New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Nope--There was no "breach" of contract. There was no "reneging". The lease escape clause was triggered. "Breach" and "renege" imply illegality, both sides operated well within their legal rights. You are correct that Stan is not obligated to talk, but that doesn't mean that he shouldn't.

The other part is the right to relocate, which is right in the lease as part of the ramifications for not complying with the first tier standard.

 

[ChrisW]

conventional investing.

Do you mean investing outside the NFL? That's a like comparing apples to oranges.

As far as the Cardinals are concerned. I remember that we had a Monday night game not too long ago that did better than a Cardinals home playoff game.

 

[The Ripper]

Perhaps, but not as much as he would in conventional investing.

And the reason why they don't want to compete with the MLS is because there isn't unlimited money to go around. If the market studies are saying there's not a big pool to draw from, and that it's hard to beat the Cardinals for fans, that's essentially saying that the market is like a big pie.

Most of that pie is going to the Cardinals right now. So the Rams need to get some now. Enter the MLS and now there are four other teams (Mizzou, which I know is in Columbia, Cardinals, Blues, MLS) to compete with for fans/money. If the NFL can't be the only show in town they either want to be top dog easily, or have a big enough pool to draw from that it doesn't matter. I don't think St Louis can offer any of that, so while an MLS team is great for the city, its pretty unlikely it gives the NFL or Kroenke the warm and fuzzies.

Do you mean investing outside the NFL? That's a like comparing apples to oranges.

As far as the Cardinals are concerned. I remember that we had a Monday night game not too long ago that did better than a Cardinals home playoff game.

I think he was referring to the marketing dollars available from the communities corporate base.

 

[OldSchool]

Everything we have heard from Fabiani or their camp has been issues with the proposal - and that letter from the NFL sure sounds like they have legit concerns. If Kroenke had come out and said the same thing about winning in court, would that be slamming the city? No. It's issues with the deal.

they're held in a favorable light because they have been trying for - for over a decade. A half assed proposal that has tons of issues does nothing to change that.



really? As if we've never heard "Inglewood is being built anyway" and people haven't been writing off as the Rams in LA are a foregone conclusion or a done deal?

Playing this game of "what Kroenke has said and hasn't said" doesn't mean squat - the man hasn't said anything at all; taskforce can't even get him to speak to him.



Looks like to me the NFL has just backed all of Fabiani's "mouth running" and "insulting San Diego" by pointing out flaws in the plan...

but hey I guess somehow supposed to believe two owners who have been trying to work with the city is somehow better than an owner who has refused too...right... Talk about logical thinking

I'm pretty sure that letter was proven to be a hoax that somebody pulled on the radio host.

 

[OldSchool]

Everything we have heard from Fabiani or their camp has been issues with the proposal - and that letter from the NFL sure sounds like they have legit concerns. If Kroenke had come out and said the same thing about winning in court, would that be slamming the city? No. It's issues with the deal.

they're held in a favorable light because they have been trying for - for over a decade. A half assed proposal that has tons of issues does nothing to change that.



really? As if we've never heard "Inglewood is being built anyway" and people haven't been writing off as the Rams in LA are a foregone conclusion or a done deal?

Playing this game of "what Kroenke has said and hasn't said" doesn't mean squat - the man hasn't said anything at all; taskforce can't even get him to speak to him.



Looks like to me the NFL has just backed all of Fabiani's "mouth running" and "insulting San Diego" by pointing out flaws in the plan...

but hey I guess somehow supposed to believe two owners who have been trying to work with the city is somehow better than an owner who has refused too...right... Talk about logical thinking

That's just it, those two aren't working with their cities. They're refusing proposals based on money they're asked to pay. If they were working with cities they'd do what Kroenke is and having his point man in on the stadium and proposal development. Spanish and Davis have never done that they continually just turn down proposals and won't even sit with them at a negotiating table.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Do you mean investing outside the NFL? That's a like comparing apples to oranges.

As far as the Cardinals are concerned. I remember that we had a Monday night game not too long ago that did better than a Cardinals home playoff game.

Yes and no, it's a different thing, but the basics don't really change. It's all about ROI, Kroenke is expected to pay the majority of the stadium, likely cover all extra expenses, not be an owner, not get PSL's, and likely pay rent. For what exactly? Money from his 8 games and maybe money from a MSL team if they come? Yes, he'll still get money, but it's about the ROI.

That's where it goes back to deals need to make the owner excited, and stuff like that. St Louis needs to get financing figured out, but it also needs to present to the NFL exactly how everything shakes out. Unless the NFL really dislike Kroenke that much (which I don't see) that they want to screw him over, they wont take away a bunch of leverage and then hope the city plays nice.

Anything the city leaves out with the idea that "it can be discussed later" will only aid the NFL in saying thanks but no thanks and green-lighting a move.

Ripper was correct, about being more about corporate money.

 

[beej]

Ripper was correct

I thought we all agreed never to say that out loud.

 

[iced]

That's just it, those two aren't working with their cities. They're refusing proposals based on money they're asked to pay. If they were working with cities they'd do what Kroenke is and having his point man in on the stadium and proposal development. Spanish and Davis have never done that they continually just turn down proposals and won't even sit with them at a negotiating table.

Oakland isn't refusing - he can't do it on his own and the city has notoriously refused to use public money. The Oakland mayor has said this thousands of times

San Diego's issue isn't so much money as it is the legal loopholes and time line - they've never had anything resembling a decent proposal in the past 15 years and this last one has done NOTHING to change that notion.

And I have not seen anything saying that letter is fake. It wouldn't surprise me either if the NFL sent that letter...People tear down Fabiani for pointing out flaws in the proposal, but no one has shown anything that his concerns aren't without merit..And the only people that truly need to be convinced are the NFL and the owners. If the other owners agree with them, then that's really all that matters.

 

[rick6fan]

The other part is the right to relocate, which is right in the lease as part of the ramifications for not complying with the first tier standard.

I never disputed that. I only disputed the way the poster characterized St. Louis and the CVC in his post.

 

[OldSchool]

Oakland isn't refusing - he can't do it on his own and the city has notoriously refused to use public money. The Oakland mayor has said this thousands of times

San Diego's issue isn't so much money as it is the legal loopholes and time line - they've never had anything resembling a decent proposal in the past 15 years and this last one has done NOTHING to change that notion.

And I have not seen anything saying that letter is fake. It wouldn't surprise me either if the NFL sent that letter...People tear down Fabiani for pointing out flaws in the proposal, but no one has shown anything that his concerns aren't without merit..And the only people that truly need to be convinced are the NFL and the owners. If the other owners agree with them, then that's really all that matters.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Mattable/status/626152719816880128

Also reading the city's meeting with the NFL went amazing and Grubmann said San Diego showed "unprecedented progress".

 

[The Ripper]

Oakland isn't refusing - he can't do it on his own and the city has notoriously refused to use public money. The Oakland mayor has said this thousands of times

San Diego's issue isn't so much money as it is the legal loopholes and time line - they've never had anything resembling a decent proposal in the past 15 years and this last one has done NOTHING to change that notion.

And I have not seen anything saying that letter is fake. It wouldn't surprise me either if the NFL sent that letter...People tear down Fabiani for pointing out flaws in the proposal, but no one has shown anything that his concerns aren't without merit..And the only people that truly need to be convinced are the NFL and the owners. If the other owners agree with them, then that's really all that matters.

Grubman and Faulconer both said it wasn't from the NFL. What legal loopholes? That can all be resolved pretty easily just like Farmers field and that's why it was significant that Toni Atkins was at the meeting. Fabiani's concerns are without merit with support from Sacramento.

 

[ChrisW]

Yes and no, it's a different thing, but the basics don't really change. It's all about ROI, Kroenke is expected to pay the majority of the stadium, likely cover all extra expenses, not be an owner, not get PSL's, and likely pay rent. For what exactly? Money from his 8 games and maybe money from a MSL team if they come? Yes, he'll still get money, but it's about the ROI.

That's where it goes back to deals need to make the owner excited, and stuff like that. St Louis needs to get financing figured out, but it also needs to present to the NFL exactly how everything shakes out. Unless the NFL really dislike Kroenke that much (which I don't see) that they want to screw him over, they wont take away a bunch of leverage and then hope the city plays nice.

Anything the city leaves out with the idea that "it can be discussed later" will only aid the NFL in saying thanks but no thanks and green-lighting a move.

Ripper was correct, about being more about corporate money.

If it's all ROI, he comes out on top if he stays in STL, at least in the short term. We've seen the business associations sign letters to the NFL, the corporate support will be there when there's a confirmation of the team staying. It will only grow as the on-field product gets better.

I guess I'm just not willing to comment on how much money he'll truly make in STL until we get an idea of how the revenues will be split.

 

[bluecoconuts]

If it's all ROI, he comes out on top if he stays in STL, at least in the short term. We've seen the business associations sign letters to the NFL, the corporate support will be there when there's a confirmation of the team staying. It will only grow as the on-field product gets better.

I guess I'm just not willing to comment on how much money he'll truly make in STL until we get an idea of how the revenues will be split.

It's all about long term though, not short term. Did they sign the letters, I thought that Peacock was trying to get them after the market studies were revealed to show little appetite. I know he'll make money, but you don't need to know exactly the splits will be to see where there could be limits. The task force has kept a lot of that stuff hidden away.

 

[The Ripper]

If it's all ROI, he comes out on top if he stays in STL, at least in the short term. We've seen the business associations sign letters to the NFL, the corporate support will be there when there's a confirmation of the team staying. It will only grow as the on-field product gets better.

I guess I'm just not willing to comment on how much money he'll truly make in STL until we get an idea of how the revenues will be split.

Pretty much right on. You brought up a good point on better off in the short term but revenues must be certain for both long and short term. If the teams stays the guarantees will need to be more than just guaranteed because of past history. The CVC wasn't able to meet the guarantees in the first 2 seasons and once most of the guarantees went away in year 15 the teams revenues dropped significantly.

 

[DenverRam]

but hey I guess somehow supposed to believe two owners who have been trying to work with the city is somehow better than an owner who has refused too...right... Talk about logical thinking

Seriously.

He also asked for like 700m of public money for renovations before this process even started. Then plans on using his money somewhere else?

Far worse in my opinion

 

[OldSchool]

Seriously.

He also asked for like 700m of public money for renovations before this process even started. Then plans on using his money somewhere else?

Far worse in my opinion

This has been debunked already but thanks for the smear, you're good for them on Stan. The proposal the Rams submitted for the top tier clause asked the CVC to come up with a financing proposal it did not say they were to pay for it all. Good try.

 

[dieterbrock]

Oops... sorry, not sure what happened there.....

 

[bluecoconuts]

There's a few interesting bits in this interview with Sam Farmer. Most just essentially rehashing stuff we already know, that it will probably come down to a grand bargain, that the NFL may tell Kroenke he needs to split Inglewood, that the NFL doesn't want to set the precedent that a city can ignore their lease and then come in at the 11th hour and force a team to stay there, etc.

The more interesting note I thought was that Sam Farmer believes the NFL wants to stay in San Diego, and while ultimately the Chargers may leave the city, the NFL would rather keep them. Could increase the G4 loan for them, or promise them a Super Bowl or something else. I wouldn't have expected that personally, I always felt that because San Diego is a military town, it'd be harder for sports to thrive there. I trust Sam Farmer though, more than most talking heads on this issue. Says that keeping San Diego is more important to the league than the entire Oakland situation.

Skip to about 2/3rds of the way through, that's when he talks about relocation stuff (no time stamps)

http://www.am570lasports.com/media/...dMoney/petros-and-money-show-hour-2-26229789/

 

[DenverRam]

This has been debunked already but thanks for the smear, you're good for them on Stan. The proposal the Rams submitted for the top tier clause asked the CVC to come up with a financing proposal it did not say they were to pay for it all. Good try.

the clause is a joke and no city in the modern day would agree to it

 

[bluecoconuts]

the clause is a joke and no city in the modern day would agree to it

There's already other cities that have that same/similar clauses. However it's not Kroenke's fault or the Rams fault that St Louis agreed to that clause, that is the cities fault. It's not the Rams or Kroenke's fault that the city didn't want to follow through with that clause either.

Neither of which are about the 700 million dollar cost for the dome proposal. The Rams didn't ask the city to pay for it all (which the city was obligated to, per the terms of the lease) they allowed the city to come up with a payment plan and splits though.