New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[OldSchool]

So, I think you're kinda making his point for him? Going rogue was a strategy that bolstered the the Kroenke to L.A. argument. If it's all but disappeared as you say, the overall "Kroenke to L.A. argument has been weakened, no?

I think you're right... there were plenty of articles speculating that Kronke might go rogue... and, there was definitely a lot of people in this thread who believed he could do anything he wanted to... up to and including going rogue.

Seems they believe money provides ultimate power.

Personally, I never believed that.

No what I'm saying is the going rogue was never an option that Demoff or anybody with the Rams said they'd do. It was something created by media, both national and St. Louis, to discredit the Rams and the possible move to LA. It was always a weak argument. The going rogue has always been media speculation and it fed people that hate Kroenke and gave them something else to fuel the fire. It's interesting they started the rogue speculation then shortly after that started speculation of somebody else owning the NFL team in St. Louis and Kroenke possibly trading franchises.

 

[dbrooks25]

I wasn't trying to offend just question the talking points since things have changed rapidly and that some of the prevailing thoughts of a month ago just aren't as real as they once were. Falconer's spokesman came out after the meeting with Grubman a few weeks ago and said that SD was ahead because they already own the land and have the financial framework that the NFL was looking for. Do we know it's true, who knows but a case can be made that no one is ahead at this point. There are a number of talking points that get thrown out that may or may not be true or even proof that they have any validity.


The Chargers claim that 25% of their business comes from LA. Grubman was on San Diego radio and he said that that would be easy enough to prove. That sounds like either they haven't pitched that to the NFL or that the Chargers couldn't prove the number.


That no other city has built 2 stadiums in 20 years now the number is 25. There are 3 Seattle, Indy and Atlanta.


That the NFL would never turn down public money or that they have never left a city with a stadium deal on the table. In almost every relocation in the past 30 years, the cities have had public money on the table but it wasn't enough for the team to stay. On the Stadium, Anaheim had a proposal for a new football stadium, they had both public money and the corporate support to get it financed. The other is Cleveland. The stadium just didn't come out of thin air during the negations. It had been in the works but was finalized when the NFL got involved. The Browns became the Ravens because even with a new stadium Cleveland couldn't match the deal in Baltimore.


That Kroenke is moving to LA no matter what. It's hard to say that until the full financial framework comes out which details the teams revenues. Also, if the Riverfront renderings are just for the public and the real deal behind the scenes is for Kroenke to take control of the site so he can build the stadium he wants.


The biggest one is that the Rams would be worth $3 billion in LA. There is no way to even speculate on a value until the teams unshared revenues are known. Location helps for valuations but the local revenues are the key that determines the value. The sale of the Clippers often is used as the reason. Balmer wanted to own a team and he was willing to overpay to make sure he got one. The price was higher in LA but he may have overpaid for another team in a different market just to be an owner.

True, it would be 25 years when the new stadium is finished but I think they're talking about how it's only been 20 years since the EJD was opened and the city is proposing a new stadium. Not sure anyone else has actually done that.

The question is was the money left on the table enough to satisfy the NFL? From everything indicated in articles and interviews, the money that St. Louis is willing to bring to the table (assuming they can) will be enough. We're also talking about today's NFL vs the NFL back then. We shall see how this plays out. I personally don't see how the NFL can encourage a city to get the financing and land acquisition done, give positive feedback, send their point man to meet with the city and task force leaders often, and then once St. Louis does everything asked say "Naw, that's ok." Then, you have a well respected owner state there is an obligation to keep the NFL in a city that does everything asked of them. Again, we'll see, because I'm fully aware that the NFL can do what they want.

 

[OldSchool]

@Rmfnlt not going to quote that it's too much work on the ipad

For the answer to spending money on an NFL team we'd likely have to see the market survey which I'm not sure has been shared outside of the NFL circles. We've seen summaries of the St. Louis survey but I don't think anything of the others have been shared.

 

[Rmfnlt]

No what I'm saying is the going rogue was never an option that Demoff or anybody with the Rams said they'd do. It was something created by media, both national and St. Louis, to discredit the Rams and the possible move to LA. It was always a weak argument. The going rogue has always been media speculation and it fed people that hate Kroenke and gave them something else to fuel the fire. It's interesting they started the rogue speculation then shortly after that started speculation of somebody else owning the NFL team in St. Louis and Kroenke possibly trading franchises.

I got the impression that going rogue was an argument FOR Kroenke... and his moving the team to L.A.

The unstoppable force argument.

 

[MrMotes]

The Clippers recently sold for $2 billion and Forbes currently has the Rams valued at under a billion. L.A. is a goldmine, not really about fan support...

 

[Rmfnlt]

@Rmfnlt not going to quote that it's too much work on the ipad

For the answer to spending money on an NFL team we'd likely have to see the market survey which I'm not sure has been shared outside of the NFL circles. We've seen summaries of the St. Louis survey but I don't think anything of the others have been shared.

I think the entire STL survey is out... I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's in this thread somewhere.

So... why not the L.A. one? If anyone has it, I'd love to see the results.

 

[Rmfnlt]

The Clippers recently sold for $2 billion and Forbes currently has the Rams valued at under a billion. L.A. is a goldmine, not really about fan support...

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. The "goldmine" that Kroenke might get would only makes him a paper tiger.

Value means nothing unless the asset is sold. And, as you've pointed out many times, Kroenke doesn't sell his assets.

So what good is value? Nothing. And, as has been pointed out, the Clippers sale was outside the normal buy/sale scenarios. Terrible comparison.

Of course it's about fan suppport... always has been, always will be. Your product stinks... people stop consuming... people stop consuming, revenues dry up... revenues dry up, bottom line goes from black to red. Simply, really.

I can hear it now...
Kraft: "Hi, Stan... how's that L.A. Rams thing going lately?"

Kroenke: "Well, it started out pretty good but, as you know, the team is still struggling and it's hell to pay to get fans to show up anymore. I used to make money in Saint Louis, but can't here unless these fans show up."

Kraft: "Yeah, all those incremental costs require a strong fan support base. Can't make money if the fans don't show up. TV revenue will only take you so far. "

Kroneke: "Well, at least I'm a billionaire on paper with this albatross".

 

[OldSchool]

I think the entire STL survey is out... I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's in this thread somewhere.

So... why not the L.A. one? If anyone has it, I'd love to see the results.

The whole thing could be out, what was linked here I think was the executive summary.

 

[The Ripper]

True, it would be 25 years when the new stadium is finished but I think they're talking about how it's only been 20 years since the EJD was opened and the city is proposing a new stadium. Not sure anyone else has actually done that.

The question is was the money left on the table enough to satisfy the NFL? From everything indicated in articles and interviews, the money that St. Louis is willing to bring to the table (assuming they can) will be enough. We're also talking about today's NFL vs the NFL back then. We shall see how this plays out. I personally don't see how the NFL can encourage a city to get the financing and land acquisition done, give positive feedback, send their point man to meet with the city and task force leaders often, and then once St. Louis does everything asked say "Naw, that's ok." Then, you have a well respected owner state there is an obligation to keep the NFL in a city that does everything asked of them. Again, we'll see, because I'm fully aware that the NFL can do what they want.

All 3 of the ones I mentioned fall in the same time frame.

The NFL has encouraged all three markets. San Diego and St Louis more since they have been following the advice but in the end either one or both cities will lose their teams. The NFL may say that things have changed but in most respects they haven't at least in regards to the owners.

 

[MrMotes]

The Rams in L.A. are going to be an albatross around Kroenke's neck? I'll remember that.

Maybe check this out:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13290 ... ue-sharing

NFL teams each earn $226.4M from national revenue sharing

 

[OldSchool]

Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it true. The "goldmine" that Kroenke might get would only makes him a paper tiger.

Value means nothing unless the asset is sold. And, as you've pointed out many times, Kroenke doesn't see his assets.

So what good is value? Nothing. And, as has been pointed out, the Clippers sale was outside the normal buy/sale scenarios. Terrible comparison.

Of course it's about fan suppport... always has been, always will be. Your product stinks... people stop consuming... rpeople stop consuming, revenues dry up... revenues dry up, bottom line goes from black to red. Simply, really.

I can hear it now...
Kraft: "Hi, Stan... how's that L.A. Rams thing going lately?"

Kroenke: "Well, it started out pretty good but, as you know, the team is still struggling and it's hell to pay to get fans to show up anymore. I used to make money in Saint Louis, but can't here unless these fans show up."

Kraft: "Yeah, all those incremental costs require a strong fan support base. Can't make money if the fans don't show up. TV revenue will only take you so far. "

Kroneke: "Well, at least I'm a billionaire on paper with this albatross".

The entire Forbes wealthiest list are paper togers with your argument. Do you think Bill Gates has that much money or does he have assets worth that much?

 

[The Ripper]

I think the entire STL survey is out... I may be mistaken but I'm pretty sure it's in this thread somewhere.

So... why not the L.A. one? If anyone has it, I'd love to see the results.

The whole thing could be out, what was linked here I think was the executive summary.

LA isn't a home market so the surveys were only shared with the teams. The NFL gave the home markets the permission to release or keep the information private where as in LA the information is controlled by the NFL and they never release anything..

 

[MrMotes]

The entire Forbes wealthiest list are paper togers with your argument. Do you think Bill Gates has that much money or does he have assets worth that much?

If there's one thing we all know, the wealthy don't care about wealth. It's meaningless...

 

[Rmfnlt]

LA isn't a home market so the surveys were only shared with the teams. The NFL gave the home markets the permission to release or keep the information private where as in LA the information is controlled by the NFL and they never release anything..

Pretty convenient.

 

[Rmfnlt]

The Rams in L.A. are going to be an albatross around Kroenke's neck? I'll remember that.

Maybe check this out:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13290 ... ue-sharing

NFL teams each earn $226.4M from national revenue sharing

Well, if Kroneke can't make money, yes - it will be an albatross around his neck.

Businesses do lose money in the goldmine, ya know.

$226.4M isn't enough to have the hired help make Stan's meals.

 

[Rmfnlt]

The entire Forbes wealthiest list are paper togers with your argument. Do you think Bill Gates has that much money or does he have assets worth that much?

Not necessarily true.

Yes, the list is based on value IIRC. But it doesn't go into any details as to how the value of each person's wealth is made up.
Could be all long term assets... could all be short term... who knows.

But to say value is everything and moving to L.A. based solely on value is being simplistic in business terms.

Who knows if Kroenke could make money in L.A. To think that it has nothing to do with fan (customer) support is crazy. EVERYTHING is MUCH more costly in L.A. The revenue has got to be there. Kroenke had a great deal in STL... it wasn't hard to make money there. Value might not be STL but you could earn a nice buck or two.

Can you in L.A.? Some think that doesn't matter... his value will go up.

Has anyone gone to business school?

 

[Rmfnlt]

If there's one thing we all know, the wealthy don't care about wealth. It's meaningless...

???? er, what????

 

[bluecoconuts]

Not necessarily true.

Yes, the list is based on value IIRC. But it doesn't go into any details as to how the value of each person's wealth is made up.
Could be all long term assets... could all be short term... who knows.

But to say value is everything and moving to L.A. based solely on value is being simplistic in business terms.

Who knows if Kroenke could make money in L.A. To think that it has nothing to do with fan (customer) support is crazy. EVERYTHING is MUCH more costly in L.A. The revenue has got to be there. Kroenke had a great deal in STL... it wasn't hard to make money there. Value might not be STL but you could earn a nice buck or two.

Can you in L.A.? Some think that doesn't matter... his value will go up.

Has anyone gone to business school?

He would make significantly more money in LA. Even if he has issues getting fans out to games, which is unlikely, especially in the short term.

Anyway, he'd own and operate the stadium, means he doesn't pay rent. He's also free to rent that stadium out to various different events, and make a lot of money off of those, something he doesn't have the ability to do in St Louis. There would be a lot of events as well.

Fan support or not, there's far more money to be made in LA.

 

[LACHAMP46]

either way, from what Kroenke proposed in arbitration, or what he's designed in Inglewood, it looks like the riverfront stadium is the opposite in almost every single way.

They still have to BUILD that vision.

....at least they have completed the tear down of Hollywood Park...But, no building as of 7-20-2015

“It’s not just fans—think about the players,” says Giants offensive lineman Geoff Schwartz, an L.A. native. “I live in Jersey and it takes me 20 minutes to get to our facility and 30 minutes or an hour at most to go to Manhattan. If you’re playing in Inglewood or Carson, you’re looking at an hour-drive minimum, no matter where you live. The traffic, the taxes and the cost of living are way more than anywhere else. I wouldn’t want to play there, and I simply don’t think the city needs a team. It’s been fine without one.”

I met Schwartz, well his father back in 2005....He's a smart young man, and he knows our traffic well....I can not see a stadium in either of these two locations for this same reason....They can only tear down the 2 older stadiums...or find a better location.:notsure:..or rebuild the freeways...alm:

Edit: Bluecoconuts said

He would make significantly more money in LA .......he'd own and operate the stadium,....there's far more money to be made in LA.

These are all great points...However, the league equally splits the profits between the 32 teams...Sure concessions & merchandise are probably separate...but the majority of the money comes from the shared TV deal...I guess they all make about the same...the big profits would come on the resale of the team...Just a guess...and if true, his initial start-up costs, like this possible move to LA, which may cost in excess of $2 Billion, would pretty much balance out any real profit....

 

[Rmfnlt]

He would make significantly more money in LA. Even if he has issues getting fans out to games, which is unlikely, especially in the short term.
How do you know that?

Anyway, he'd own and operate the stadium, means he doesn't pay rent.
So, he's paying cash to build that entire stadium? Of course he isn't. Which means he's taking on debt to fund his "private" stadium. Of course, we'll never know how much debt or under what terms. But I think it's fair to say he'll have to pay someone (call it psuedo-rent ).

He's also free to rent that stadium out to various different events, and make a lot of money off of those, something he doesn't have the ability to do in St Louis. There would be a lot of events as well.
This is true. But I'm not sure how much revenue that will bring, though. Again, don't know how much debt load he's taking on. Not sure about demand to rent that place out... there's lots of competition in L.A. for events... much more than in STL.

Fan support or not, there's far more money to be made in LA.
If you say something with enough conviction, people might believe you! But it doesn't make it so.

I kinda get a kick out of how large Kroenke's business reputation has become... larger than life it seems. It's like he's never made a bad investment... never lost money on a venture.

Lots of smarter, wealthier people have lost tons of money on investments. Oh, and some of the have actually been in L.A.