New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[Boffo97]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...ke-Stadium-Proposal-on-The-Morning-After.aspx

STL Mag's Ray Hartmann Talks Kroenke, Stadium Proposal on The Morning After
Brendan Marks posted on February 11, 2015 09:21

St. Louis Magazine's Ray Hartmann on Tuesday wrote he thinks it "would be a terrible misuse of public resources to fork over a half a billion dollars for a new NFL stadium."

The article, which you can read here, came on the same day Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon announced infrastructure would be relocated to pave the way for a new football stadium on the riverfront.

Hartmann joined The Ryan Kelley Morning After on Wednesday to give his thoughts on the issue. Here are some highlights of the interview. Listen to the whole thing below:

Hartmann first talked about what would happen if the NFL forced Rams owner Stan Kroenke to stay in St. Louis.

"What is a cold hard fact is that Stan Kroenke is on a year-to-year basis to play at the dome at his options through 2024. It's a fact that every year..he can say 'we're staying another year.' What I've been trying to point out to people...is all the talk about using the new stadium as a way to force him to stay in St. Louis is on another planet. If we somehow can make him not be able to go to Los Angeles, and he can come back here for nothing every year and have the ability to move whenever he wants and play here every year, do you really think there's any possibility he would write a $200 million check for a stadium he doesn't own. Why would he write [that] and give up free agency?"

On if Kroenke has done enough to show NFL he tried to stay in St. Louis: "If I were Kroenke I'd go to the NFL and say 'Look, we were under a lease, we had an arbitration process...we prevailed and St. Louis declined to fund it.' It's not the NFL's problem we didn't have the money. The point is we had the ability to keep them here. The question for (Dave Peacock) would be, are you really trying to get the Rams to stay here? Because if you're not, then let him go. If you want the new stadium, buy all means let him go to LA and let him find somebody else."

- "If you want the new stadium, you better hope you've got a tenant other than Stan Kroenke. Because what would possess him to give up his freedom and write a $200 million check, even if it would increase his franchise value a bit."

Do you think having no NFL team would negatively impact St. Louis economy? I do not. I supported it last time. I think its casino economics. I think most of the money spent at a Rams game is just St. Louis revenues being recirculated. Look at St. Louis in the last 20 years and look at a city like San Antonio, Oklahoma City and Portland, Oregon. Look at their growth without an NFL team. Each of them only has a basketball team. And look at us. Ask yourself 'How much has being an NFL city helped us?' How much has it helped Detroit? How much has it helped Cincinnati or Pittsburgh?

Hartmann talked much more about St. Louis and whether a new stadium should be built and the financing behind it. Listen to the whole conversation (at the link above)

(Boffo's note: I've posted the Hartmann article linked above before)

 

[RamFan503]

They're about to officially begin going year to year lease next season - Chargers are entering their 8th straight year on year to year lease and have been working on a stadium for 14 years... Raiders have been for awhile now too...

By all accounts I have read, Spanos doesn't actually want to leave the SD market. He wants a new stadium down there and really is strictly using LA as leverage and a secondary market to his team in SD. He also turned down the idea of selling part of his team to move to LA. Davis I suppose is a possibility but he isn't doing it on his dime though might be a possibility for selling part of his team. I dunno on that one. I suppose the question becomes then, does the NFL even want that. A team selling 35% to someone who would control all the other revenues from the team. Again - dunno.

And the raiders have also shown the greatest propensity to move - they have another one year deal since no club has met the requirements to move this season, but they've already both publicly stated their intent and even discussed moving to San Antonio at one point...

This is part of shy no one is getting in line to build them a stadium in Oakland. They are still a but butt hurt over his dad.

I disagree - the NFL does not want a repeat of the 90's with relocations. that's why the rules are in place... And it seems to me with how much Goodell keeps mentioning the teams must meet the relocation criteria.

I still just don't see what big changes they have made that would make it more difficult. By what I have seen, the rules are the same rules they had when the Rams moved in the first place.

There still hasn't been a good answer as to what's changed in the bylaws that would make such a lawsuit fail despite the precedent.

Hate to keep harping on this but it seems this is correct.

Now for draft picks? Pretty sure no court is going to have a say in that. Goodell could do whatever he wants in that regard since its not financial, and depending on the severity of that that could cripple a team.

I think it would be a very difficult position to defend in court if it went that way. Taking draft picks would very much affect a club's ability to conduct business and any such penalties would be brought into a case brought by Stan. There would likely be little to no difference between that and fines.

Exhaust all options. Leaving with a St.Louis plan on the table or even on the horizon (since they're in regular contact with the nfl) doesn't meet that criteria.

Though it might not pass the public smell test, having a plan on the table doesn't necessarily mean it is the best plan for Stan and therefor has to be accepted by him. Is putting in 400 - 450 million on a stadium that he won't own nor own most of the revenue streams, a good plan when he has made the practically unheard of offer to pay for an entire project and has a team to put in it?

The G4 program is not avaliable for teams that relocate, relocation fees are reportedly significant, and Stan is going to have to pay over a billion to build the stadium in LA. Or stay in STL help build a new stadium by only spending 250 million to get greater revenue and increase the value of your team. I am pretty sure that billionaires don't like spending their own money.

The G4 still has to be paid back and I haven't heard anything stating that MO plans to do that. So tack on another $200 million to the amount Stan would have to put up. While it is true that Billionaires don't like to spend their own money on things they don't then own, spending money to earn a return on investment is very much what they like to do. Does it make sense that Stan would want to pay $450 million dollars on a stadium that he doesn't own, will not receive the revenues from soccer, concerts, monster truck events, parking, concessions, additional commercial and high end residential properties, and will have to fight with the controlling interests in order to get upgrades he deems necessary to stay on top?

As for owners potentially agreeing the Chargers should be able to block all potential moves to LA, I don't think that's the case, given the NFL has been pretty open about getting a team to LA for the past few years. If the Chargers can't do it, and it seems they either lack the ability or don't really want to move there, then I don't see them holding the market free for him. He either needs to crap or get off the pot.

I also find it hard to believe that the other owners are going to agree to hold the LA market open because Spanos wants to play games. I don't care how long he has wanted a new stadium in SD. They know the only way he pulls it off is if he sells part of the team and he has been unwilling to do that.

Basically what the Chargers are saying is that they are going to block any team that wants to move to LA unless it's them lol

Yeah - good luck on that.

My guess is Spanos does #3, and Davis moves somewhere else.

Maybe. Davis requires a lot of help in getting anything done. Spanos could potentially afford it more than Davis but has way too much of his net worth tied up in long term investments. And pops is a bit loopy now a days. Not sure sonny has the power to act without dad's approval.

The thing that upsets me most about this whole thing is watching St Louis fans have to deal with what I watched when the Rams left LA. It sucks and the fans don't deserve to be dealt like this.

The thing I see though is that the Rams were in LA for almost 50 years. There is much more logic to bringing them back than either the Raiduhs or Chargers - both having called LA home at one point. Now the NFL potentially has the ability to get a franchise in the LA market that has a long history with the area with an owner that has the money to build a stadium, the land to do it in a city that is bending over backwards to push it along, and the owner's desire to actually own the stadium.

Though the NFL has always sought out partnerships with cities to ensure the owner's bank account, I don't think that is a concern with Stan. I also can't see how an owner owning the stadium makes him somehow more of a flight risk. Why would an owner leave the LA market if he owns the whole kit and caboodle? It makes no sense to me. It occurs to me that is the surest lock the NFL could dream of in securing the viability of a team in the 2nd largest market in the US. And they could get the team back that they tried to block from moving in the first place with essentially a new owner.

While I would rather the team just stay put, I have to say that it is an uphill battle for St Louis. If they pull it off, it will be something they should rightly puff their chests out because those involved would have showed amazing abilities as a city and I don't just mean as far as the NFL is concerned.

 

[RamFan503]

Yep, she sure is. She had some very not so nice things to say about the St. Louis fans over there and the city of St. Louis ("that hell hole in the midwest" is what she called it, I think). I believe there was a topic about her over here during the season.

Interesting.

 

[Prime Time]

It's better when you post them there. It feels more official.

Nonsense!

 

[Prime Time]

Aren't you a frequent poster on a Seahawks message board who has had some very choice words about St. Louis fans in the past?

Yep, she sure is. She had some very not so nice things to say about the St. Louis fans over there and the city of St. Louis ("that hell hole in the midwest" is what she called it, I think). I believe there was a topic about her over here during the season.

Every new member gets a fresh start here. Just because someone posts at a Seahawks forum doesn't mean they're a fan of that team. Heck, I have accounts at several different teams forums including the Seahawks.

 

[RamFan503]

Every new member gets a fresh start here. Just because someone posts at a Seahawks forum doesn't mean they're a fan of that team. Heck, I have accounts at several different teams forums including the Seahawks.

Yep. I like that the members here are keeping an eye out. It let's you know they feel this is their home and don't want someone soiling the bed sheets. And we have always given fans latitude here even if from other teams as long as they are a positive addition to the site and not a drag. I'm not saying anyone is a Seahawks fan here. I wouldn't wish that on anyone. Just that even if some misguided person that liked that team came in here, they should get respect as long as they give respect.

 

[Goose]

The G4 still has to be paid back and I haven't heard anything stating that MO plans to do that. So tack on another $200 million to the amount Stan would have to put up. While it is true that Billionaires don't like to spend their own money on things they don't then own, spending money to earn a return on investment is very much what they like to do. Does it make sense that Stan would want to pay $450 million dollars on a stadium that he doesn't own, will not receive the revenues from soccer, concerts, monster truck events, parking, concessions, additional commercial and high end residential properties, and will have to fight with the controlling interests in order to get upgrades he deems necessary to stay on top?

So I have seen a lot of questions for the G4 loan so I did some digging. I have long heard that is basically free money from the league but I wasn't sure how that was possible. Based on what I found is that it is paid back to the league with money that is deemed shared revenue. So it is money that the owner would be giving the league anyways just now going towards the loan.

NFL establishes "G-4" stadium fund, there is much rejoicing

Just realized I never recapped last week's NFL owners meeting to formally re-establish the exhausted G-3 stadium fund, as previously pre-announced last summer. And so, without further ado:

The new loan program — which actually will be called "G-4" — ups the maximum loan level from $150 million per team under the old plan to a maximum of $200 million under the new one. Only projects costing at least $400 million, and with a "private contribution" from the team of at least $200 million, will be eligible for the top loan level

As under G-3, teams can repay the loan with club seat money they normally would have had to share with the league. They can now also use incremental regular ticket revenue, defined as the difference between ticket sales in the new stadium and average sales in the last three years of the old one.

"The project must not involve any relocation of or change in an affected club's 'home territory.'" That's in keeping with the old G-3 plan's goal of aiding teams in building new stadiums in their existing hometowns (to avoid the kind of city-hopping that gave us the St. Louis Rams and Tennessee Titans). Still, it's worth noting that this means the Minnesota Vikings, for example, can access $200 million in G-4 loans for a new stadium in Minnesota, but not for one in, say, Los Angeles.

http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html
_________________

 

[blue4]

Every new member gets a fresh start here. Just because someone posts at a Seahawks forum doesn't mean they're a fan of that team. Heck, I have accounts at several different teams forums including the Seahawks.

I don't care who they're a fan of to be honest. But if you insult an entire city and it's fan base, that's not something you easily get a fresh start from.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't care who they're a fan of to be honest. But if you insult an entire city and it's fan base, that's not something you easily get a fresh start from.

There are a number of posters here who have openly mentioned trolling other forums, fan bases, cities, etc, and they are still allowed to post here. If the behavior was to continue here, then they face repercussions, but it's not fair to allow some to do it and others not to.

 

[Prime Time]

Is this place not properly moderated? Who trolls here continually and gets away with it? No one, at least not for long. If someone is new here and they follow the rules, we expect them to be treated with the same respect as every other member until they prove otherwise.

 

[RamFan503]

There are a number of posters here who have openly mentioned trolling other forums, fan bases, cities, etc, and they are still allowed to post here. If the behavior was to continue here, then they face repercussions, but it's not fair to allow some to do it and others not to.

Not sure what you mean Blue. I'm not sure we really care if someone trolls another site but if they come in here and do it, they are dealt with pretty swiftly and there is not a matter of allowing some to do it and others not. If you know of this going on, let me know. In our discussions, we often talk about the fact that no one is bigger than the site. Well maybe the people running it....

 

[RamFan503]

So I have seen a lot of questions for the G4 loan so I did some digging. I have long heard that is basically free money from the league but I wasn't sure how that was possible. Based on what I found is that it is paid back to the league with money that is deemed shared revenue. So it is money that the owner would be giving the league anyways just now going towards the loan.




http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html
_________________

Except that if the team is sold, the loan has to be paid back. So as long as an owner keeps the team, the loan just sits there. It is kind of like when the city puts a sidewalk in in front of your house. In many cases, you do not have to pay off the construction costs until you sell the home.

 

[blue4]

There are a number of posters here who have openly mentioned trolling other forums, fan bases, cities, etc, and they are still allowed to post here. If the behavior was to continue here, then they face repercussions, but it's not fair to allow some to do it and others not to.

I'm not talking about not allowing them to post here, I'm talking about paying attention to them when they do. The fresh start refers to the people on this website, not the posting privileges.

 

[Boffo97]

I still just don't see what big changes they have made that would make it more difficult. By what I have seen, the rules are the same rules they had when the Rams moved in the first place.

To me, this is by far the main issue.

Could the NFL owners have 9 people among them who decide that, under the terms of the bylaws, Kroenke is not allowed to move the Rams? Possibly.

Would it end there? I can't see any possible way that it does.

A lawsuit where Kroenke would have precedent on his side is one option. Keeping the push going for a move to 2024 while using those unilateral rights to extend the lease year by year is another.

Nothing in the bylaws forces Kroenke to help fund that stadium against his will, and that's not going to happen. And the fact that the issue wouldn't go away and would turn ugly would have to be on the owner's minds when they vote.

That's why I'm of the very strong opinion that no matter how any of us here read the bylaws, so long as Stan continues to do everything right, the NFL is going to let him move the team. St. Louis either needs to be playing to entice another team to come to the city or if the end goal is the Rams staying, making Stan want to stay.

I think the last thing any of us want, no matter what city we're in or near, is this whole thing dragging on to possibly 2024.

 

[RedAlice]

Interesting.

I use the same name everywhere ON PURPOSE. I am not hiding anything at all.

I also follow the rules of all boards and do not post items to troll (well, I have trolled once or twice on the crazy RamsTalk page - again, with this same name).

As I stated, my preference is that the Rams come home to where I fell in love with them - but, if they stay in St. Louis then at least they will be building a new stadium so my experience there will be more enjoyable when I go watch MY RAMS play. I will still love them.

One thing that continues to really bother me is how most people I meet in St. Louis do not care one bit about the Rams. Makes me fundamentally sad about the team being there. I spend to see the Rams - travel to 4 or so games a year to various places. So, my opinions are mine based on my experiences. I do appreciate the passionate STL fans I read online.

Fun fact - a pic of the arch is the background on my laptop. I get called out for this all the time in meetings. I associate it with my time there watching the Rams as I took it right after the December game where we beat the Niners in overtime. GREAT day.

Judge me as you wish.

 

[RedAlice]

Aren't you a frequent poster on a Seahawks message board who has had some very choice words about St. Louis fans in the past?

Yes, I have said both negative and positive in a free environment that is not against any rules of their board. If you are going to focus on only the negative, that is your choice. I have also said positive things.

I'm currently calling out the Hawk fans for "drooling" over possibly having Suh on their team while at the same time they whined and complained that the Rams "seemed" to play dirty against them. I did the same thing after that game we had, and brought it up again now that it's a possibility. I speak my mind and am respectful of the place I am posting. I will respect all rules of this forum when posting here.

You can search me with this name on boards of many teams, the Hawks, Niners, Cards, Chargers, Chiefs, Saints, Eagles ( I have a huge crush on going to games there highlighted by the Rams game this year), Colts, Packers and I think I even went to the Raidrs site for awhile.

I am hiding nothing.

 

[RamFan503]

Yes, I have said both negative and positive in a free environment that is not against any rules of their board. If you are going to focus on only the negative, that is your choice. I have also said positive things.

I'm currently calling out the Hawk fans for "drooling" over possibly having Suh on their team while at the same time they whined and complained that the Rams "seemed" to play dirty against them. I did the same thing after that game we had, and brought it up again now that it's a possibility. I speak my mind and am respectful of the place I am posting. I will respect all rules of this forum when posting here.

You can search me with this name on boards of many teams, the Hawks, Niners, Cards, Chargers, Chiefs, Saints, Eagles ( I have a huge crush on going to games there highlighted by the Rams game this year), Colts, Packers and I think I even went to the Raidrs site for awhile.

I am hiding nothing.

Sounds good. I always figure true colors come out anyway so at this point I have no reason nor need to doubt what you say. I've heard it both ways about posters - good and bad. If they are a member here, I will count on the fact that they are here to be part of something rather than to try to tear it down.

To a man, everyone here that has moderator privileges hates banning or even having to warn people (well... unless the poster is an A-hole or if we're talking about X). We do it when it is in the best interest of the site and I for one rarely feel bad about it when I do. By then the writing is on the wall.

Anyway, welcome aboard Red. Hope you have a good time here.

Just out of curiosity - care to tell us where the name comes from?

One thing I might add is that I rarely go to other fan sites. I stay away largely so that I can keep a blank slate for most when they come here. The other reason is that I just have little stomach for petty squabbles and I find that way too much on most sites.

 

[RedAlice]

@RamFan503

Thank you! I look forward to engaging with other Rams's fans. I took some time to read this board before posting, and it does truely seem to be well run. Nice to see. It was recommended by a Rams fan on another team's board.

Ready for the off-season to get going, and now feeling apprehensive about the offense we are going to field for 2015, but trying to figure out how to be positive about it. Will find the appropriate thread to discuss those thoughts.

Little Red Riding Hood and Alice in Wonderland. Childhood nics.

 

[ChrisW]

I use the same name everywhere ON PURPOSE. I am not hiding anything at all.

I also follow the rules of all boards and do not post items to troll (well, I have trolled once or twice on the crazy RamsTalk page - again, with this same name).

As I stated, my preference is that the Rams come home to where I fell in love with them - but, if they stay in St. Louis then at least they will be building a new stadium so my experience there will be more enjoyable when I go watch MY RAMS play. I will still love them.

One thing that continues to really bother me is how most people I meet in St. Louis do not care one bit about the Rams. Makes me fundamentally sad about the team being there. I spend to see the Rams - travel to 4 or so games a year to various places. So, my opinions are mine based on my experiences. I do appreciate the passionate STL fans I read online.

Fun fact - a pic of the arch is the background on my laptop. I get called out for this all the time in meetings. I associate it with my time there watching the Rams as I took it right after the December game where we beat the Niners in overtime. GREAT day.

Judge me as you wish.

Yes, I have said both negative and positive in a free environment that is not against any rules of their board. If you are going to focus on only the negative, that is your choice. I have also said positive things.

I'm currently calling out the Hawk fans for "drooling" over possibly having Suh on their team while at the same time they whined and complained that the Rams "seemed" to play dirty against them. I did the same thing after that game we had, and brought it up again now that it's a possibility. I speak my mind and am respectful of the place I am posting. I will respect all rules of this forum when posting here.

You can search me with this name on boards of many teams, the Hawks, Niners, Cards, Chargers, Chiefs, Saints, Eagles ( I have a huge crush on going to games there highlighted by the Rams game this year), Colts, Packers and I think I even went to the Raidrs site for awhile.

I am hiding nothing.

Sounds good. I always figure true colors come out anyway so at this point I have no reason nor need to doubt what you say. I've heard it both ways about posters - good and bad. If they are a member here, I will count on the fact that they are here to be part of something rather than to try to tear it down.

To a man, everyone here that has moderator privileges hates banning or even having to warn people (well... unless the poster is an A-hole or if we're talking about X). We do it when it is in the best interest of the site and I for one rarely feel bad about it when I do. By then the writing is on the wall.

Anyway, welcome aboard Red. Hope you have a good time here.

Just out of curiosity - care to tell us where the name comes from?

One thing I might add is that I rarely go to other fan sites. I stay away largely so that I can keep a blank slate for most when they come here. The other reason is that I just have little stomach for petty squabbles and I find that way too much on most sites.

@RamFan503

Thank you! I look forward to engaging with other Rams's fans. I took some time to read this board before posting, and it does truely seem to be well run. Nice to see. It was recommended by a Rams fan on another team's board.

Ready for the off-season to get going, and now feeling apprehensive about the offense we are going to field for 2015, but trying to figure out how to be positive about it. Will find the appropriate thread to discuss those thoughts.

Little Red Riding Hood and Alice in Wonderland. Childhood nics.

WTB introduce yourself thread...........

Edit: blue text.