New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

What do we know now that we didn't know 10,000+ posts ago???

Klondike offers cookie dough ice cream bars. Sheesh! Where have YOU been?

 

[RamFan503]

I completely understand why you feel this way. I was one of the people on here who posted a picture of a bunch of empty seats in Dodger Stadium and made the point that in a city that big, there are literally tons of different things to do, so it says something that they have issues selling tickets even for a great team like the Dodgers. I wasn't trying to rip on the LA fans (even though I admittedly should have written the post better), but was simply trying to point out why some folks don't think that the LA area necessarily needs or wants yet another sports franchise. Especially when it may mean that one is taken away from an area which already has very few sports franchises.

Yeah - I get yuh. No need for us to dwell. I feel I may have over reacted anyway but this subject has done that to me. Sure can't wait till this is behind all of us and we just have actual Rams stuff to talk about again. Ah yes... I remember the day......

 

[dhaab]

Yeah - I get yuh. No need for us to dwell. I feel I may have over reacted anyway but this subject has done that to me. Sure can't wait till this is behind all of us and we just have actual Rams stuff to talk about again. Ah yes... I remember the day......

Could not agree with anything more. This is why the NFL is really starting to push me away as a fan. I detest the fact that the league is keeping 3 different fan bases on pins and needles for months on end and making them wonder if they'll even have a team next season.

 

[RamFan503]

Could not agree with anything more. This is why the NFL is really starting to push me away as a fan. I detest the fact that the league is keeping 3 different fan bases on pins and needles for months on end and making them wonder if they'll even have a team next season.

That and it has become the CYA, make a bazillion dollars on a worse product, while penalizing players for celebrating a TD, and oh yeah, you fans will buy it no matter what we do - league.

I tell yuh - if I didn't have so much history with my Rams, I don't think I'd really care about the NFL at all any more.

 

[RamBill]

Gordon: NFL teams don't need new stadiums to prosper
• By Jeff Gordon

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Stan Kroenke wants to move the Rams to greater Los Angeles, where his franchise value could quickly double or even triple.

Intrepid Dave Peacock is trying to keep the Rams through his relentless promotion of a new riverfront football stadium north of downtown.

But the Rams could move out to the old Chrysler plant site in Fenton and be just fine. They wouldn't have to build a stadium to stay afloat.

The team could just throw a field turf surface over the parking lot and play their games there.

Maybe the Rams could throw up some bleachers. Perhaps some the cheerleaders could come out, too.

Public address announcer Andy Banker could show up with a megaphone. Never mind a marching band, the Rams could just summon a local quartet to play at halftime while the players rested under party tents.

The franchise would survive. While many NHL teams lose money (including the Blues), NFL teams have no such worry.

Their management challenge is to make a rich operation even richer.

Their business is idiot-proof. Franchise ownership is a license to print money. Even a team that loses year after year after year after year in a parity-minded league -- as the Rams have -- consistently comes out ahead.

Each team collects crazy money from the shared revenue pot. Thanks to publicly disclosures by the civic-owned Green Bay Packers, we know each team collected $226.4 million in national revenue sharing during the 2014 fiscal year.

The Rams franchise doesn't need a new stadium to remain viable. The NFL's shared revenue takes care of all of that.

The franchise doesn't need a new stadium to remain competitive. The salary cap/free agency system takes care of that, preventing the rich teams from spending a multiple of the "poor" teams on talent.

Last year Forbes ranked the Rams dead last in NFL team valuation ($930 million) in part due to relative low gate revenue ($45 million) and total revenue ($250 million).

Kroenke still spent heavily on players (coming in just under the salary cap) and his coaches. And the team still generated operating income of $16.2 million according to Forbes.

Strong local revenues are nice, of course. That money allows franchises to run a big operation and add the bells and whistles that attract top free agents.

(The Packers rake in nearly $150 million in local revenue despite middle-of-the-pack ticket prices. Lambeau Field expansion added 7,000 seats and the team operates a 21,500-square-foot team store, largest in the league. That franchise is a iconic brand.)

But local revenues are not necessary for survival because the NFL's shared revenue just keeps soaring.

ESPN reports the total number has climbed from $6 billion to $7.2 billion since last year, thanks to increased rights fees paid by the networks in new television deals. Adjusted for inflation, the shared revenue has climbed 120 percent during the past 11 years.

All of this is why public financing for new stadiums has become a much tougher sell, especially in markets (like St. Louis) confronting social and economic issues far greater than pro football retention.

Owners don't need the extra stadium revenue to stay in business. They want it so their profitable business can become more profitable. They can demand it because they can.

The stadium sell gets tougher still in St. Louis when the owner is a multi-billionaire capable of bankrolling the project all by himself. The sell becomes borderline impossible when that same multi-billionaire is aggressively forsaking St. Louis for Southern California.

So we are. Training camp will start soon. Kroenke will keep pushing his move to Inglewood.

Peacock will keep selling his stadium concept to the league. The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders will keep pushing the Carson, Calif. project and their rather unlikely partnership.

Maybe you will come out and support their team in this potential farewell season. Maybe you will turn their back on the team just as Kroenke turned his back on you.

Either way huge revenues will keep pouring into the Rams' corporate coffers, covering the bills and leaving plenty left over.

 

[dieterbrock]

That and it has become the CYA, make a bazillion dollars on a worse product, while penalizing players for celebrating a TD, and oh yeah, you fans will buy it no matter what we do - league.

I tell yuh - if I didn't have so much history with my Rams, I don't think I'd really care about the NFL at all any more.

I don't think the NFL doesn't care about its fans, it that it is keeping fans on pins and needles.
It's about due diligence at this point. If anything, it's to protect those same fans. At a minimum, 1 team fan base is going to get jilted. And the NFL can't stop that.
But what they can do is make the best decision they can and that requires said teams to have their ducks in a row.
From an impartial view it appears that Inglewood is the project that is most prepared. If the NFL wanted the easy way out, and didn't care about the fans they could have just supporter that.
I know defending the evil empire NFL isn't the popular take these days, but the reality is that this sharknado basically started in January. And at a minimum 1 team, at most 3 team fan bases are going to be affected. I for one am glad they are making the most educated decision they can

 

[Rmfnlt]

Yeah - I get yuh. No need for us to dwell. I feel I may have over reacted anyway but this subject has done that to me. Sure can't wait till this is behind all of us and we just have actual Rams stuff to talk about again. Ah yes... I remember the day......

"Maybe you should reflect on exactly why you overreacted "- Dr. Phil

 

[Rmfnlt]

Gordon: NFL teams don't need new stadiums to prosper
• By Jeff Gordon

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...tml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Stan Kroenke wants to move the Rams to greater Los Angeles, where his franchise value could quickly double or even triple.

Intrepid Dave Peacock is trying to keep the Rams through his relentless promotion of a new riverfront football stadium north of downtown.

But the Rams could move out to the old Chrysler plant site in Fenton and be just fine. They wouldn't have to build a stadium to stay afloat.

The team could just throw a field turf surface over the parking lot and play their games there.

Maybe the Rams could throw up some bleachers. Perhaps some the cheerleaders could come out, too.

Public address announcer Andy Banker could show up with a megaphone. Never mind a marching band, the Rams could just summon a local quartet to play at halftime while the players rested under party tents.

The franchise would survive. While many NHL teams lose money (including the Blues), NFL teams have no such worry.

Their management challenge is to make a rich operation even richer.

Their business is idiot-proof. Franchise ownership is a license to print money. Even a team that loses year after year after year after year in a parity-minded league -- as the Rams have -- consistently comes out ahead.

Each team collects crazy money from the shared revenue pot. Thanks to publicly disclosures by the civic-owned Green Bay Packers, we know each team collected $226.4 million in national revenue sharing during the 2014 fiscal year.

The Rams franchise doesn't need a new stadium to remain viable. The NFL's shared revenue takes care of all of that.

The franchise doesn't need a new stadium to remain competitive. The salary cap/free agency system takes care of that, preventing the rich teams from spending a multiple of the "poor" teams on talent.

Last year Forbes ranked the Rams dead last in NFL team valuation ($930 million) in part due to relative low gate revenue ($45 million) and total revenue ($250 million).

Kroenke still spent heavily on players (coming in just under the salary cap) and his coaches. And the team still generated operating income of $16.2 million according to Forbes.

Strong local revenues are nice, of course. That money allows franchises to run a big operation and add the bells and whistles that attract top free agents.

(The Packers rake in nearly $150 million in local revenue despite middle-of-the-pack ticket prices. Lambeau Field expansion added 7,000 seats and the team operates a 21,500-square-foot team store, largest in the league. That franchise is a iconic brand.)

But local revenues are not necessary for survival because the NFL's shared revenue just keeps soaring.

ESPN reports the total number has climbed from $6 billion to $7.2 billion since last year, thanks to increased rights fees paid by the networks in new television deals. Adjusted for inflation, the shared revenue has climbed 120 percent during the past 11 years.

All of this is why public financing for new stadiums has become a much tougher sell, especially in markets (like St. Louis) confronting social and economic issues far greater than pro football retention.

Owners don't need the extra stadium revenue to stay in business. They want it so their profitable business can become more profitable. They can demand it because they can.

The stadium sell gets tougher still in St. Louis when the owner is a multi-billionaire capable of bankrolling the project all by himself. The sell becomes borderline impossible when that same multi-billionaire is aggressively forsaking St. Louis for Southern California.

So we are. Training camp will start soon. Kroenke will keep pushing his move to Inglewood.

Peacock will keep selling his stadium concept to the league. The San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders will keep pushing the Carson, Calif. project and their rather unlikely partnership.

Maybe you will come out and support their team in this potential farewell season. Maybe you will turn their back on the team just as Kroenke turned his back on you.

Either way huge revenues will keep pouring into the Rams' corporate coffers, covering the bills and leaving plenty left over.

I used to like Gordo but he's become so lazy I can't believe it.

First off, a LOT of grammatical errors... extremely unprofessional.

Second, the entire assumption is overly simplistic. It ignores expenses completely. The cost to run the franchise in STL is vastly different (think Grand Canyon) from what it would cost to run it in L.A. with a brand new, billion dollar stadium (and it's associated debt, increased taxes, etc. etc. etc.).

I'm embarrassed for the man for putting such a shallow piece out there. Maybe he just figures it's useless and he's filling voids in time.

If that's the case, either find other work or retire Gordo.

 

[Rmfnlt]

I don't think the NFL doesn't care about its fans, it that it is keeping fans on pins and needles.
It's about due diligence at this point. If anything, it's to protect those same fans. At a minimum, 1 team fan base is going to get jilted. And the NFL can't stop that.
But what they can do is make the best decision they can and that requires said teams to have their ducks in a row.
From an impartial view it appears that Inglewood is the project that is most prepared. If the NFL wanted the easy way out, and didn't care about the fans they could have just supporter that.
I know defending the evil empire NFL isn't the popular take these days, but the reality is that this sharknado basically started in January. And at a minimum 1 team, at most 3 team fan bases are going to be affected. I for one am glad they are making the most educated decision they can

You lost me when you attempted to connect the words "NFL" and "educated" together.

All they care about is money and image. They're good at one (making money) and terrible at the other.

I believe that, if it comes down to having to choose between the two, they'll always choose the money.

That means that they do not necessarily have the fans best interests in mind.

And that isn't "educated" to me, as a fan. That's just plain, old greed.

 

[The Ripper]

You lost me when you attempted to connect the words "NFL" and "educated" together.

All they care about is money and image. They're good at one (making money) and terrible at the other.

I believe that, if it comes down to having to choose between the two, they'll always choose the money.

That means that they do not necessarily have the fans best interests in mind.

And that isn't "educated" to me, as a fan. That's just plain, old greed.

They make money doesn't mean that there good at it. They miss more than they hit. They haven't capitalized on popularity of the sport to make enough inroads internationally and with a feeder system in this country. They needed a farm system years ago so smaller cities can have pro football and provide qualified prospects additional time to develop. Kurt Warner is the perfect example, everything aligned perfectly to get the opportunity but if all those things didn't happen he may have never played.

The NFL success of the last 30 years has come during the time of a rapid advancement in telecommunications. The rapid growth of cable and now the internet has provided competition for content along with hi def and other enhancements which may have caused the significant growth in revenues. Did the NFL capitalize fully on the advancements or did the just follow along for the ride?

 

[dieterbrock]

You lost me when you attempted to connect the words "NFL" and "educated" together.

All they care about is money and image. They're good at one (making money) and terrible at the other.

I believe that, if it comes down to having to choose between the two, they'll always choose the money.

That means that they do not necessarily have the fans best interests in mind.

And that isn't "educated" to me, as a fan. That's just plain, old greed.

You're not really agreeing or disagreeing with me here. Kind of a different tangent
They clearly dont have the necassary information to make a decision. That's an educated decision.
Like I said in the post, at a minimum 1 team's fan bse is going to be disappointed, could ultimatley be 3 teams with disappointed fanbase.
The idea that the NFL is letting fans flap in the wind to me is not accurate.
How is it in the fans best interest for the NFL to decide before all the details are worked out?
Would it be fair to the fans if they green lighted Kroenke and allowed the Rams to move to LA and in 6 months Stan cant build his stadium over variance issues?
Or vice versa? Its a matter of due diligence and unfortunately for us fans the due diligence isnt on our schedule or even the NFL's.
I have my issues with the NFL as much as the next guy, but I cant blame them for the delay here.

 

[OldSchool]

I used to like Gordo but he's become so lazy I can't believe it.

First off, a LOT of grammatical errors... extremely unprofessional.

Second, the entire assumption is overly simplistic. It ignores expenses completely. The cost to run the franchise in STL is vastly different (think Grand Canyon) from what it would cost to run it in L.A. with a brand new, billion dollar stadium (and it's associated debt, increased taxes, etc. etc. etc.).

I'm embarrassed for the man for putting such a shallow piece out there. Maybe he just figures it's useless and he's filling voids in time.

If that's the case, either find other work or retire Gordo.

You're right it will be more expensive, it will also provide a lot more revenue. Stadium naming rights and PSL revenue are just a couple of examples on increased revenues. Another major increase in revenue are the non Rams/NFL events being held in the stadium. I agree the article was bad, too often reported on each side of the debate give partial info and make bad arguments to support their POV.

 

[MrMotes]

Some of Gordon's conclusions are ridiculous. The NFL is not idiot proof. It wouldn't be so profitable if they were idiots. And it's true you don't need a new stadium to prosper but if every team took that attitude the allure of the league would suffer. And there's even more to be made with state of the art stadiums, for practical and image reasons.

But he's 100% right about the economics of the game: They've really changed. Shared revenue is the biggest percentage of total revenue it's ever been and it will only go up form here.

The Rams were estimating a total of $250 mil for 2014 including gate revenue of $45 mil yet shared revenue came in at $226 mil which is 90% of total expected revenue.

And then there's stadiums. With the insane popularity and profitability of the game, PSL's and naming rights, now, in bigger markets, privately funded stadiums make great financial sense. Hell, in the future, i can see cities demanding a piece of the stadium pie because of all the money they generate...

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm just surprised the Blues are losing money.

 

[Rmfnlt]

You're not really agreeing or disagreeing with me here. Kind of a different tangent
They clearly dont have the necassary information to make a decision. That's an educated decision.
Like I said in the post, at a minimum 1 team's fan bse is going to be disappointed, could ultimatley be 3 teams with disappointed fanbase.
The idea that the NFL is letting fans flap in the wind to me is not accurate.
How is it in the fans best interest for the NFL to decide before all the details are worked out?
Would it be fair to the fans if they green lighted Kroenke and allowed the Rams to move to LA and in 6 months Stan cant build his stadium over variance issues?
Or vice versa? Its a matter of due diligence and unfortunately for us fans the due diligence isnt on our schedule or even the NFL's.
I have my issues with the NFL as much as the next guy, but I cant blame them for the delay here.

Yeah, you're right... I did make a left turn of sorts.

Don't you think that, if they applied more effort into this process, it could have been figured out quicker?

 

[MrMotes]

Don't you think that, if they applied more effort into this process, it could have been figured out quicker?

If a team, or teams, are moving to L.A. for the 2016 season, it's not in the NFL's best interest to figure it out before the 2015 season has been played...

 

[RamFan503]

I used to like Gordo but he's become so lazy I can't believe it.

First off, a LOT of grammatical errors... extremely unprofessional.

Second, the entire assumption is overly simplistic. It ignores expenses completely. The cost to run the franchise in STL is vastly different (think Grand Canyon) from what it would cost to run it in L.A. with a brand new, billion dollar stadium (and it's associated debt, increased taxes, etc. etc. etc.).

I'm embarrassed for the man for putting such a shallow piece out there. Maybe he just figures it's useless and he's filling voids in time.

If that's the case, either find other work or retire Gordo.

Almost exactly what I was thinking. Really a pathetic article all around.

 

[Rmfnlt]

If a team, or teams, are moving to L.A. for the 2016 season, it's not in the NFL's best interest to figure it out before the 2015 season has been played...

Why? Is it better to know or be left to wondering?

 

[Loyal]

Why? Is it better to know or be left to wondering?

MrMoles can answer for himself, but it seems to me that the NFL doesn't want it leaked that they favor one team over another, for obvious reasons...Especially for the one team that will play in LA in 2016, the attendence in 2015 would die to nothing if it became known early in this season in its current home.

 

[Rmfnlt]

MrMoles can answer for himself, but it seems to me that the NFL doesn't want it leaked that they favor one team over another, for obvious reasons...Especially for the one team that will play in LA in 2016, the attendence in 2015 would die to nothing if it became known early in this season in its current home.

Yeah, I get that... but the wild speculation coming out of all 3 media markets has the very real possibility of doing that exact same thing.

I dunno... it's a lose/lose it seems for the fans of all the markets.