New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[OldSchool]

So many Stan apologists.

Actually most of us hold him accountable for his actions and the things he's done wrong. We're just not willing to blame all the worlds problems at his feet like some do.

 

[CoachO]

Confused. You mean they built the dome planning on having to build a new stadium in 20-25 years? Or do you mean they always planned to keep that top tier carrot extended on a stick to see how long the horse would walk?

If the former, then shouldn't they have been working on something long before this? If the latter, that strikes me as extremely bad faith dealings.

What I mean, is once it became apparent they were going thru this process, arbitration was going to be the "plan".

The end game here being a new facility. Which IMO, was what BOTH parties were looking for.

 

[iced]

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.

My point in all these - there wasn't one income from only one party but both.

And the Atlanta stadium keeps changing.. At first it was $1 billion, then $1.2 Billion which the NFL agreed to cover (I quoted that link a page ago), and now I found a new total of $1.5 billion for Atlanta (This amount is new to me)

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/...eeking-850-million-construction-loan-for.html

But their financing input from the city still has not changed at $200 million. The rest is being covered in PSL Money, G4 Loan, and Blank/NFL.. and I actually just read Blank gave up some equity of the team?

The stadium also will be funded with $200 million in funds secured by hotel/motel tax, $200 million from NFL Ventures G-4 loans, revenue from the sale of PSLs and equity from the team.

Initial closing documents had been approved in February 2014.

The stadium, which will feature an innovative, retractable roof, is set to finish construction in 2017.

As of March 31, construction was 18 percent complete, according to the Falcons.

BTW Recheck your Atlanta numbers - they're looking for an $850 million loan as of now

The Atlanta Falcons soon expect to secure an $850 million construction loan to help finance the team’s new $1.5 billion stadium.

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:



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

first I've heard of/saw this. Thanks, I'll read it over

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.



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.



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




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)

You're saying that his initial proposal was so far out there, that it wasn't in good faith. You're also saying that leaving the city with a deal on the table that is "acceptable" isn't operating in good faith as well.

Good faith is a requirement for moving, and if you're saying both those things qualify as evidence he didn't negotiate in good faith, then he should be turned down for them.

Which means he is being turned down for making an offer that was too grand so the city was able to walk away.

And trying to walk away from a deal that is, in your own words, acceptable.

St Louis isn't going to just change the offer to a much more grander design because Kroenke is forced to stay there, so by turning him down for relocation based on the fact the deal on the table is acceptable, he then is being told if he wants a new venue he has to accept that deal.

Going back to Carson, they can kind of make it work with just the Chargers, in terms of financing it, but in terms of profits, according to reports its going to take something like 20-30 years for it to become profitable with just one team. Inglewood is a two team capable stadium, and if one team goes there it doesn't take as long to seeney gains. Carson can work with one team, but not as well as Inglewood. The profits from a second team aren't much higher than Inglewood alone if I recall correctly, so Inglewood with two teams, blows Carson out of the water, profit wise.

 

[OldSchool]

My point in all these - there wasn't one income from only one party but both.

Your first example is Miami stadium fully funded by the Dolphins. My point is each stadium is different. Just reporting the dollars is half the story especially if you don't say who owns the stadium and what other deals came out of the funding(which often isn't reported). There are too many people in this debate who want to blame everything on Kroenke or everything on St Louis/CVC. Too few people who want to look at all the facts and be objective.

 

[blue4]

So after all this here's what we know for sure.

What Stan wanted wasn't realistic for STL and the CVC. It not only cost us tax money, we lose convention business.

What the CVC wanted wasn't a good deal for Stan. He wanted a new stadium or a totally rebuilt one.

The lease had options which were exercised. Both sides breathed a sigh of relief.

This is all we know for sure.

Now from my point of view, I do lay more of it at Stan's feet. Reasons...

The CVC had no power to negotiate a new stadium.

Shaka Khan was right there, cash in hand saying "I want to buy this mess." Stan took a look at the lease, the political REALITIES facing politicians and taxpayers knowing that trying to start on a new stadium 15 to 18 years after the first one was a political non starter, and everything else and replied "Naw in fact I'm buying the rest."

Nothing he proposed in arbitration had him spending a dime when others have before.

Obviously, there's some grey area in my reasons that someone else may disagree with. But the big one for me, and I've talked about it before, is that he had a buyer. If he thought he was getting or going to be screwed in any way he had an out. He would have made money, a lot of money. But he didn't. My theory is he knew back then he was either getting a new stadium by force basically, or he was going to make a shit ton of money moving to LA. I believe this situation is exactly what he wanted and envisioned. This last part and my reasons though are strictly my opinion.

 

[iced]

Your first example is Miami stadium fully funded by the Dolphins. My point is each stadium is different. Just reporting the dollars is half the story especially if you don't say who owns the stadium and what other deals came out of the funding(which often isn't reported). There are too many people in this debate who want to blame everything on Kroenke or everything on St Louis/CVC. Too few people who want to look at all the facts and be objective.

read your link, imo thats just a round about way of saying what i said about their $700-$800 million projection

One thing missing from the Rams' ambitious wishlist for the Edward Jones Dome, however, is the price tag to make it a reality. That's because the Rams will "permit the CVC to price improvements," according to the document.

they priced their improvements - and it was way more than they could afford

I am looking at it objectively - and i don't place blame on anyone; just reading the actions and making my own interpretation

 

[tonyl711]

I'm not disagreeing with you, but I've seen the baseball town label slapped more on STL than any other city. It's freaking stupid.

it is applied to St Louis alot, and with good reason, the Cardinals always draw well. but the Rams also sold out thier first 12 or 13 seasons here, crowds only started getting smaller after we went through the worst 5 season slump in NFL history. put that product on the field anywhere else and i would bet you would get the same results or worse, we still draw over 50000 even with all the losing.
IMO if a sports team is winning they will draw fans no matter what the sport, but you put up 10 losing seasons in a row and people will find other things to do. thats anywhere.

 

[iced]

You're saying that his initial proposal was so far out there, that it wasn't in good faith.

that it wasn't realistic at all, so i don't see how you can argue thats good faith. if you made an unrealistic offer that you know will be revoked, i don't see how thats coming to the table..especially when it'd be putting the highest financial burden out of all cities

You're also saying that leaving the city with a deal on the table that is "acceptable" isn't operating in good faith as well

Good faith is a requirement for moving, and if you're saying both those things qualify as evidence he didn't negotiate in good faith, then he should be turned down for them.

Which means he is being turned down for making an offer that was too grand so the city was able to walk away.

I'm saying he won't be viewed as that when pitted along side other owners - again, a stadium design with that much public money out there? St.Louis would be easily offering up one of the highest amounts of public funding among NFL cities
demanding that much public money for the city to cover (Arbitration), then turning around just to spend $2 billion on your own after that much public money? especially when other owners can't get a deal even close to that?

St Louis isn't going to just change the offer to a much more grander design because Kroenke is forced to stay there, so by turning him down for relocation based on the fact the deal on the table is acceptable, he then is being told if he wants a new venue he has to accept that deal.

Not at all - and if there are certain criteria the St.Louis isn't meeting in the stadium design, i'm not sure how you make that a credible argument considering he's never picked up the phone to give his input.

And it's not like he's never been told he can't build his own stadium in St.Louis either, if that's really all his true intentions is owning one.

Going back to Carson, they can kind of make it work with just the Chargers, in terms of financing it, but in terms of profits, according to reports its going to take something like 20-30 years for it to become profitable with just one team. Inglewood is a two team capable stadium, and if one team goes there it doesn't take as long to seeney gains. Carson can work with one team, but not as well as Inglewood. The profits from a second team aren't much higher than Inglewood alone if I recall correctly, so Inglewood with two teams, blows Carson out of the water, profit wise.

Exactly why Carson with 2 teams is much more realistic and appeasing.

No one to my knowledge has thrown out info who would have a bigger profit margin as far as the two stadiums vs each other - however, two teams in one stadium is over 50% more profit vs just one team, IIRC.

Why would Spanos or Davis join Kroenke when their carson deal is more friendly in their eyes? And I don't think the NFL cares either if carson takes a little bit longer but brings in that much more revenue every year.

 

[blue4]

And it's not like he's never been told he can't build his own stadium in St.Louis either, if that's really all his true intentions is owning one.

Everyone forgets this. If he really intended to stay here and really wanted to own a new stadium, why isn't construction started? We've all talked about real estate prices. His costs would be lower. The city would find a way to get him free property if he builds it himself and pays taxes. It all seems relatively simply compared to the mess going on now. No way he can lose money, value of the team goes up, if he's the doe eyed innocent who just wants a stadium he can have it at any time. Problem is he wants LA, he thinks he can do better in LA, maybe Jack Nicholson will sit in his box in LA. And that's my problem. If his mission was to get a new stadium, mission accomplished. St Louis is ready to talk, Peacock's working his ass off for free, simply hold the Inglewood land as a negotiation tool and sit down at the table. But he doesn't want that and it shows. To my mind that's not good faith.

 

[bluecoconuts]

that it wasn't realistic at all, so i don't see how you can argue thats good faith. if you made an unrealistic offer that you know will be revoked, i don't see how thats coming to the table..especially when it'd be putting the highest financial burden out of all cities

I'm not saying that's good faith, I'm saying that seperate from everything else in terms of the good faith argument. At no time did he tell the CVC not to counter offer what he proposed, they chose not to themselves. The CVC did the same thing though, they came to the table with a proposal that was obviously nowhere near acceptable, and didn't meet the top 25% criteria needed anyway. Why is it okay that the CVC didn't negotiate in good faith?

I'm saying he won't be viewed as that when pitted along side other owners - again, a stadium design with that much public money out there? St.Louis would be easily offering up one of the highest amounts of public funding among NFL cities
demanding that much public money for the city to cover, then turning around just to spend $2 billion on your own?

I don't think you can sit there and compare all the different cities and owners to each other, and Goodell has hinted that they're not going to do that either. He specifically mentioned that this isn't a new situation for any of the cities, suggesting that they are more on equal ground than not. Either way, you're saying that because the stadium is acceptable, regardless of if it is what Stan wants or not, he should be denied relocating, which arguably forces him to either accept it or be stuck in the dome year to year. It backs him into the corner. They may be offering public money, but they're still asking him to pay more for a stadium he doesn't seem to want, that he wont get to own or operate.

Not at all - but there are certain aspects of his deal that make his better than Inglewood, i'm not sure how you make that a credible argument considering he's never picked up the phone to give his input.

And it's not like he's never been told he can't build his own stadium in St.Louis either, if that's really all his true intentions is owning one.

What can they tweak to make it better than Inglewood without significantly changing the design? Demoff has been going to the meetings, so to suggest that he hasn't done anything just because he isn't personally there is just incorrect. Sending people on his behalf is working with them, if Demoff is his eyes and ears on this situation, and it seems he is, then that should be just as good.

In terms of building his own stadium, where is he going to put it? And if he doesn't see the potential profits there as worth it to build, then why would he want to do that?

Exactly why Carson with 2 teams is much more realistic and appeasing.

No one to my knowledge has thrown out info who would have a bigger profit margin as far as the two stadiums vs each other - however, two teams in one stadium is over 50% more profit vs just one team, IIRC.

Why would Spanos or Davis join Kroenke when their carson deal is more friendly in their eyes? And I don't think the NFL cares either if carson takes a little bit longer but brings in that much more revenue every year.

How so? If they can stick a second team in Inglewood, and most think they can, then they have the far better deal, and more money to back it all.

There was an article discussing the different profits for each stadium a while ago I can't find it, but I found others talking about Carson needing two teams to be profitable. The article I saw before said Carson alone was far less than Inglewood, and Carson with Raiders and Chargers was a little bit more, they mentioned that a two team Inglewood stadium would be much higher.

Here's the article saying that Carson needs two teams to be profitable:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/12730399/consultant-2-nfl-teams-needed-carson-california-profit

According to documents released by the city of Carson on Monday, consultant AECOM estimated that with two teams installed, the city budget would see a net fiscal gain in each of 40 years. Over time, the city could realize approximately $140 million from rent and other fees.

However, the report found that if a single team plays in the stadium, the city budget would face "annual fiscal losses in most of the first 30 years." Thereafter, according to the estimate, the city would bring in a total of $85 million.

Here's an article that says that Stan would make more money in LA:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-stadium-economics-20150226-story.html#page=1

As to the question of would Spanos or Davis join Kroenke in LA? Yeah, most seem to think at least one of them would if Carson isn't given the okay. If not and Spanos stays in San Diego, that's a win for the NFL still. Kroenke can go to LA alone and make it work, and there's room there for the Raiders if they can't get something done, or another team if they ever want to use LA as a threat to move. Most seem to think that if Spanos was turned down for Carson they'd figure out how to make Inglewood happen.

 

[blue4]

I don't think you can sit there and compare all the different cities and owners to each other, and Goodell has hinted that they're not going to do that either.

And there lies the way out for the NFL to do whatever they want.

 

[OldSchool]

The worst thing about the Rams proposal was that it would've closed the dome for a very long time during construction which would have cost the CVC and city money. Not only that it would have hurt, or killed their ability to host conventions which is what pays for the EJD.

In the end I have always thought the City and the Rams should've started out right after arbitration on working land deals for Kroenke to build his own stadium. His business track record isn't one of being a renter.

 

[RamBill]

Judge sets St. Louis stadium funding suit hearing for Thursday
• By David Hunn

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_990f3e33-e333-5d83-9d67-a3d9a56cc253.html

ST. LOUIS • A judge has scheduled the first hearing on a lawsuit about use of city tax dollars for a new $985 million football stadium downtown. The ultimate outcome will either fast-track financing or cool its progress.

Judge David L. Dowd will hear arguments at 10 a.m. Thursday from attorneys for the city, the Edward Jones Dome and three city residents seeking to intervene.

The public board that runs the Dome filed suit last month in state court here, arguing that a 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote prior to the use of tax dollars on a new stadium is “overly broad, vague and ambiguous.” The board wants the judge to rule that the city law doesn’t apply, conflicts with Missouri statutes or is unconstitutional.

City tax dollars are key to the stadium funding, and could help sway coming National Football League decisions. Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man task force is counting on at least $250 million from the state and city, not including extra taxes, tax incentives and seat license fees.

Mayor Francis Slay’s staff says city attorneys would energetically defend the public-vote ordinance, despite the mayor's enthusiastic support for the stadium.

A few weeks later, St. Louis University law professor and legal clinic supervisor John Ammann filed on behalf of three city residents who seek to intervene. His filings say city ordinance requires a fiscal note, a public hearing and a public vote. He said the three residents fear the city will provide money for the stadium without fulfilling those.

It is possible Dowd could rule on any or all parts of the case on Thursday, but attorneys do not expect it.

 

[The Ripper]

I'm saying he won't be viewed as that when pitted along side other owners - again, a stadium design with that much public money out there? St.Louis would be easily offering up one of the highest amounts of public funding among NFL cities
demanding that much public money for the city to cover (Arbitration), then turning around just to spend $2 billion on your own after that much public money? especially when other owners can't get a deal even close to that?

This is just not true It's not one of the stronger deals for public money. The deal right now is 60% from the owner/NFL and goes up with shortfalls. Plus the tax on concessions can be called owners contributions just like in San Diego with the ticket & parking surcharge. The 40% number comes right from Peacock when he testified in Jefferson City and he called it one of the better deals for the public

 

[RamFan503]

So after all this here's what we know for sure.

What Stan wanted wasn't realistic for STL and the CVC. It not only cost us tax money, we lose convention business.

What the CVC wanted wasn't a good deal for Stan. He wanted a new stadium or a totally rebuilt one.

The lease had options which were exercised. Both sides breathed a sigh of relief.

This is all we know for sure.

Now from my point of view, I do lay more of it at Stan's feet. Reasons...

The CVC had no power to negotiate a new stadium.

Shaka Khan was right there, cash in hand saying "I want to buy this mess." Stan took a look at the lease, the political REALITIES facing politicians and taxpayers knowing that trying to start on a new stadium 15 to 18 years after the first one was a political non starter, and everything else and replied "Naw in fact I'm buying the rest."

Nothing he proposed in arbitration had him spending a dime when others have before.

Obviously, there's some grey area in my reasons that someone else may disagree with. But the big one for me, and I've talked about it before, is that he had a buyer. If he thought he was getting or going to be screwed in any way he had an out. He would have made money, a lot of money. But he didn't. My theory is he knew back then he was either getting a new stadium by force basically, or he was going to make a crap ton of money moving to LA. I believe this situation is exactly what he wanted and envisioned. This last part and my reasons though are strictly my opinion.

Hard to say you are wrong on any of this. You could be but I don't know either so....

My thoughts would be that he showed before buying in on the Rams that he wanted to bring the NFL to St Louis so he has that in his track record.

Stan used his option in the buying the controlling interest much like he is here. It does make you wonder if he wasn't maybe behind the top 25% clause all along but I dunno. He's an insanely cunning businessman so I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. Makes more sense than Shaw thinking of it or the CVC just offering it up without provocation.

In the Khan deal, he held the cards and he knew it. He didn't have to react or do anything until he knew there was a deal on the table that would close. It would only be then that he would know what he would have to spend on buying the rest of the team. That's smart business - no matter if anyone likes it or not.

Was it with LA in mind? I don't know but I doubt it. Was LA always viewed as something he could put his chess pieces in place to obtain? Likely. But I don't think there are a lot of things Stan thinks he can't win on in business.

The proposal he offered in arbitration left the door open for the CVC/Authority to put forth a financing plan and budget. It didn't say if he planned on buying in but I would guess the NFL would have seen to it.

So here we are. Rams fans waiting to move along.

Cheers man.

 

[RamFan503]

it is applied to St Louis alot, and with good reason, the Cardinals always draw well. but the Rams also sold out thier first 12 or 13 seasons here, crowds only started getting smaller after we went through the worst 5 season slump in NFL history. put that product on the field anywhere else and i would bet you would get the same results or worse, we still draw over 50000 even with all the losing.
IMO if a sports team is winning they will draw fans no matter what the sport, but you put up 10 losing seasons in a row and people will find other things to do. thats anywhere.

I'm not sure how that can be argued. If you put the product we have seen over the past decade on the field in Dallas or GB, I still think you'd see attendance possibly below what showed up for games in the Lou. Not one bit of this is due to the fan base. Of that I'm pretty damn certain.

But this is not about the fans - unfortunately - and it wasn't 20 years ago either.

 

[The Ripper]

Hard to say you are wrong on any of this. You could be but I don't know either so....

My thoughts would be that he showed before buying in on the Rams that he wanted to bring the NFL to St Louis so he has that in his track record.

Stan used his option in the buying the controlling interest much like he is here. It does make you wonder if he wasn't maybe behind the top 25% clause all along but I dunno. He's an insanely cunning businessman so I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility. Makes more sense than Shaw thinking of it or the CVC just offering it up without provocation.

In the Khan deal, he held the cards and he knew it. He didn't have to react or do anything until he knew there was a deal on the table that would close. It would only be then that he would know what he would have to spend on buying the rest of the team. That's smart business - no matter if anyone likes it or not.

Was it with LA in mind? I don't know but I doubt it. Was LA always viewed as something he could put his chess pieces in place to obtain? Likely. But I don't think there are a lot of things Stan thinks he can't win on in business.

The proposal he offered in arbitration left the door open for the CVC/Authority to put forth a financing plan and budget. It didn't say if he planned on buying in but I would guess the NFL would have seen to it.

So here we are. Rams fans waiting to move along.

Cheers man.

Kroenke was not part of the negotiations. This was settled before he got the minority interest which didn't become effective until the team became the St Louis Rams. I can't find the article but Shaw said that they thought they could control Kroneke better than Peter Angelos. The top tier clause was added because Fans, Inc wouldn't agree to scheduled maintenance and renovations. Every escape clause came from Shaw, Anaheim and St Louis.

 

[ramsince62]

funding isn't an issue either with Carson - Goldman sachs has already pledged the amount of the stadium, and they still have PSL money they could tap into

Uh, I didn't know Goldman was giving away $$$ these days.

 

[iced]

Uh, I didn't know Goldman was giving away $$$ these days.

if you're gonna call me out, please attempt to be correct

http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html

Goldman has seized an opportunity in an era when cities and states are increasingly leery of subsidizing sports palaces for billionaires. The firm offers the next-best thing: upfront Wall Street money, along with help crafting creative deals that maximize a team's profits and minimize its taxes.

they went from "pledging 10 figures" to pledging the whole cost of the stadium ($1.7 billion) and that doesn't even include PSL's (this has been covered and posted before in this thread, somewhere i think late 200's)