New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[8to12]

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.

He probably only needs the the stadium to be at 70% capacity to make money. There will be more corporate support with club seating and private boxes.
In addition, he would probably land the World Cup at some point, A Superbowl or two, a collegiate Playoff or Bowl may be established there.

 

[RamFan503]

I think most would agree that trying to survive mostly on shared TV revenue and other ancillary income streams, while paying significant debt service, would be a difficult endeavor.

I think most would agree that the true value of an asset is only realized at time of sale.. in fact, that's a fact.

Actually - it's not a fact. You are not the only one who has studied business models. And in a great many scenarios, having reported wealth allows the person to leverage that reported wealth without selling that property.

So if you really want to insist on this line of reasoning, I call BS. It is actually more unusual for people at Kroenke's level or even much lower levels to buy and sell as a means to build fortunes. Rather, they leverage what they own as it continues to grow in appraised value toward buying more properties or investments. An asset value is not only realized when it is sold. That would go against virtually every investment rule. In fact, most investors would only sell an asset if it is either trading well above their perceived value or if they see its future value declining.

So in a case like Kroenke, if he has a net worth of several billion based on assets, that allows him to buy other money cheaper, attract other investors when partnering up, look better to leagues or investment groups when wanting to buy into their markets, etc... He certainly doesn't need to sell assets to do that. In fact, selling assets would be looked at as a sign of weakness in many cases.

Now if you want to argue that building the Inglewood Stadium would be a bad investment because of cash flow, there is something to be said there. If the cash flow is not actually demonstrating a decent ROI then that alone will devalue his investment. The problem is that I don't think anyone knows what his research shows as an ROI. But I'm going to guess that he has already modeled that and has looked at scenarios ranging from best to worst.

I will admit that when I look at it, I have a hard time seeing a good ROI. But I have mentioned before that I have been involved in some pretty decent sized projects that I couldn't see the ROI - yet they made money for their owners. My guess is that if there isn't a good ROI on Inglewood then it is a very elaborate leverage ploy. And that is something I have never discounted as a real possibility.

BTW - the comment that Kroenke has a Masters in business shouldn't really be dismissed because you meant to only include those posting on ROD. The point should have been obvious that Kroenke is pretty well educated and it is a pretty safe assumption that he knows what he is doing based on his education and business history.

 

[RamFan503]

It's all good, I understand.

Yeah man. I really hope you don't think I was singling you out because that was far from my intention. LA fans need to take this to heart as well. There just can't be any bashing of fan bases in this thread. And you have been great about that.

 

[RamFan503]

I think this is my first visit to this thread. What did I miss?

Everything and nothing. Any other questions?

 

[dbrooks25]

Yeah man. I really hope you don't think I was singling you out because that was far from my intention. LA fans need to take this to heart as well. There just can't be any bashing of fan bases in this thread. And you have been great about that.

Oh no, I don't think that at all. I appreaciate that, and I don't like attacking fan bases at all, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Us Stl fans have been defending our fan base on this very forum when it comes to this stuff and when this article hit, L.A. fans went to defend themselves (not just on this forum), and rightfully so. My point is that it doesn't feel so good having to defend your city, so that respect should be given when it comes to this part of the country.

 

[RamFan503]

Oh no, I don't think that at all. I appreaciate that, and I don't like attacking fan bases at all, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Us Stl fans have been defending our fan base on this very forum when it comes to this stuff and when this article hit, L.A. fans went to defend themselves (not just on this forum), and rightfully so. My point is that it doesn't feel so good having to defend your city, so that respect should be given when it comes to this part of the country.

I can't imagine it does and not only shouldn't you have to, but Rams fans from everywhere should respect St Louis fans because they are the ones showing up for games and simply - are fellow Rams fans.

I fully understand LA fans wanting the Rams back and I fully understand St Louis fans wanting them to stay. What I don't get is either fan base trying to make any move or non-move the fault of the fans. Where is that productive on a Rams forum?

Meh - I'm preaching to the choir here so I'll stop.

Take care man and thanks for the responses.

 

[OldSchool]

Oh no, I don't think that at all. I appreaciate that, and I don't like attacking fan bases at all, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Us Stl fans have been defending our fan base on this very forum when it comes to this stuff and when this article hit, L.A. fans went to defend themselves (not just on this forum), and rightfully so. My point is that it doesn't feel so good having to defend your city, so that respect should be given when it comes to this part of the country.

I've criticized people on both sides of the discussion for attacking cities/fanbases. It accomplishes nothing but to agitate our fellow Rams fans. Not only that but the majority of the attacks somebody launches at one city can easily said about the city they defend so it's pointless.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Oh no, I don't think that at all. I appreaciate that, and I don't like attacking fan bases at all, I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy of it all. Us Stl fans have been defending our fan base on this very forum when it comes to this stuff and when this article hit, L.A. fans went to defend themselves (not just on this forum), and rightfully so. My point is that it doesn't feel so good having to defend your city, so that respect should be given when it comes to this part of the country.

LA has had to defend their city before, I would expect most understand the feeling. I remember defending the "Rams left LA because bad fans" on this forum long before all this came about, and I don't even particularly care about LA honestly. I like the beach, I like the Kings, and that's about it.


*Edit* I also like In N Out, but I do't really eat it much anymore.

 

[RamFan503]

*Edit* I also like In N Out, but I do't really eat it much anymore.

Ha! Yeah - I eat there every time I head down to CA. Not so much for the food (it's a good ole burger) but as a restaurant owner, I marvel at their operation. It's really a thing of beauty.

 

[RamBill]

• The MMQB,without meaning to, may have given the Rams another push on their road back to Los Angeles.

I hope you saw Emily Kaplan’s story on our site about the apathetic reaction the potential NFL return to Los Angeles was getting by local citizens. “It’s been so long I stopped caring,” English teacher Katie Cole told Kaplan. The upshot of the story, at least the one I took from it, is that the area isn’t burning with passion for the return of the NFL, gone since Christmas Eve 1994. Here’s why this story is better for the Rams than for either the Chargers or Raiders, both of whom have the same kind of wanderlust as the Rams: The Los Angeles area, as polls over the years have shown, won’t be a lock to support one team through thick and thin, never mind two. And what’s the team most likely to garner support early? Probably the Rams. They have the best remaining local fan base, from the looks of it. It’s not overwhelming support, to be sure, and who knows? The locals might be more enthusiastic to get a team with a quarterback. San Diego’s Philip Rivers, though he’ll be entering his 14th year and appears to not want to move to L.A., would be the best day one quarterback, and Oakland’s Derek Carr number two … but on the other hand, a former USC player (Jeff Fisher) would likely be coaching the Rams, and a franchise running back (Todd Gurley) would be a looming star, and the St. Louis defense could be good enough to be a playoff defense in 2016. When owners meet to discuss L.A. on Aug. 11 in Chicago, I think the weight of having to support two teams in a market that appears to be just fine with zero is going to fall on the shoulders of the owners, and they’re more likely to say, “Let’s just put one there for now” instead of opting for two. It’s just the safer move, even if it means stadium-poor San Diego and Oakland have to put up with bad venues for a year or two longer while each team considers other options. If the Rams are the golden franchise that gets to move, then St. Louis and San Antonio step to the front of the line for one of the dissatisfied California franchises, and then it’s back to ground zero for the two losers in the L.A. derby.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/07/22/peter-king-nfl-mailbag/

 

[RamFan503]

• The MMQB,without meaning to, may have given the Rams another push on their road back to Los Angeles.

I hope you saw Emily Kaplan’s story on our site about the apathetic reaction the potential NFL return to Los Angeles was getting by local citizens. “It’s been so long I stopped caring,” English teacher Katie Cole told Kaplan. The upshot of the story, at least the one I took from it, is that the area isn’t burning with passion for the return of the NFL, gone since Christmas Eve 1994. Here’s why this story is better for the Rams than for either the Chargers or Raiders, both of whom have the same kind of wanderlust as the Rams: The Los Angeles area, as polls over the years have shown, won’t be a lock to support one team through thick and thin, never mind two. And what’s the team most likely to garner support early? Probably the Rams. They have the best remaining local fan base, from the looks of it. It’s not overwhelming support, to be sure, and who knows? The locals might be more enthusiastic to get a team with a quarterback. San Diego’s Philip Rivers, though he’ll be entering his 14th year and appears to not want to move to L.A., would be the best day one quarterback, and Oakland’s Derek Carr number two … but on the other hand, a former USC player (Jeff Fisher) would likely be coaching the Rams, and a franchise running back (Todd Gurley) would be a looming star, and the St. Louis defense could be good enough to be a playoff defense in 2016. When owners meet to discuss L.A. on Aug. 11 in Chicago, I think the weight of having to support two teams in a market that appears to be just fine with zero is going to fall on the shoulders of the owners, and they’re more likely to say, “Let’s just put one there for now” instead of opting for two. It’s just the safer move, even if it means stadium-poor San Diego and Oakland have to put up with bad venues for a year or two longer while each team considers other options. If the Rams are the golden franchise that gets to move, then St. Louis and San Antonio step to the front of the line for one of the dissatisfied California franchises, and then it’s back to ground zero for the two losers in the L.A. derby.

http://mmqb.si.com/2015/07/22/peter-king-nfl-mailbag/

Of all the issues to be considered, I highly doubt the MMQB article will weigh in the slightest when it comes to a decision. And seriously? MMQB citing its own import on the decision making process? Desperate much?

 

[fearsomefour]

Ha! Yeah - I eat there every time I head down to CA. Not so much for the food (it's a good ole burger) but as a restaurant owner, I marvel at their operation. It's really a thing of beauty.

They are very efficient.
I know they used to pay quite a bit above the average for those kind of jobs. The efficiency of what they do makes that possible.

 

[MrMotes]

He probably only needs the the stadium to be at 70% capacity to make money. There will be more corporate support with club seating and private boxes.
In addition, he would probably land the World Cup at some point, A Superbowl or two, a collegiate Playoff or Bowl may be established there.

You're right, the revenue upside in L.A. is a lot higher than it is in St. Louis but check this out:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2015/07/rams-revenue-from-the-nfl-revealed.html?ana=twt

That means the St. Louis Rams, no matter how the rest of the organization spent or made money, at least brought in $226.4 million in revenue last year just for being part of the league.

Rams officials declined to comment for this story. The Rams had estimated revenue of $250 million last year.

The Rams were estimating $250 million in revenue last year but got $226 million just in the shared revenue. That's insane...

 

[bluecoconuts]

Of all the issues to be considered, I highly doubt the MMQB article will weigh in the slightest when it comes to a decision. And seriously? MMQB citing its own import on the decision making process? Desperate much?

Nope, you're wrong. Kroenke read the article and through tears in his eyes said "That's it, this time it's for realsies, I'm gonna move now just to show you, Emily!"

 

[RamFan503]

They are very efficient.
I know they used to pay quite a bit above the average for those kind of jobs. The efficiency of what they do makes that possible.

Efficiency and just plain ole team work and customer service. No one is above picking something off the floor. And - yeah - they pay fairly well compared to other fast food outfits.

 

[dieterbrock]

He probably only needs the the stadium to be at 70% capacity to make money. There will be more corporate support with club seating and private boxes.
In addition, he would probably land the World Cup at some point, A Superbowl or two, a collegiate Playoff or Bowl may be established there.

Case in point is the new "NY Yankees" stadium.
Place is seemingly half full (sad to say) but due to the empire built around it and with it, it's not an apparent financial burden.
Now in all fairness it was built with about half of the cost covered by public subsides, but the owner finance portion was well over 1 billion.
I see Kroenke vision for the LA stadium as his empire. So I think there is no way to properly assume NOI because we have no idea what would be next

@RamFan503 great post re: selling asset.

 

[-X-]

Nope, you're wrong. Kroenke read the article and through tears in his eyes said "That's it, this time it's for realsies, I'm gonna move now just to show you, Emily!"

Lol.

"for realsies"

 

[Rmfnlt]

Poor Stan Kroenke, Masters in Business, Forbes values him at 6.2 billion dollars, but what good is it?

Nothing...

Pro tip... use blue font when being sarcastic.

As you know, if you hold an asset and never sell it, it remains on paper. Not to say assets aren't important (of course they are) but they do not generate cash until you sell them. Looking at net worth alone isn't always indicative of a person's financial health.

Not saying Kroenke isn't cash flush... maybe he is.... we don't know. But many before him that looked to be in the best possible financial condition were found to actually be cash poor.

Maybe he can sell that Master's Degree for a few bucks. (see what I did there?)

 

[The Ripper]

Of all the issues to be considered, I highly doubt the MMQB article will weigh in the slightest when it comes to a decision. And seriously? MMQB citing its own import on the decision making process? Desperate much?

Nope, you're wrong. Kroenke read the article and through tears in his eyes said "That's it, this time it's for realsies, I'm gonna move now just to show you, Emily!"

Most reporters have the same sources and report the same thing where as Peter King is Goodells mouthpiece for good or bad information. He get's out what the commissioner wants out.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Lol.

"for realsies"

Are those the opposite of "falsies"?