isn't true? That St. Louis entered into a contract they knew they couldn't uphold? Or that a judge sided with Stan Kroenke and ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome, which they decided not to do?

both of those actually, but you have gone down this path several times in this thread...and continue to ignore the facts given....

 

[The Ripper]

both of those actually, but you have gone down this path several times in this thread...and continue to ignore the facts given....

What would those facts be? That the lease contained 2 measuring dates that the CVC didn't prepare for. In other words that in 20 years there has been no major renovations outside of the $30 million in in maintenance that the Rams agreed to in order to bring the arbitration process into the lease.

 

[tonyl711]

Man, you can't quit beating that arbitration drum, can you? Oh, and btw, no judge ordered the CVC to upgrade the Dome. Nitpicking? Yes, it is, but when you're wrong, you're wrong.

St. Louis will have a viable stadium plan on the table and I doubt the NFL will look back at the arbitration in the EJD when making their decision on who will be in L.A. They could use the arb as an excuse that Stan negotiated in good faith, sure, but that's where the arb case will likely end. I know you're pro L.A., but damn. I see you're one of those types who can't be for L.A. without bashing Stl and their efforts.

i also wonder what there people were saying when Georgia did the exact same thing? she didnt like what was offered so she left, but she is a super villion, Stan does it and he is a hero. biased much?

 

[tonyl711]

He's not bashing St Louis. He's just stating that Bernie is wrong. St Louis (CVC) did NOT do all it could to keep the Rams. Had the CVC done all it could, Kroenke would still be tied to the 30 year lease.
Also, how convenient that Bernie didn't give any of the details of the Chargers vs San Diego situation. All he said was that the Chargers don;t like what the City had to offer. By that logic, Kroenke should be able to relocate to LA is he doesn't like what St Louis is offering.

you want details on Chargers and Raiders? ok, niether city has a suitable stadium plan, St Louis does, easy enough.

 

[tonyl711]

Wow Wow Wow and so is the Riverfront proposal. The reason it hasn't been picked apart is because Kroenke isn't talking. The rest of the first paragraph applies to St Louis too. The other thing you forgot to mention which is something that needs to be certain and is more important the teams revenues.



That proposal has more public money and they have the land.



Not unrealistic. Really it complied with the first tier standard, which was the only requirement for the lease. The CVC's proposal also would have closed the Dome for a year so that argument doesn't hold water.



Of course they will. Plenty of other teams have similar requirements in their leases and the NFL would be invalidating those leases too. Also if the NFL had issues with the terms of the lease then they would have changed them in 2007 to remove the Rams right to negotiate and sign a lease with anyone and the right to relocate from the Dome.

wow wow wow, the NFL itself has stated that the Chargers proposal wasnt good enough, and Oakland doesnt even have a real proposal. yet the NFL has been nothing but complimentary to the St Louis proposal, hmmmmmm

 

[tonyl711]

Or negotiating? For

The only thing you can say about the Riverfront right now is the court issues - that's it. And numerous times I have said that is up in the air



With contingencies - for example, having quoting the $225 million they believe they can sell some of the land at without a buyer, which is a guess at its best. Who picks up the tab if they don't get a buyer at their price or at all? That is not the definition of having financing secure.

(And that's not even getting into other issues such as rent)



Kroenke knew the CVC would never take such a high deal...It wasn't realistic. He made a huge offer to trigger the clause in the lease and got it. The CVC's offer wasn't realistic either - I'm not a fan of how that situation played out but I don't think either were truly interested in upgrading the dome.




I have a hard time believing the NFL has been working with the city for so long and encouraging Peacock and Blitz just to say "Nope they're leaving", especially again, with them having the only viable stadium come december (assuming Peacock and Blitz get everything wrapped).

he wanted the CVC to pay 700 million for upgrades when a new stadium is only 300 million cheaper, and you think thats fair negotiations? he didnt want a deal thats why he went unrealistic.

 

[-X-]

 

[tonyl711]

Only because we don't have Fabiani crapping on everything that is proposed. Sorry but KD has proposed changes and even Peacock has said that they incorporated some of the Ram's suggestions. We don't know enough details to know what might come up after the court decisions. We also have a very vague picture of the real financials for the stadium/city/owner.

Parking, seating, lack of Superbowls, revenue streams, could all be issues creating stumbling blocks. Yet KD is not airing dirty laundry and for the most part I appreciate that neither is Peacock.


You assume it is a guess. You have no idea what they are basing it on. Hell, they could have a pretty rock solid idea of what that property would go for and they could sell it at fire sale price for that. You just don't know. I don't even think I've seen Fabiani say that the property wasn't worth that. If I had to guess, that # is pretty damn close to its value in that area and being linked to a new stadium.

And who picks up the tab if there are overages on the Riverfront Stadium? It really is the same thing. Underage, overage, it's just a question that is yet to be unresolved as far as we can see.

As far as rent goes.... How much is the Stadium Authority expecting from Stan? I think I missed that figure.

And yet the CVC totally low balled it. Is that really going to tell the NFL that this same pseudo government agency that will be responsible for the new stadium holds the level of the stadium in as much import as do they? Does it give them a positive impression of what the future holds? I can't think that it helps.


And yet you seem to gloss over the fact that the city of SD said the NFL encouraged them to keep working in spite of the lack of support or help from the Chargers. How is that not the same thing?

and yet you gloss over the fact that the Chargers have been looking for a new stadium for at least 10 years now, and still have nothing acceptable. gloss over the fact that St Louis has stepped up and have a stadium planned that the NFL has said is a very good one, ever heard that about SD?

 

[tonyl711]

both of those actually, but you have gone down this path several times in this thread...and continue to ignore the facts given....

and will continue to fo so im sure

 

[bluecoconuts]

I have a hard time believing the NFL has been working with the city for so long and encouraging Peacock and Blitz just to say "Nope they're leaving", especially again, with them having the only viable stadium come december (assuming Peacock and Blitz get everything wrapped).

The NFL has worked with the city of Los Angeles for over 20 years to get something done and every time they got close they had to say "Oh well" until finally an owner (now three) came forward and imitated a move. If they're willing to do it to LA they're willing to do it to St Louis and anyone else. St Louis isn't the first and wont be the last city to work with the NFL, and potentially have it fall apart.

 

[The Ripper]

he wanted the CVC to pay 700 million for upgrades when a new stadium is only 300 million cheaper, and you think thats fair negotiations? he didnt want a deal thats why he went unrealistic.

Yes, that was the agreement and the CVC had 2 opportunities to come up with a proposal to satisfy the lease, both didn't even come close. The situation would have been different and much cheaper if they took the 2005 measuring date seriously

and yet you gloss over the fact that the Chargers have been looking for a new stadium for at least 10 years now, and still have nothing acceptable. gloss over the fact that St Louis has stepped up and have a stadium planned that the NFL has said is a very good one, ever heard that about SD?

I guess you haven't looked at any of the "proposals" from the Chargers. One would force the closing of a power plant in a state where they don't have enough and have brownouts. They proposed closing of an airport in Carlsbad. Multiple sites that were too small. The only ones that could work are basically the same as the one SD proposed.

wow wow wow, the NFL itself has stated that the Chargers proposal wasnt good enough, and Oakland doesnt even have a real proposal. yet the NFL has been nothing but complimentary to the St Louis proposal, hmmmmmm

The Chargers are the ones that have put out negative information about the proposal which so far is better than St Louis's proposal. The NFL hasn't commented at all since the proposal came out. The statements were prior as stated by Grubman when he said "up to this point". You have complained that Kroenke hasn't talked, which is a good thing since they haven't attacked the St Louis proposal like Fabiani has in SD.

 

[OldSchool]

wow wow wow, the NFL itself has stated that the Chargers proposal wasnt good enough, and Oakland doesnt even have a real proposal. yet the NFL has been nothing but complimentary to the St Louis proposal, hmmmmmm

It's funny though, what Grubman has said about San Diego can be said about St Louis as well. It all depends on how people choose to interpret his comments.

“But I don’t think that those steps — or at least those that have been articulated — (are)a recipe for success because it doesn’t yet have the enthusiastic support of the Chargers and it doesn’t have identified funding sources,” Grubman said. “That doesn’t mark them down for the last several weeks (of) work — they were put together not long ago — but it also doesn’t take away from the fact that time is slipping away.”

It's also interesting that you claim to know so much about the Oakland proposal as it's yet to be revealed to the public. The only people that have seen it are the Raiders, Grubman and Goodell. There is a lot of speculation but nothing is known for certain.

http://www.mercurynews.com/athletics/ci_28361806/oakland-not-releasing-raiders-stadium-plan

The only stadium so far out of St Louis, Oakland, San Diego, Carson and Inglewood that doesn't have obstacles or red flags is Inglewood. Every other location has some flaw whether it be major or minor the others all have them.

 

[dbrooks25]

The NFL has worked with the city of Los Angeles for over 20 years to get something done and every time they got close they had to say "Oh well" until finally an owner (now three) came forward and imitated a move. If they're willing to do it to LA they're willing to do it to St Louis and anyone else. St Louis isn't the first and wont be the last city to work with the NFL, and potentially have it fall apart.

I think there is a huge difference when comparing the two. St. Louis already has an NFL team, while LA didn't the last 20 years when they were being played around with. St. Louis will in fact be the first city to not keep an NFL team with a new stadium on the table if the Rams are allowed to move, however.

 

[dbrooks25]

This thread is pretty hilarious if you think about it. From my recollection of all the posts I have read through, it seems that pro L.A. folks are on offense and pro Stl people are on defense. That's my take on it, anyway. Can't wait for this to be over. :X3: