New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[iced]

Did the price of the stadium go up? Right now it's 600 million from the owner & the NFL and if the concession revenues go to the owner then a tax on hot dogs and beer comes from the owner too and that brings it to 700 million from the owner. That's not including shortfalls

Nothing has changed - it's always been $250 from the owner and the G4 loan.

 

[The Ripper]

Nothing has changed - it's always been $250 from the owner and the G4 loan.

150 from PSL's , the G-4 goes to the owner and 250 from Kroenke

 

[iced]

150 from PSL's , the G-4 goes to the owner and 250 from Kroenke

with the 2nd most public money in the past 14 years

 

[ramfaninsd]

It shouldn't be a bad thing but it's made out to be a bad thing.

Usually when that label is used to describe STL, it implies that people there don't care about the Rams or that they won't care if they leave. Based on my personal experiences, that is complete bullcrap.

oh they care, they care so much they are hoping two cities lose their teams so they more than likely will keep theirs.

 

[RamFan503]

I don't buy it. A sincere offer would come with those details - why bother if he knew it was unrealistic in the first place?

I've never heard of any businessman making a proposal that didn't cover every detail - even your entry level Project Managers cover this stuff in little pretty power points.

That would depend on what the arbitration was to look at and how they were to judge. Most arbitrations are not winner take all either.

But I'm going to guess that if the CVC presented a legitimate proposal that also won in arbitration, Stan would have had no way of arguing that he had to leave. He agreed to arbitration so it's binding. The next step would have been in how that all played out. If the two sides could not agree on how it was to be financed, either the NFL would have stepped in or it would have gone to arbitration again. Though the Dome would have been out of commission for 12 - 18 months, that would have likely been factored in. Stan would almost undoubtedly been forced to contribute at least enough to kick in the G4 max so that he could get $200 million for his $50 million. My guess is that the result would have been that Stan would have had to kick in $250 million toward the CVC's winning proposal - which we all assume would be less than Stan's $700 million proposal.

Of course the arbitrators could have decided that Stan didn't have to pay for any of it. If that is the case, then why should he pay $450 million or more because the CVC decided not to fulfill even their subsequently negotiated extension of the top tier stadium deal? What makes the case that because one side reneged on a contract that the other has to not only make an offer to get something else done in order to stay but also pay hundreds of millions of dollars he was not supposed to have to pay?

You really think the NFL owners are going to look at one of their own having to pay $450+ million dollars 10 years before a lease was supposed to expire (after the team already allowed them to not live up to the 10 year plan) and think that is a good deal for them?

And where's my scotch?

 

[bluecoconuts]

How are you negotiating in good faith when you have a stadium proposal with $450 million public money on table? When you look at how he's negotiated the CVC, how can you look at that and believe he was really trying to work with the city?

Not even close to good faith imo. St.Louis's offer for a new stadium does/will meet NFL's criteria for a viable stadium and have $450 in public money; can oakland or SD say the same for their prospective cities? Nope. NFL wants money up front for their stadiums, something SD lacks, and something Carson has with Goldman sachs.

Spanos and Davis are positioned better than Kroenke is as far as gaining permission to relocate, while appeasing all the other owners 2 teams in LA to increase everyone's share of the TV market.

Well the CVC didn't seem interested in working with him either, if his initial proposal shows that, then so did theirs.

So because the city offered him up something he has to take it? If its not a deal he wants why is he forced to take it? I don't know how talks have gone, but the line in the sand seems to be publically owned and operated, two things that Kroenke likes to do himself. Essentially you're saying he should be forced to accept that deal even if he doesn't like it because its good enough. I don't see hundreds of millions of dollars being spent for good enough.

Kroenke can get two teams in LA, with money up front, and long-term security, something Carson can't seemingly do at this point. Unless they force him take good enough, and I don't think he'd be happy about that.

why would I think you are going to split it? Your counter offer just included me covering everything...

That's how negotiations works. When I bought my car they offered a few grand above MSRP (around 24,000 was their initial offer)... I countered with 17,000... They countered from that, I countered again, and eventually we settled.

This situation is different because each counter is changing the proposal, but that's how these things usually go.

true but not something he left out or ignored either - while there are unanswered questions, he atleast gave an estimate... an attempt, something kroenke didn't make

again, everyone believed it was bs from the get go, and i don't see how thats changed except made his true intentions about LA become more apparent

Somewhat, bit there's still lots of questions around the funding and breakdowns.

I'm not debating that the offer wasn't expected to be taken, I'm saying its not just his fault the CVC walked away or that we're in this situation, and I can't imagine the NFL using this against him.

 

[iced]

150 from PSL's , the G-4 goes to the owner and 250 from Kroenke

BTW, no where has it ever been announced where the profits go or how much of the split there is (which i've seen people throw out assumptions that kroenke gets nothing)

http://nextstl.com/2015/01/st-louis-strikes-back-nfl-proposal-riverfront-stadium-unveiled/

Highlights from St. Louis NFL stadium proposal:

The Vision
• By 2020, the St. Louis region will cement itself as a permanent NFL home with a new stadium on the Mississippi River riverfront.
• The new stadium and its surrounding complex will be the crown jewel of the reinvention of St. Louis’ city center, supplementing efforts already well underway by Federal, State and local public and private entities to redevelop downtown St. Louis, the Gateway Arch grounds, and the Mississippi River riverfront.

Satisfying the Governor’s Core Principles
1. The new stadium project will eradicate blight and redevelop the North Riverfront, an area that wouldn’t be developed in the foreseeable future but for the new stadium project.
2. The site of the new stadium project is eligible for brownfield tax credits in connection with required environmental remediation.
3. The construction of the new stadium will provide jobs that pay competitive wages, creating over 5,000 construction jobs over a four-year period, in addition to retaining a major regional employer and over 2,400 game-day jobs.
4. In addition to financing the construction of the new stadium, the plan includes the financing of material improvements to the existing Edward Jones Dome and America’s Center.
• The Edward Jones Dome will be repositioned for permanent convention center use in order to significantly enhance the St. Louis region’s ability to attract, hold and retain national-quality meetings, events and conventions.
• Making the football season available for meetings, events and conventions at the Edward Jones Dome will create millions of dollars in economic impact for the St. Louis region.
5. The new stadium will be held as a public asset and owned by a public entity, most likely the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority.
• The stadium will be leased to the NFL team’s stadium company pursuant to a modernized lease, with the ability to sublet to an additional sports franchise such as an MLS team.
• Any revenue splits, operating leasehold rights, management agreements, parking terms, signage splits, naming rights, and other rights and obligations will be negotiated with the NFL team.
6. The new stadium will impose no new tax burden on taxpayers in the local region or the State of Missouri.
• The construction will be financed without increasing the current level of debt service and preservation payments from the sponsors (St. Louis County, St. Louis City and the State of Missouri) of the current Edward Jones Dome bonds.
• New bonds may be issued that will extend the current payment obligations (in the same amount as the current obligations) in order to finance the new stadium and the improvements to the Edward Jones Dome and America’s Center.
• All public financing is contingent upon significant private investment from the NFL team and the NFL itself.

Financials
Estimated costs:
Land / Demolition $90M-$110M
Stadium construction $600M-$650M
Parking / Infrastructure needs $170M-$225M
Total $860M-$985M

Private sources:
NFL team ownership $200M-$250M
NFL (committed to match up to $200M through G4 program) $200M
Total $400M-$450M

Potential public sources (all contingent on private financing):
Bond extension $300M-$350m
MDFB support $15M-$25M
Brownfield tax credits $25M-$30M
Seat license proceeds $120M-$130M
Total $460M-$535M

 

[The Ripper]

with the 2nd most public money in the past 14 years

250 from bond extension plus the Brownfields Tax Credits. That's 300 million.

The PSL's typically go to the owner

 

[RamFan503]

How are you negotiating in good faith when you have a stadium proposal with $450 million public money on table? When you look at how he's negotiated the CVC, how can you look at that and believe he was really trying to work with the city?

OK - you have a house on the market for $300k. Someone offers you $120k. A) Do you call them back to negotiate? B) Make a counter offer? C) Think Go eff yourself and toss it in the trash. I had that happen to me when my house was on the market. Guess which one I chose.

There is no way I come to the table after that kind of insulting offer by the CVC - especially after they were supposed to be keeping their end of the deal up for the previous 7 years and hadn't done so.

 

[iced]

Well the CVC didn't seem interested in working with him either, if his initial proposal shows that, then so did theirs.

So because the city offered him up something he has to take it? If its not a deal he wants why is he forced to take it? I don't know how talks have gone, but the line in the sand seems to be publically owned and operated, two things that Kroenke likes to do himself. Essentially you're saying he should be forced to accept that deal even if he doesn't like it because its good enough. I don't see hundreds of millions of dollars being spent for good enough.

Lol I don't get why you keep reverting to this strawman stuff - I never anything of the sort. I just said he wasn't sincere, and that his proposal was unrealistic - and going in, he knew that.

If he wanted to negotiate - he would have. Just like if he wanted to build a stadium in St.Louis that supposably suits his needs, he would have picked up the phone. Actions speak louder than words. It's not that he can't have his cake and eat it too - he chooses not to even try.

Kroenke can get two teams in LA, with money up front, and long-term security, something Carson can't seemingly do at this point. Unless they force him take good enough, and I don't think he'd be happy about that.

I wouldn't assume that just yet, particularly under his terms. I wouldn't assume Spanos wants to either - already been stated he doesn't need the Raiders for Carson. Why take Kroenke's deal when his is better? Just like you say, you can't force him to not take the better deal.

That's how negotiations works. When I bought my car they offered a few grand above MSRP (around 24,000 was their initial offer)... I countered with 17,000... They countered from that, I countered again, and eventually we settled.

This situation is different because each counter is changing the proposal, but that's how these things usually go.

I know how negotiations work - and sometimes you can tell when someone is going to be genuine in their negotiations and others not. When one counters a 50/50 proposal with an exorbitant offer and demands the other pay for it all....well its pretty obvious

Somewhat, bit there's still lots of questions around the funding and breakdowns.

I'm not debating that the offer wasn't expected to be taken, I'm saying its not just his fault the CVC walked away or that we're in this situation, and I can't imagine the NFL using this against him.

Leaving the city with a deal on the table that other owners find acceptable? lol yea that'd be not operating in good faith, especially when you have 2 other owners who's city hasn't even come close to what St.Louis has done. And the other thing about those cities, they're not really losing the market either due to proximity (or another team)

 

[iced]

OK - you have a house on the market for $300k. Someone offers you $120k. A) Do you call them back to negotiate? B) Make a counter offer? C) Think Go eff yourself and toss it in the trash. I had that happen to me when my house was on the market. Guess which one I chose.

There is no way I come to the table after that kind of insulting offer by the CVC - especially after they were supposed to be keeping their end of the deal up for the previous 7 years and hadn't done so.

I didn't realize the Rams were selling the team to the city?

 

[D L]

Good thing there are no apologists for the methods of the CVC.

Still doesn't excuse Stan's actions over the last year.

And to bluecoconuts point about "but what if it's not what he wants" that's his own fault, he has not met 1 time with Peacock or Blitz, I'm sure they'd love to hear Stan's thoughts, but he never returned the Governor or the task force's phone calls. So who knows what the hell he wants?

And I do not want to hear about Demoff attending the meetings. He isn't the owner.

 

[RamFan503]

BTW, no where has it ever been announced where the profits go or how much of the split there is (which i've seen people throw out assumptions that kroenke gets nothing)

http://nextstl.com/2015/01/st-louis-strikes-back-nfl-proposal-riverfront-stadium-unveiled/

I'd have to look it up or maybe whoever posted it still has it but the financing breakdown offered by Peacock had PSLs going toward construction. I believe he had it pegged at between $120 and $150 million. Interesting, someone opposed to the SD proposal said that the $120 million (split between Spanos and the construction) they were presenting as a PSL budget was way over estimating the amount they would sell. I'm guessing the guy is wrong but in either case, I find it interesting that the SD market with 10 million people in the surrounding area figures on selling the same dollar amount as St Louis? Just seems odd.

 

[iced]

That would depend on what the arbitration was to look at and how they were to judge. Most arbitrations are not winner take all either.

But I'm going to guess that if the CVC presented a legitimate proposal that also won in arbitration, Stan would have had no way of arguing that he had to leave. He agreed to arbitration so it's binding. The next step would have been in how that all played out. If the two sides could not agree on how it was to be financed, either the NFL would have stepped in or it would have gone to arbitration again. Though the Dome would have been out of commission for 12 - 18 months, that would have likely been factored in. Stan would almost undoubtedly been forced to contribute at least enough to kick in the G4 max so that he could get $200 million for his $50 million. My guess is that the result would have been that Stan would have had to kick in $250 million toward the CVC's winning proposal - which we all assume would be less than Stan's $700 million proposal.

Of course the arbitrators could have decided that Stan didn't have to pay for any of it. If that is the case, then why should he pay $450 million or more because the CVC decided not to fulfill even their subsequently negotiated extension of the top tier stadium deal? What makes the case that because one side reneged on a contract that the other has to not only make an offer to get something else done in order to stay but also pay hundreds of millions of dollars he was not supposed to have to pay?

You really think the NFL owners are going to look at one of their own having to pay $450+ million dollars 10 years before a lease was supposed to expire (after the team already allowed them to not live up to the 10 year plan) and think that is a good deal for them?

You really think stan wanted to negotiate by countering with that ridiculous offer...Let me reiterate what my sticking point is - he offered nothing in money. That has not happened in the past decade, with all owners contributing financially to it.

He'd have been first owner to:
1) Have the most in public funding EVER ($700-$800 million)
2)No money from NFL/owner contributed to the stadium


None of that screams realistic to me - especially when the rest of the owners are contributing, some a lot more than others (which is why I brought up his worth, when Teams like the Vikings & NFL are putting up $500 million for their renovation, Arthur Blank and NFL are putting up $1 billion, etc).

And where's my scotch?

Think you've had plenty lol

 

[RamFan503]

Still doesn't excuse Stan's actions over the last year.

And what excuses the CVC's actions? Neither side should get a pass.

 

[iced]

I'd have to look it up or maybe whoever posted it still has it but the financing breakdown offered by Peacock had PSLs going toward construction. I believe he had it pegged at between $120 and $150 million. Interesting, someone opposed to the SD proposal said that the $120 million (split between Spanos and the construction) they were presenting as a PSL budget was way over estimating the amount they would sell. I'm guessing the guy is wrong but in either case, I find it interesting that the SD market with 10 million people in the surrounding area figures on selling the same dollar amount as St Louis? Just seems odd.

think it has to do more with their market and the public , but thats just a guess

 

[RamFan503]

You really think stan wanted to negotiate by countering with that ridiculous offer...Let me reiterate what my sticking point is - he offered nothing in money. That has not happened in the past decade, with all owners contributing financially to it.

And when has it happened that a city (CVC et al) has walked away from the terms of a lease 10 years early? And no - I don't think Stan wanted to negotiate with that ridiculous offer the CVC put on the table. :shades:

Think you've had plenty lol

 

[RamFan503]

think it has to do more with their market and the public , but thats just a guess

Hold water to you though?

 

[iced]

And when has it happened that a city (CVC et al) has walked away from the terms of a lease 10 years early?

the more look I back, the more dots I see being laid to move to LA, or give that strong perception (Through silence, unwillingness to answer the phone, and action)

Hold water to you though?

I'll see what i can find before i pass judgement

edit - consensus appears to be they are similar in market size as far as PSL dollars go. Read a couple places that have a similar theme wagoner, and that the estimates are good..And SD believes their $120 million estimate is on the conservative side

http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-ra...t-louis-and-san-diego-stadium-financing-plans

• One thing worth noting is the similar expectation on the personal seat licenses. Remember, neither San Diego nor St. Louis is a major market with the dollars of, say, San Francisco. So estimates of about $120 million in PSL's is probably about right for markets of similar size.

 

[OldSchool]

It shows what it is - a bull crap proposal. Rarely are stadiums renovated or built without assistance from the NFL/owner - and I don't think its happened once over the past decade.

Miami renovation - $400 million, all funded by Ross
Carolina Panthers? - even their initial proposals had them splitting the $250 million with the city
Atlanta Falcons - $1 billion from Arthur Blank, NFL, and PSLS (includes g4 loan), city - $200 million
Jaguars - $20 million from the team, $43 million from the city.

Common theme: No deal is realistic without any money from the owner. add in the fact that Kroenke is the 2nd wealthiest owner in the league, and its complete bull crap to call a proposal legitimate that has no money coming from him while lesser owners are all contributing to their stadiums.

Like I said, good luck in getting the other owners to believe that - especially when he has deeper pockets. Particularly if the proposal is over $200 million (and in the rams case, it was $700-$800 million).

Miami Sun Life Stadium is owned by Stephen Ross and Wayne Huizenga not a publicly owned stadium. It's also a primary use only for football.

Carolina Bank of America stadium owned by Carolina Panthers LLC not a publicly owned stadium. It's also a primary use only for football.

Atlanta Stadium is a publicly owned stadium but your numbers are off. $600 million each from the city/state and Arthur Blank.

Jaguars stadium that's only one of the upgrades and Khan has paid a small portion of each upgrade with the city footing the majority of the bill.

So two stadiums privately owned and paid for by the owners. One stadium publicly owned paid for evenly public/private but we don't know the lease details. What kind of concessions and sweetheart deals did Blank get for his contributions? To properly judge the situation those are things we need to know. Khan has done a very admirable job of helping the city of Jacksonville to update their stadium. I see nothing in those four instances that would sway my opinion of the Rams/CVC lease and the upgrades offered and requested.

Also this assertion that the Rams expected the CVC to pay for the whole thing is patently false and has been debunked before. But in case it was missed here follow this link:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/blog/2012/05/rams-proposal-for-edward-jones-dome.html

The Missouri AG made the Rams proposal available to the public per state law. I quote:

The RAMS 2012 Plans are also presented in sufficient detail to permit the CVC to price improvments to First Tier status of the Facilities and each of the Components as reflected in the RAMS 2012 plans so that by June 1, 2012 the CVC can present the RAMS with a financial plan which can be implemented by the CVC and/or the Authority to complete the Rams 2012 Plans by the 2015 First Tier Measuring Date....

Looks to me they presented the plan to the CVC and asked them to come up with a plan to pay for it.