New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

I agree. Why doesn't his spending money on architects and such work in his favor as far as leverage? How much time and money did he spend to get the Rams TO St Louis? How much did those millions he has likely spent on the Inglewood project, actually increase his value and position in a St Louis venue? How much sooner will it be giving him a stadium in St Louis to increase his revenues simply because he forced the issue with a very real and tangible threat to move and move quickly.

Stan was born and raised in MO. Do we not think he understands the politics of the area? I have to think that Stan knew full well he wasn't getting a stadium built by playing the same bullcrap games going on in SD, OAK, Minn.... the list goes on. So who is to say that he didn't force the issue on his schedule? And let's say he played the game the way most owners have done. How many millions does he lose over the ten or fifteen years he waits for a new stadium? My guess is FAR more than he has spent on specific stadium related items in Inglewood.

I am actually leaning toward the Rams staying in St Louis honestly.

More importantly, it's the return on the investment he gets from a new stadium that can host superbowls, etc.

Also much more cost effective - believe he only has to pay $200-$250 million for the stadium in St.Louis, as opposed to spending over 2 billion to build a stadium and move the team (cost of moving a team, relocation fee, stadium, etc.)

 

[brokeu91]

I have not seen anything with regard to acoustics on the stadium... ala Quest Field.

I agree with this, I hope if they build it, the acoustics pull back the noise like Quest Field does

 

[RamFan503]

I am unabashedly a St. Louis homer. I moved here 22 years ago. I work here. I raise my family here. This place has become "home" - and for a transplant into the region, who can't get the 'where did you go to high school?' question immediately, that is saying a lot, it took a long time to feel "at home" here because St. Louis is different than other regions. Not going to say 'better' or 'worse', its just unique and until that really sinks in, its not possible to explain to an outsider. But I simply see this differently than 'conventional wisdom'.

If the Riverfront Stadium proposal continues on to become the Riverfront Stadium project, then the Rams franchise is going to stay put right where it is - in St. Louis. The opinions of the venue may vary, but the most important aspects - entry points and concourses, egress, traffic, parking, viewing angles to the field and capacity for the market in both seating and luxury/corporate boxes - are all up to the NFL standards for 21st century stadiums and deemed acceptable. Retractable roofs, suspended huge video boards, flashy exteriors or down right weird looking things like the Atlanta boondoggle are not requirements. The current owner may very well be moving on sooner rather than later; but the Rams are not going anywhere.

Mark Davis is hardly the "model" NFL owner - poor (by league standards), eccentric (not in a charming way either) and ensconced in a stadium situation he has no hope of solving on his own. The Raiders are one piece of the larger puzzle, but they are the one with the most edges and the hardest to remedy without Stan Kroenke's direct help. Back in January, before Carson was publicly an option, the Rams to L.A. would have been the best solution for the L.A. problem at that time only. But, as the Oakland and San Diego situations for stadiums deteriorate further, and the Raiders financial position remains 'soft' at best, then Inglewood is just 'an option' and no longer 'the option'. Stan wants to maximize his potential revenue no matter where he lands, but he needs more leverage with the league to make Inglewood "THE OPTION" once more.

IF Stan really 'wants' L.A. as his home base (and why any billionaire would 'want' any city over another is kind of laughable, he can live whether ever he chooses and in a town like LA, he won't exactly be 'known' - the guy is not Nicholson or Jerry Buss...he is a recluse and kind of odd looking man truth be told, inserting yourself into a place WITH cool people does not transform you INTO a cool person), it would only be because the $$$ in one spot is vastly better than another - its not like the guy is living in a condo built into the Edward Jones dome now...he is not exactly living in a neighborhood either, worrying about the home owner's association. Kroenke wants to garner the best deal he can for himself, full stop. Right now that could involve a ton of options - moving the Rams unilaterally and daring the league to stop him, moving the Rams after seeking approval from the league and not getting it, selling the Rams to buy the Raiders and move THEM to L.A. since that path would have far less league roadblocks, doing nothing but retaining the Rams and accepting a new stadium deal in St. Louis, etc. etc. etc.

The thing virtually everyone agrees on is that the one thing that won't happen is status quo beyond 2015.
This situation is resolved by December one way or another.

I just think regardless of intention, desire or actions to date, if there is continued progress in St. Louis towards the new stadium, the only way Kroenke ends up in L.A. is as the owner of the Raiders. I just see that as solving more league problems and being the option that ends up winning approval. Maybe the Raiders do share Carson with the Chargers and Spanos and Kroenke figure out a way to coexist - or maybe its Kroenke convincing Spanos to underwrite a portion of Inglewood. I just see new St. Louis ownership and a Spanos-Kroenke / Chargers-Raiders conclusion as the most likely and viable outcome.

In these clashes of billionaires and egos, the thing that usually loses is the guy with the least amount of money and leverage...Spanos has the backing of the other owners and some viable financing options with Goldman rumored, Kroenke has the money, a viable alternative project and the land and financial clout, Davis has neither - in fact, he really has nothing. Oakland and San Diego won't build, St. Louis will. Who is the ultimate loser? The guy with the least power...Mark Davis and the fans in Oakland. Thepotentially Stan Kroenke owned (and Kevin Demoff led) Los Angeles Raiders won't lose and neither will Kroenke himself.

Come to think of it...Jeff Fisher might look pretty good in Silver and Black in L.A....maybe the Rams can get some draft picks for him, but if the Rams fail to make the playoffs again in 2015, he might just be a free-agent!

Not bad. A lot there that is hard to disagree with. I am really thinking that the bottom line is going to be that the Rams get a very good deal (not Dome good) to stay in St Louis and do just that. Yes Stan can visit or live anywhere he pleases. So why not on his estate in MO? It is a pretty cool spread and very much like a ranch. And we all know he loves ranches. I don't see him going through the process of buying the Raiders so he can have the LA market.

Besides, how beloved will he be by the NFL owners if he is the one who not only gets himself a brand new, ultra cool riverfront stadium while also getting stadium deals done for the Bolts and Raiders AND solves the LA market issue. He will be a God in their eyes.

 

[RamFan503]

I've already said I'm going to play nice... so.. back off on the "naive" stuff. The worlds of difference between Minnesota's situation and Stan's situation is fairly clear and well documented. As I've said... based on *all the information* I've read, including the comments of writers covering the team.. Stan wants to move.
Your AEG comment shows really how little you understand that situation and how they are different.. and, we have no idea how much Stan has actually spent. We know the Inglewood plot sold for $60 million.. and have no idea how much he's spent on the designs and campaign.
"Leverage" would be buying Inglewood and announcing then they plan to build. He didn't do that. He waited until he was well along in the design phase to drop that bomb.
I don't *know* the outcome. I know Stan wants to move.
Also... I can't help but point out how much everyone involved in the Riverfront project mix in "An NFL" team or city in regards to that project. Seems relevant.

The $60 million for property in Inglewood was hardly a bad deal for Stan no matter what he does there. So that is certainly not money lost. The money spent on the stadium itself is hard to guess. Some have said in the neighborhood of $20 million. I would guess much less - likely in the $5 - 10 million range at best.

You can argue which leverage is best but to me, telling everyone you plan to build without real substance to back it up, makes that announcement lose steam before it begins. Not only that but he would HAVE to have built up a plan AND have assurances that it would get approvals before announcing - otherwise he looks the fool.

I think Stan has two great options and that is exactly how he wants it. I don't for a second think I know for sure what he wants to do. But when you look at what he HAS done, you have to acknowledge all the work he did in trying to bring the NFL to St Louis before the Rams and then signing on to buy part of the team and finance the relocation ONLY if they moved to St Louis. I generally like to put aside what people claim someone will do and look at what that person actually has done. When I do that, it tells me Stan has brought football back to his native state. So when I think of what Stan wants to do, I have to take that into account.

 

[RamFan503]

We look at things a little differently when it comes to stadiums. I don't need innovative/creative/different. It seems to me that if that's what you make you happy you'd be sorely disappointed in about 5 years when other towns start building stadiums that are even wilder than the one you use to like.
What I like in a stadium is:
efficiency in and out,
comfortable for the fans,
uncomfortable for opposing teams,
open air environment,
looks like it belongs in the location it's in.

When the houston Astros built their stadium there was all kinds of innovation and creativity, personally, I thought the whole thing was moronic, right down to the flag pole on a hill in centerfield.

I mean if you like that sort of thing, that's fine. It's just not my cup of tea. Busch stadium doesn't have any outlandish creativity. but it is a beautiful park in my opinion and it gives me and the city a lot of pride.

Agree totally. There may be other venues that look ultra modern and flashy (the new Minnesota venue comes to mind) but this stadium looks like football to me.

I agree with I think it was Iced though that they HAVE to get the acoustics dialed in so it is louder than Quest cuz the Rams are going to be rockin and rollin in the new joint.

 

[bluecoconuts]

So, I have to disagree with dick84. At this point, no one REALLY KNOWS what Kroenke is up to. He might, indeed, want to move to LA, or he might want to stay in St. Louis.

Demoff essentially confirmed he is indeed looking to move to LA with his recent interviews, so I'd say that issue is settled. Yes, it could all be a bluff, but when someone keeps telling you something I think you start to listen.

The more I look at this, the more I really don't like it. Sorry, just being honest. I think it looks like the ceiling of my elementary school's gym. Horrible(worst in the NFL) video screens, no unique features at all, unbalanced, and skeletal. I know people aren't going to agree with me but I've slept on it and looked again and I'm really disappointed.

I like the stadium, but would like it more with squared off video screens. The fly through had videos playing and the heads were cut off. While it may be easier to do it with them full size, I get the feeling it won't be. I love the rest of the stadium then.

Hows that a lot of money?Its peanuts to him.

AEG spent $50 million over how many years to get a team?

Smaller investment to get a bigger,better stadium that will host superbowls - not gonna get that at the EJD w/ upgrades.

Let's also not pretend that Stan buying that land isn't a win/win for him either. As a real estate man, his options are endless for it.

His options on that land is actually a bit limited, I believe if not the stadium there will be more houses/apartments or something like that. He does have options though, I never said he didn't. And yes the money is peanuts to him, but what is he getting? Since Inglewood he's seen his deal in St Louis stay the same, or maybe even get worse.

Its still the same type of stadium, so maybe he likes that, so that's cool. But he's not owning or operating it (which he seems to like), his cost has either stayed the same, or seemingly gone up. So why keep pushing? St Louis isn't really giving anything else up it seems, and it's not like if he pulls out from LA St Louis is going to go "hahahaha, now we will change it all and you get nothing!"

If its a bluff it doesn't seem to be doing much for him, and everyone talks about how good of a negotiator Stan is. He may not end up in LA, but it's a real option for him.

 

[bluecoconuts]

More importantly, it's the return on the investment he gets from a new stadium that can host superbowls, etc.

Also much more cost effective - believe he only has to pay $200-$250 million for the stadium in St.Louis, as opposed to spending over 2 billion to build a stadium and move the team (cost of moving a team, relocation fee, stadium, etc.)

He's paying at least 450, I'm thinking more like 600 million, because the last number I heard said was "400 million from the public, obviously then if the stadium is a billion dollars, that means Stan's part has gone up.

The Inglewood stadium is more likely to hold multiple Super Bowls, and since he would own everything he sees far more returns on it. Spend more get more.

 

[RamFan503]

Demoff essentially confirmed he is indeed looking to move to LA with his recent interviews, so I'd say that issue is settled. Yes, it could all be a bluff, but when someone keeps telling you something I think you start to listen.

That's funny. I got the exact opposite out of what KD said. I got that KD wouldn't go there on that question.

His options on that land is actually a bit limited, I believe if not the stadium there will be more houses/apartments or something like that. He does have options though, I never said he didn't. And yes the money is peanuts to him, but what is he getting? Since Inglewood he's seen his deal in St Louis stay the same, or maybe even get worse.

Its still the same type of stadium, so maybe he likes that, so that's cool. But he's not owning or operating it (which he seems to like), his cost has either stayed the same, or seemingly gone up. So why keep pushing? St Louis isn't really giving anything else up it seems, and it's not like if he pulls out from LA St Louis is going to go "hahahaha, now we will change it all and you get nothing!"

If its a bluff it doesn't seem to be doing much for him, and everyone talks about how good of a negotiator Stan is. He may not end up in LA, but it's a real option for him.

Personally, I think the St Louis stadium plan has grown quite well and ONLY because Stan has Inglewood. When all this started there was just a bunch of positioning from those in St Louis. Then came a stadium plan that was pretty basic. Fast forward to today and I think this latest design is a HUGE step up. So I disagree. Stan has already potentially profited from the Inglewood site.

 

[RamFan503]

He's paying at least 450, I'm thinking more like 600 million, because the last number I heard said was "400 million from the public, obviously then if the stadium is a billion dollars, that means Stan's part has gone up.

The Inglewood stadium is more likely to hold multiple Super Bowls, and since he would own everything he sees far more returns on it. Spend more get more.

This is the biggest thing IMO that keeps Inglewood in play. I still don't know that it is a deal clincher but it sure wouldn't be a bad position for Stan to be in.

 

[ChrisW]

Demoff essentially confirmed he is indeed looking to move to LA with his recent interviews, so I'd say that issue is settled. Yes, it could all be a bluff, but when someone keeps telling you something I think you start to listen.

You get what you want to hear out of these kinds of interviews. But he was essentially non-committal on either St. Louis or LA. If that's a confirmation for you, so be it.

 

[Moostache]

...Personally, I think the St Louis stadium plan has grown quite well and ONLY because Stan has Inglewood. When all this started there was just a bunch of positioning from those in St Louis. Then came a stadium plan that was pretty basic. Fast forward to today and I think this latest design is a HUGE step up. So I disagree. Stan has already potentially profited from the Inglewood site.

I agree with this 100%.
Regardless of the ultimate endgame (and I already wrote a book about my opinions there), Kroenke wins in the end. There is no way St. Louis would be half as far as they are without a very credible threat of losing the team and this is precisely what Inglewood was from the time he first bought the 60 acres 2 years ago to the time he announced the stadium partnership with Stockbridge to now.

In the end, he ends up with worst case scenario a new stadium in St. Louis and investment property in Inglewood that he can flip back to Stockbridge to lessen the net costs of whatever he has spent to date or he ends up as the majority owner of a new stadium on the site. Hard to say that he "loses" anything in either outcome.

 

[Dodgersrf]

In January, I thought it was a given Stan would move the team. There were even reports that he was going to file for relocation before the deal to purchase the entire site fell through.

It doesn't look like a sure thing anymore. If STL can get the financing in place within the next 4 months or so, I find it almost impossible that the league could justify the move to LA.
I do believe the league may be in on it though. If the league moves up the deadline to file for relocation to this fall from January 2016, that could hurt the Riverfront plan.
If this happens I would bet that it's not just Stan that wants the Inglewood site, but the league as well.

 

[iced]

He's paying at least 450, I'm thinking more like 600 million, because the last number I heard said was "400 million from the public, obviously then if the stadium is a billion dollars, that means Stan's part has gone up.

The Inglewood stadium is more likely to hold multiple Super Bowls, and since he would own everything he sees far more returns on it. Spend more get more.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_0b74d08b-1231-5f28-8d3d-6953dfa4f09d.html

Peacock and Blitz outlined funding sources, including $200 million from the National Football League’s loan program, most of which would likely be paid back by the team; as much as $250 million from Rams owner Stan Kroenke; and as much as $55 million in state tax credits.

You also forgot to include the g4 Loan in your equation

 

[Moostache]

I like the stadium, but would like it more with squared off video screens. The fly through had videos playing and the heads were cut off. While it may be easier to do it with them full size, I get the feeling it won't be. I love the rest of the stadium then.

I kind of hated the curved screens when I first saw them, but after seeing the revisions to the plan and the fly-through video, they kind of grew on me. For those saying the stadium design is too vanilla or boring, those screens are certainly unique - even if then ended up keeping the shape and only using the rectangular portion during replays and made the odd shaped parts more like those color projection bulbs that some TVs used for a while:

 

[iced]

Demoff essentially confirmed he is indeed looking to move to LA with his recent interviews, so I'd say that issue is settled. Yes, it could all be a bluff, but when someone keeps telling you something I think you start to listen.



I like the stadium, but would like it more with squared off video screens. The fly through had videos playing and the heads were cut off. While it may be easier to do it with them full size, I get the feeling it won't be. I love the rest of the stadium then.



His options on that land is actually a bit limited, I believe if not the stadium there will be more houses/apartments or something like that. He does have options though, I never said he didn't. And yes the money is peanuts to him, but what is he getting? Since Inglewood he's seen his deal in St Louis stay the same, or maybe even get worse.

Its still the same type of stadium, so maybe he likes that, so that's cool. But he's not owning or operating it (which he seems to like), his cost has either stayed the same, or seemingly gone up. So why keep pushing? St Louis isn't really giving anything else up it seems, and it's not like if he pulls out from LA St Louis is going to go "hahahaha, now we will change it all and you get nothing!"

If its a bluff it doesn't seem to be doing much for him, and everyone talks about how good of a negotiator Stan is. He may not end up in LA, but it's a real option for him.

Easy - to get his perfect stadium. At the end of the presentation, The Rams gave some more inputs on more changes they wanted to the stadium.

St.Louis never gave him the sincerity they do now with out the threat of moving, either....just like San Diego has been treating Spanos (by that I mean making minimal effort "offers"..unrealistic ones that you know won't pass like when the CVC made their first proposal during arbitration)..

Pretty much this is how it has worked over the last 15 years - Not happy with the deal the city is giving you? Threaten to move..invest $10-$20 million, or however much, to get a much better stadium, which only lines your pockets further. Compare the cost of this stadium to where he was at with arbitration....

it's investment - sure it's a risk, no investment is sound proof..but if you get a better stadium with the chance to generate more revenue and attract big events like superbowls, it's worth the risk down the line.

 

[blue4]

That's fine if you want to disagree but can you at least tell me what about this stadium is unique in any way from all the other stadiums in the NFL or college that football fans(not just of the Rams) would think is cool/innovative/creative/different?

Today's cool innovative creative different designs usually look dated in 20 years. I'd prefer to keep it relatively classic and understated.

 

[V3]

We look at things a little differently when it comes to stadiums. I don't need innovative/creative/different. It seems to me that if that's what you make you happy you'd be sorely disappointed in about 5 years when other towns start building stadiums that are even wilder than the one you use to like.
What I like in a stadium is:
efficiency in and out,
comfortable for the fans,
uncomfortable for opposing teams,
open air environment,
looks like it belongs in the location it's in.

When the houston Astros built their stadium there was all kinds of innovation and creativity, personally, I thought the whole thing was moronic, right down to the flag pole on a hill in centerfield.

I mean if you like that sort of thing, that's fine. It's just not my cup of tea. Busch stadium doesn't have any outlandish creativity. but it is a beautiful park in my opinion and it gives me and the city a lot of pride.

I can appreciate that but I think I might not be explaining what I mean by 'unique' as well as I probably should. Something that's unique doesn't necessarily mean that in 5 years people won't be happy with it because some other stadium has something newer. It's something that makes that stadium stand out from all the other teams. For example, the SF Giants AT&T ballpark goes right up to the bay where people can wait in their boats for HR's. Fenway ballpark has the Green Monster. Seattle's Centurylink stadium was built like a canyon specifically to trap and boost sound(12th man my ass). Mile High stadium overlooks the Rocky Mountains. Heinz field overlooks the river in a way that almost everyone can see it from their seat(and it's not an ugly view of a river like some can be). It's the things that allow fans outside of the home town that allows them to immediately identify the stadium and they think, "man that's a cool attribute". The older drawings had that aspect when it was right on the water and even allowed boats to come up and dock next to the stadium. That's all gone now.

 

[V3]

Today's cool innovative creative different designs usually look dated in 20 years. I'd prefer to keep it relatively classic and understated.

Like I tried to explain to beej, I'm not talking about the flashy stuff that I agree can get outdated. I think Kroenke's Inglewood design could very well be that(reminds me of an airport built in the 70s). Look at some of the examples I gave beej.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's funny. I got the exact opposite out of what KD said. I got that KD wouldn't go there on that question.

What I got was Demoff, who only works with the Rams, was involved in Inglewood. Before there was always the chatter of "How do we know Stan wants to move? Maybe he's building the stadium for __________ (soccer, Raiders/Chargers, expansion team) or it's not really a stadium and he's actually going to build something else." If the Rams are involved in that process it shows that he is indeed developing a stadium further than just a few pictures for bluffing reasons, and that it's not for soccer or another team. Therefore by confirming the Rams involvement in Inglewood, he's confirmed that Kroenke is indeed looking to move the Rams to LA. If he does or not that's a different story, but I don't see how any people can say that Kroenke isn't looking to move. Maybe it's not his first option (however personally I feel that it probably is) but it is definitely an option, therefore he's looking.

Personally, I think the St Louis stadium plan has grown quite well and ONLY because Stan has Inglewood. When all this started there was just a bunch of positioning from those in St Louis. Then came a stadium plan that was pretty basic. Fast forward to today and I think this latest design is a HUGE step up. So I disagree. Stan has already potentially profited from the Inglewood site.

It's grown from the initial proposal, yes, but what we saw yesterday and what we saw a few months ago doesn't show major changes. So you have to think that the leverage has done what it intended to do. There weren't radical changes, so what is changing is likely smaller details. That's stuff you don't need major leverage for to work out, that's part of the negotiations. If LA is a leverage play, then I don't see the point of continuing to push it, because I don't see much else changing. Unless St Louis is willing to give on the owner/operator aspect of it, which given the fact that they will own and operate it is a big selling point for public funds is unlikely, then I'm not sure what else Stan needs from St Louis.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_0b74d08b-1231-5f28-8d3d-6953dfa4f09d.html

You also forgot to include the g4 Loan in your equation

No, I factored that into Stan's 450 million, because he has to pay that back. That article is also from January, it is not reall7y relevant today with different factors changing. I saw something the other day that said as much as 405 million (something around that) coming from the public. I'll have to go back and look for the article, but I saw it within the last few days. I'm assuming that is from the extension of the bonds and the PSLs (which go to the city I believe, not Stan), and after the county was pulled out from financing they said the owners input may have to go up.

Easy - to get his perfect stadium. At the end of the presentation, The Rams gave some more inputs on more changes they wanted to the stadium.

St.Louis never gave him the sincerity they do now with out the threat of moving, either....just like San Diego has been treating Spanos (by that I mean making minimal effort "offers"..unrealistic ones that you know won't pass like when the CVC made their first proposal during arbitration)..

Pretty much this is how it has worked over the last 15 years - Not happy with the deal the city is giving you? Threaten to move..invest $10-$20 million, or however much, to get a $100-200 million+ better stadium, which only lines your pockets further... it's investment - sure it's a risk, no investment is sound proof..but if you get a better stadium with the chance to generate more revenue and attract big events like superbowls, worth the risk down the line.

Except there's a difference between parking your team plane at LAX and going on a public visit of the city, and buying land and developing a stadium. Nobody else (other than the Carson issue now) announced they were building a stadium, bought land, and got everything ready to build. And yes, I know he can use that land for something else, but it's still far more than what other teams did so it's not really a good comparison. If Stan really wanted to get a great deal in St Louis then he would be better off working with them instead of trying to just create leverage and not do anything else. At the end of the day he's still paying at least 450 million dollars, still not owning the stadium, still not owning the land, still not operating the stadium, still not getting as much of the profits back to him, so what the fuck is he doing? Are we all going to sit around and say the Stan is that bad of a negotiator? Yes the stadium got a facelift, but the things that people say are important to him, owning everything including the dirt, hasn't budged an inch.

 

[ChrisW]

No, I factored that into Stan's 450 million, because he has to pay that back.

Two quotes from: http://www.fieldofschemes.com/news/archives/2011/12/4761_nfl_establishes.html

• 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.

Teams looking to build new stadiums without paying for them themselves are, naturally, thrilled — since this is money that they wouldn't normally get to keep anyway, it's effectively a grant, not a loan. (Unless club seat and ticket sales come in below projections, in which case they're on the hook for the difference.)