New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[MrMotes]

I like AEG, but that's ridiculous, they could do the same thing to Staples Center/LA Live, I look at it all the time as we fly overhead. Plus they'd only really fly near it during landing.

Tom Ridge? I wonder what George Washington thought?

 

[RmsLegends]

You really need to do some research, he was never promised anything. The stadium lease had clauses and options. He exercised his, the CVC exercised theirs. NO promises were broken, no one got a raw deal, no one got cheated. No one changed the contract, no one broke the contract. The contract was the same as it was before he bought the team. Both sides made choices based on their options and as allowed for under the contract.

They were not promised the Dome would be a top tier stadium? Then a argument ensued as to how much that would cost to bring it to the promised top tier? The arbitrator ruled that the plans or money the CVC had was not the promised top tier? So the CVC did not say we are not gonna do that? So the Rams did not opt out since the promise was not kept?

The city was aware of the terms of the contract and they decided we won't fulfill them and make the Rams a free agent. If they would have agreed to begin with would we be here now even having this discussion?

The terms were simple ya have to do such if not then they have this option. So what promise is there now this won't happen again after a new lease is written on the impending stadium? Faith and trust has been lost and one of the hardest things to ever win back in life is lost trust.

 

[RmsLegends]

Well, that's clearer. I don't agree with you on several points, but I see what you're talking about now.

That is fair as we each hold our own opinions so disagreement is natural. So if my original points did not read so clear on my opinion and how I was talking about two different sides then that is on me and I shall endeavor to be clearer in the future.

 

[drasconis]

They were not promised the Dome would be a top tier stadium? Then a argument ensued as to how much that would cost to bring it to the promised top tier? The arbitrator ruled that the plans or money the CVC had was not the promised top tier? So the CVC did not say we are not gonna do that? So the Rams did not opt out since the promise was not kept?

The city was aware of the terms of the contract and they decided we won't fulfill them and make the Rams a free agent. If they would have agreed to begin with would we be here now even having this discussion?

The terms were simple ya have to do such if not then they have this option. So what promise is there now this won't happen again after a new lease is written on the impending stadium? Faith and trust has been lost and one of the hardest things to ever win back in life is lost trust.

There was no promise that the stadium would be top tier. No argument ensued unless you use the term very liberally...it was more of a negotiation or debate.

1. The contract stated that if the two sides disagreed what it would take to get the stadium to top 25% then it would go to arbitration.
2. the two sides sent in their proposals
3. the arbitrator sided with the rams
4. the CVC had the option to upgrade the dome - there was no promise that they would, it was an option
5. if they did the upgrade the rams would be required to maintian the lease for 10 more years, if they did not the rams had the option to go year to year
6. the CVC choose the option of not upgrading - this was NOT a broken promise...it was an option
7. the rams exercised their option to go year to year - once again this was an option there was a choice

both sides exercised rights and options as outlined and provided for in the contract using terms and rules considered and outlined in the contract (such as the arbitration).

A new contract/lease would have different terms, neither side broke the contract or any promises...not sure why any faith or trust would be lost. Such options could be put into the new contract also if both parties agree to it.

 

[DeaconJ]

NFL in L.A.: AEG warns rival's stadium plan is vulnerable to terrorism - LA Times
In a bold move to cast doubt on a planned NFL stadium at Hollywood Park, the sports and entertainment firm AEG commissioned a study by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge that found the proposed Inglewood project would be a tempting target for terrorists and should not be built.

LOL.....In his tenure as the head of Homeland Security, what did Tom Ridge accomplish other than a 'color code' for imminent threats? He's now a risk manager? Preposterous.

 

[RamFan503]

Wow. Where to begin with all this. The format would be difficult for me to do a point by point so I will just try to lay it out there. I also am going to leave St Louis and Carson and Oakland out of it for the most part in the interest of simplicity.

It is not that I don't want to listen to you - quite the contrary. It is more that I don't see where you are getting much of the info that you seem to assert as dead facts. But I can't exactly say you're wrong because I don't know I'm right either. Just my hunches and what I've seen happen. I think a key point here though is that Spanos honestly doesn't want to leave the SD market. So here goes:

The state made infrastructure districts much easier to enact by local gov'ts in order to expedite the process and get it to a vote of the public. The 55% vote hasn't changed but the ability of local gov'ts to get it on the ballot has been streamlined.

To step ahead in your post a bit, the idea that low voter turn out is a hindrance to passing a tax measure historically is untrue. I was involved in several measures and one of the measures we passed included a stipulation that tax increase measures could only be put on major election ballots. The reasoning was that because voter turn out was low, it was easier for special interest groups to rally their troops or simply remain quiet and get them passed. In my experience, the exact opposite of what your quote wants to push is reality. The easiest way to pass something - especially tax increases, is during voter apathy elections.

Getting a loan from the county would be easy if the county sees a potential upside - especially in the form of ongoing taxes that would continue after the payoff date. If the county is participating, they could potentially be receiving revenue from the deal ad infinitum.

I completely disagree that the Padres are more important to San Diego residents. Not sure there is a way to really assess that but I know that in the Padres games I've been to, there were more Dodger fans. I've only been to a Pirates Padres game other than that and we could pretty much change our seats at will. The Chargers - even tough their stadium is allegedly antiquated have always sold very well from my experience.

The previous dealings have been pretty confrontational but it looks like the county and city are getting a bit more serious - similar to what St Louis appears to be experiencing albeit in a much shorter time span. Fabiani seems to be a real sore spot with both the city and the county so I would agree that he is not helping things much. But Spanos has allowed that and I have the feeling he will be marginalized if things progress as I suspect they will.

SDSU currently shares the Chargers stadium and will likely continue that with a new stadium. Their ticket sales will come into play as a revenue stream.

The county has already cited how the bridge loan could be viable with future development revenues. I don't see that as being a huge obstacle.

The hospitality industry has been an obstacle but I've seen numerous times where they end up having to settle for room taxes and other traqnsient fees they didn't want or agree with in other areas and I don't see them putting up as much of a fight if the burden is shared and it puts them in a little less powerful of a position. A couple well placed community leaders and they come to the table if - for example - some of the revenues are targeted toward pulling in more tourism as was done with the CVC.

$15 million over 14 years isn't a huge outlay and IF a vote does come up in Carson, that will likely only light a fire under those involved to move more swiftly. Money spent in Carson could be a better investment in SD than money spent in SD itself.

PSLs? If they go modest in their projections, it could be enough to finish off funding. I am still not sure that they do a hell of a lot better in Carson if we are talking about percentage of overall project even though they claim otherwise.

I didn't buy Spanos' claim of the 25% when he said it and I still don't. Even if true, he is not going to lose all of that no matter who moves into the LA market. Spanos wants anyone to buy what he's selling, he can open his books. But we both know that ain't gonna happen.

In short, I still fully expect the Chargers to remain the San Diego Chargers.

Don't want to listen to what I have to say, fine, take it from Marc Fabiani of the Chargers from yesterday's stadium fan chat. Pretty damning and it's the same things I've been reading, and hearing from different sources INCLUDING Rams fans who want the team to return to L.A. They say their committed to work with San Diego, but continue to shoot down all ideas.

I've yet to find one person that has said this is going to be possible who hasn't brought up a plan that has a bunch of holes in it to kill the idea right away.


On getting assistance from SDSU:

San Diego State would be a valued tenant in any new stadium, but we cannot count on any significant contribution from the state university system given the economic conditions that the system and its students now face.

SDSU leadership has always been very supportive, but the state university system is suffering from severe financial constraints, and we cannot rightly expect that system to contribute significantly to a stadium.


On Rob Boberts' bridge financing plan:

The County is going to require guaranteed repayment sources, and so that pushes us back into the roadblock we have faced for 14 years -- how to create publicly acceptable funding streams for the project.

On the roadblock, a bridge loan is meant to get you from point A to point B, when your funding sources start to flow. But no one makes a bridge loan unless they are sure you have the funding sources in place. And of course, finding a publicly acceptable way to raise funds for this project -- with the two thirds vote requirement in California -- has been our roadblock now for 14 years.

There are real limits to what funds raised by an Infrastructure District can be used for, and those limits make such districts of limited use to a stadium project.


On the ongoing issues with the hoteliers:

The downtown hoteliers have not moved an inch, even after having their own funding plan declared illegal. It probably does not make sense for us to continue to wait and hope that they will change their minds.

The car rental tax in San Diego is one of the lowest of any big city in the nation. And the hotel tax in SD is also somewhat low compared to other big cities. That's why we proposed the hotel tax increase downtown -- because local voters would at least give it some consideration because the tax does not hit them directly. But again, the hoteliers have blocked us every step of the way.

And any car rental tax increase, or hotel tax increase, for a stadium would need a two thirds vote....impossible to achieve if you have a group like the hoteliers against you.


On the necessity of taxpayer-approved financing:

In our marketplace, the NFL, we are up against teams that have on average received about 60 cents on the dollar from taxpayers for stadium construction.

So how do we compete against these teams, on a level playing field, without finding a way to make up that 60 percent gap?

We've tried numerous ways over the last 14 years, ways that did not involve raising taxes. And we are still open to all alternatives. But that's the situation we find ourselves in -- we need to compete against the other teams in the NFL.


On resources being spent in San Diego and Carson:

We have spent 14 years and in excess of $15 million to find a solution in San Diego, and we anticipate spending considerable additional resources in San Diego in 2015.

But, as you know, we also have been forced to create an alternative for ourselves if we can't reach an agreement in San Diego. And that will require some significant expenditures in Carson as well in the coming months.

You will all be hearing news in the coming weeks out of Carson as the ballot measure moves forward. That is an inevitable part of the political process there, but that news does not mean that we have turned our attention away from SD.


On the unlikelihood of seeing significant support in the way of PSLs:

On PSLs, we have done considerable market research on the San Diego market. We have also studied the experience of the Padres. And based on all of that, we do not believe we can sell PSLs in our marketplace to even come anywhere close to matching what San Francisco did, or what the Rams expect to do in Inglewood. These are just very different markets.

Now that's not to say that no one will buy PSLs. I speak to people regularly who tell me that they would buy, and we are grateful for that. But the aggregate numbers are what count when it comes to stadium construction. And the aggregate numbers are nowhere close to where they would need to be to finance a project the way the 49ers did, or the way the Rams propose to do, or the way the Raiders and Chargers could finance a project in Carson.


On rebuilding a fanbase in Los Angeles:

With regard to the fan base in LA, 25% of our current season ticket members come from LA and Orange Counties. So we wouldn't be starting from scratch. And our studies show a tremendous appetite for NFL football in LA and Orange Counties.


On the unlikelihood of an expedited election:

The problem with a special election is that voter turnout in such elections is usually quite low -- and the voters who do turn out tend to be against new spending or ambitious projects. So, we have a huge hill to climb in any election because of the two-thirds vote rule in the California Constitution; a special election likely makes the hill insurmountable.


The rest can be read here:
http://forums.chargers.com/showthread.php?t=102829&page=4

 

[RamFan503]

And a rebuttal from a non-LA or STL source: Field of Schemes writer Neil DeMause:

Crunching the Inglewood numbers: Rams stadium would bring new revenues, but getting to $1.86B is tough
Posted on February 26, 2015 by Neil deMause
Link

The Los Angeles Times’ Tim Logan, who has been doing excellent work on St. Louis Ramsowner Stan Kroenke’s Inglewood stadium plan (and I don’t just say that because he usually seems to interview me), had a long story yesterday headlined “Stadium economics: How building a venue in Inglewood makes financial sense.” So how does it make sense, exactly?

• Sports economist Rod Fort says it’s a good deal for Kroenke if he can make enough money on the associated non-stadium development: “It’s more like a real estate development than a stadium.”
• Sports economist John Vrooman says the Rams could bring in an extra $100 million a year in “sponsorships, marketing and premium seating” in L.A. as compared to St. Louis, calling a move “an economic no-brainer.”
• Sports economist Victor Matheson says Kroenke could rent out and Inglewood stadium for concerts and the like, but “there’s just not that many 60,000-plus person events.”
• I call spending $1.86 billion just to get uncertain revenues “a huge, huge risk.”

Fort’s and Vrooman’s points are the most viable arguments for a privately funded Inglewood stadium making sense for Kroenke, so let’s take them one at a time. First off, the real estate development at Hollywood Park might well bring in enough revenue to make a stadium-plus-development deal turn a profit — but then, why saddle it with a potentially money-losing stadium when the rest of the development was already approved and ready to go? Kroenke had to pay his development partners (no one knows how much) to buy into the bigger plan, and it doesn’t make sense that they’d voluntarily give him a lot more in revenues than he’s paying them to buy in, since a stadium doesn’t especially help them any.

As for the extra $100 million a year from being in Los Angeles, that is the big question: Precisely how much value does the L.A. market have to an NFL owner? We’ve heard that number before, on the San Francisco 49ers‘ move to Santa Clara, but we’ll have to wait till the new Forbes numbers come out this summer to see if they agree. We can use the Forbes numbers another way, though, to see how reasonable this is: What are the Rams revenues right now, and what would adding $100 million a year mean?

According to Forbes, the Rams were dead last in the NFL in revenue in 2013, at $250 million. (Being dead last in the NFL in revenue is still a pretty lucrative gig.) Adding $100 million would mean they’d have to jump to 5th in the league in revenue, behind only the Dallas Cowboys,New England Patriots, Washington Unmentionables, and New York Giants. That’s conceivable, I suppose, but I’d still call it a huge risk, even if maybe the Forbes figures might make me willing to lop off one “huge.”

And then, would even $100 million a year be enough to make a $1.86 billion stadium a good investment? Kroenke could presumably knock off some of that price tag with PSL sales (figure $300-400 million), naming rights (about $200 million in present value), and possibly NFL G-4 money ($200 million max). That leaves only a little over a billion dollars to pay off, which $100 million a year would cover, but without much left over for a return on investment. At best, then, Kroenke would be putting up more than a billion dollars out of pocket, plus whatever he’s spending on stadium land and a share of the associated development, for a return that he could get by putting his money in a decent stock index fund. (Okay, and increasing the value of his asset, which admittedly could come to a bunch — the Giants are worth about a billion dollars more than the Rams right now, according to Forbes, though the Giants also aren’t saddled with $1.86 billion in stadium debt.) And if there’s any significant relocation fee required by the NFL, then forget it.

Add it all up, and I would just suggest that the Times’ headline writers should have made one tense change: “How building a stadium in Inglewood could make economic sense.” We’re talking hypotheticals here, and everything would have to go Kroenke’s way for a $1.86 billion stadium to pay off for him. Or to put it another way: It’s a huge, huge risk.

My only retort to this would be that I'd trust Stan's ability to make money on a project WAY above this guy's - otherwise he'd be doing it and making billions rather than writing about it on his website that maybe makes thousands. If he's right, I'd have to think Stan already sees that and won't do it.

 

[RamFan503]

Me too, I'll pick you up at the airport and well meet him at the strip club.

I hear there's a certain head of officials that can have Jeruh's bus pick you up.

Ahem.... HEY! Stay on topic damn it!

Man I want some conclusion to all this. Great thread and all but .... YEESH!

 

[RamFan503]

Well I reckon blue4 if ya look to be offended ya will always find a cause to do so. My comments said no such thing and the way ya read it allows ya as the individual to hear what ya want to hear or when ya are looking to be offended find your cause.

I would think plainly from me quoting and speaking directly to Thor with my comment I came across as I know him and have had many interactions with him and so from a personal basis I commented him from a same perspective we have and share and speculated how another with our mindset could have come to a same opinion. That is all I did and said as my words are there for all to see.

So ya taking umbrage with me for things I did not say is over the top. While I make no excuse or back down from what I said, to me personally to read I was looking to debate which is better libs or cons is very far from my intent.

I'll be straight up with you man. That font color is one that I simply wouldn't read if I wasn't patrolling this thread. It immediately comes off as abrasive and pissed off.

I will also caution you to calm your tone. This thread has been going on pretty well for weeks on a pretty heated topic. Don't come in here guns a blazing. There is enough emotion on this subject already and everyone with few exception has kept a pretty even keel.

I may even agree with much of what you are saying but seriously - that red font, bolded and italicized is just freaking screaming at me and I don't even let my wife get away with THAT.

 

[RamFan503]

I think you are making one major wrong speculation. If Kronke came out tomorrow and said he wanted to pay for his own land and stadium in St Louis, the resounding "Yes", by everyone local including the government, would be heard all the way here in Oregon.

I have actually wondered about this myself. With all the moving pieces, I wonder if it is all about that. I mean - is there something else that has prevented him from doing so? Is there just no money in it for him to do it in St Louis? Are there political issues that also align with some of the bylaws that would prohibit him from doing so without the approval of the city? Is this maybe still just a leverage ploy that we will all see once the dust has settled? Did someone within the city/county/state piss him off so much that he is now going to teach them a lesson in business?

Frankly, I think there are things we just don't know that have happened or are about to happen that will eventually make sense out of all this. Because every way I turn, I can see holes in EVERYONE's arguments including my own.

 

[blue4]

I have actually wondered about this myself. With all the moving pieces, I wonder if it is all about that. I mean - is there something else that has prevented him from doing so? Is there just no money in it for him to do it in St Louis? Are there political issues that also align with some of the bylaws that would prohibit him from doing so without the approval of the city? Is this maybe still just a leverage ploy that we will all see once the dust has settled? Did someone within the city/county/state pee pee him off so much that he is now going to teach them a lesson in business?

Frankly, I think there are things we just don't know that have happened or are about to happen that will eventually make sense out of all this. Because every way I turn, I can see holes in EVERYONE's arguments including my own.

It's like your math teacher asking you to solve for X, but without giving you A or B to work with.

 

[Thordaddy]

So you say that he's a conservative but he wants to move the Rams to the Democratic mecca that is California?



You should frame this little paragraph as speculation as well. Owners in the NFL simply do not own venues. The reason why is they are a huge burden as they are easily twice as expensive as any other sports venue. The revenue streams are the real deal when it comes to NFL franchise owners.

PS - if I may suggest. In the world of internet forums, it's impossible to read things a certain way and impossible to read the original authors tone. Red font doesn't do anything to help the situation because it's harder to read, and puts off a more aggressive mindset.

Little background her my man Legend is color blind,no really IIRC he asked me to help him with the choice and has posted in that font and color for years.

As for whether Stans attitudes are to some degree formed by his wish to not be interfered with by excessive government involvement ,I'd say most people in his main line of business (developing ) has legal depts dedicated to smoothing out or circumventing myriads of regs. like if a spotted owl will lose a nights sleep if he builds . Example I built two buildings at the same time same size same construction one on my farm in IL. one at my mfg. plant the one on my farm was completed BEFORE we got the permits to build the other ,the building that had been on the plant property had burned and when we went to get the permit it was discovered that it had been built 5 ft. into a common alley that 3/4 of that side I owned the property HOWEVER 1/4 was on the common alley of another land owner. We had been paying taxes on the land and building for a sufficient number of years to constitute open and notorious confiscation so we had to sue the land owners for title , yes that's right I HAD to sue myself it couldn't be just deeded over ,wish I'd clipped the publication of the notice of suit.

IMO Legend was not trying to make this about politics rather he was conjuring a commonly held belief as a means of making his point to ME,not at all trying tp invite a political discussion, and I get his point loud and clear , and I do believe Stan is a huge proponent of the golden rule , he with the gold makes the rules.
HOWEVER I also KNOW that he has a very soft spot in his heart for this state, gives chunks of money Mizzou for their sports teams owns a home in Columbia ,half the redevelopment property in that town , considers himself a Missouri boy and will only go for the money if the state and city won't love him back, if the city drags their feet if the CVC pretty well says F U we aren't going to honor our commitment which they have it's sort of a fool me once shame on you if you fool me twice shame on me situation.
My entire thesis on this is that Stan is not strictly motivated by profit ,at one point was hell bent on owning an NFL franchise in HIS HOME state and the last place in the world he wants to look like a robber barren is MO and has already gone an extra mile twice before to make that so.

I say all that in the full knowledge that few people ( including me) know what Stan is thinking and that he knows the less people do the less vulnerable he will be in any negotiation.
CLEARLY the CVC wants rid of the Rams when 2/3 of the way through it they ,engage in constructive eviction .
At any rate I also adhere to the idea that Kroenke would NOT let all the people who are jumping through hoops to keep the Rams to dance like puppets when his mind was made up,that he has not come out and expressed his unwavering intent to move indicates to me it just isn't a done deal

 

[Young Ram]

There was no promise that the stadium would be top tier. No argument ensued unless you use the term very liberally...it was more of a negotiation or debate.

1. The contract stated that if the two sides disagreed what it would take to get the stadium to top 25% then it would go to arbitration.
2. the two sides sent in their proposals
3. the arbitrator sided with the rams
4. the CVC had the option to upgrade the dome - there was no promise that they would, it was an option
5. if they did the upgrade the rams would be required to maintian the lease for 10 more years, if they did not the rams had the option to go year to year
6. the CVC choose the option of not upgrading - this was NOT a broken promise...it was an option
7. the rams exercised their option to go year to year - once again this was an option there was a choice

both sides exercised rights and options as outlined and provided for in the contract using terms and rules considered and outlined in the contract (such as the arbitration).

A new contract/lease would have different terms, neither side broke the contract or any promises...not sure why any faith or trust would be lost. Such options could be put into the new contract also if both parties agree to it.

Actually, the lease WAS broken. The contract stated that the dome had to be kept withing the top 1/8 of stadiums or the Rams would be able to break the lease and leave. The CVC did not comply. The Rams went year to year.

The lease was bad for STL.

 

[Thordaddy]

Actually, the lease WAS broken. The contract stated that the dome had to be kept withing the top 1/8 of stadiums or the Rams would be able to break the lease and leave. The CVC did not comply. The Rams went year to year.

The lease was bad for STL.

YUP just like if a landlord wouldn't fix the hot water heater,it's called constructive eviction.

 

[Thordaddy]

That is fair as we each hold our own opinions so disagreement is natural. So if my original points did not read so clear on my opinion and how I was talking about two different sides then that is on me and I shall endeavor to be clearer in the future.

Good to see ya Legend , but why dija have to disagree with me ?:eek: that last part should be blue but then I'd have to tell you it was anyway

 

[RamFan503]

Though i don't think a lot of people move from Missouri to California to get away from big government.

I gotta say - that is a very good observation. Funny yet IMO very on point.

 

[RamFan503]

It's like your math teacher asking you to solve for X, but without giving you A or B to work with.

Man - I was great at math but absolutely hated Algebra. Please don't make me think of Algebra.

 

[RamFan503]

Little background her my man Legend is color blind,no really IIRC he asked me to help him with the choice and has posted in that font and color for years

WTF Thor? You color blind too? I just admonished him for that choice. Telling you - I am about to delete everything he writes because of it. I think you know me. I'm not one to do that because of content but that font is down right inciteful.

 

[blue4]

Actually, the lease WAS broken. The contract stated that the dome had to be kept withing the top 1/8 of stadiums or the Rams would be able to break the lease and leave. The CVC did not comply. The Rams went year to year.

The lease was bad for STL.

It's my understanding that the Rams had the option to get out if the dome fell out of the top 25%. Not that the CVC was absolutely required to keep it there or else. That's like saying the Rams broke a contract with Langford when they released him. No, they just exercised the option available to them within the contract.

 

[drasconis]

YUP just like if a landlord wouldn't fix the hot water heater,it's called constructive eviction.

Not even close - the dome is not unusuable. Notice they are still using it.... (a closer example to what you are claiming would be if the metrodome had not repaired the roof years ago when it caved in).

Both side exercised options provided for within the contract. The lease is still binding and valid, the rams exercised an option allowing them to go year to year, but it is still the same lease....the rams will pay the CVC for the dome this year.

Blue4 has it correct.

A good example would be you lease an office in the tallest office building in the city since you want the prestige. Your lease states that if the building does not remain the tallest in the city you MAY change the lease to month to month from yearly. A taller builing is built. The current owner determines the cost of making his building even taller is prohibitive or not even possible. You inform him you are making the lease month to month. It isn't his fault, he did not break the contract, and neither did you, you both had options you could use.

I may be getting prickly on some language used in this thread, but it touches on what I do for a living. In contract law a broken promise is huge (like the constructive eviction above). We do not have that here, no promises are broken (no one can sue), just options allowed to both sides.