Recent Forum Topics › Forums › The Rams Huddle › Peter King + more: relocation, relocation, relocation
- This topic has 3 replies, 2 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by
wv.
-
AuthorPosts
-
March 2, 2015 at 10:44 am #19338
zn
ModeratorOn Los Angeles, St. Louis and How It All Shakes Out
March 2, 2015 by Peter King
http://mmqb.si.com/2015/03/02/st-louis-stadium-rams-raiders-chargers-los-angeles-nfl/5/
I’m like everybody else with this Los Angeles thing. I’m on page 24 of a 300-page book, and it’s not all that interesting so far. But I hear the end is compelling, so I’d rather speed past the next 230 pages and go straight to the climax. Tell me what the end game is.
“What’s your gut feeling about the number of NFL teams playing football in Los Angeles in 2020—zero, one or two?” I asked Eric Grubman, an NFL senior vice president and the league’s point man on the L.A. market, on Friday.
“I don’t know the number,” he said near the end of a 35-minute interview. “But the least probable of those numbers is zero. I would say we’ve gone above the 50 percent probability that we’ll have at least one team there.”
The mystery brews. “You have to have some stomach to let the thing play out,” Grubman said. “I don’t know what’s going to happen. Right now, I don’t think anyone does. I do know this: Los Angeles has real momentum for the first time in 20 years.”
* * *
It’s been two decades and two months since the Los Angeles area had NFL football. The Raiders and Rams left simultaneously after playing in L.A. and Anaheim, respectively, for the last time on Christmas Eve 1994. And now, Los Angeles is a game of musical chairs for three franchises. The San Diego and Oakland franchises have announced their intention to bury the hatchet of a 54-year rivalry to initiate a joint $1.7-million stadium project in the Los Angeles suburb of Carson. Last Tuesday, the Inglewood (Calif.) City Council unanimously approved plans to build a football stadium that would be anchored by the move of the Rams from St. Louis. That doesn’t mean the Rams are signed and sealed for Inglewood, just that the locals are promising to build a palace if they come.
The Chargers are still trying to get a deal done to stay in San Diego. Ditto the Raiders in northern California. The Rams? No one quite knows what the Rams are doing. Kroenke is the invisible man; many hugely influential business and government people in St. Louis and the state of Missouri have never met the Howard Hughes of the NFL. For years the Rams tried to get a better stadium than the Edward Jones Dome, and the franchise was rebuffed because of the immense cost. But now, faced with losing the Rams, the state and city are working double-time to come up with a solution that—if nothing else—would make it difficult for 24 owners to vote in favor of the Rams returning to Los Angeles. (Franchise moves must be approved by a 75 percent majority of the 32 teams, though no one is sure if Kroenke will abide by that bylaw or just pull up stakes and force the league to stop him.)
The rendering atop this column—and the gallery below this paragraph—is a start. This is the first time anyone outside the league or the committee charged with keeping the Rams in St. Louis has seen the renderings of what a new $1 billion, 64,000-seat open-air riverfront football stadium on the banks of the Mississippi River would look like. Grubman has been to St. Louis on several occasions to meet with the group working to keep the Rams in town and working to clear 90 acres on the riverfront and get funding for the stadium, and he’s bullish on their prospects. But prospects for what? Keeping the Rams—even though Kroenke has not been part of the discussions at all, instead opting to have Rams COO Kevin Demoff head the team’s delegation in dealing with the transition? Preparing for a rainy day, and taking one of the teams (San Diego or Oakland) that doesn’t get a stadium built and sees the prospect of a shiny middle-American palace in a top-20 market? No one knows. But the stadium is currency in these stadium-driven times.
“It’s definitely a legitimate option,” said Grubman. “I see no fatal defect to it.”
Grubman told The MMQB that the NFL will commission detailed market studies in all three cities—St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego—so the league will be able to control the process with the best knowledge of the markets over the next few months. He said the market study has already been launched in St. Louis. The study in Oakland will begin in the next week or so, and the San Diego study will start later this month. That’s important because the NFL wants to know the appetite for ticket price and numbers in each place, as well as whether personal seat licenses are viable, and how many premium seats and boxes can be expected to be sold. By May, the NFL should have the answer to those questions.
The NFL told any team investigating Los Angeles to be sure to include in the stadium design the ability to add a second team. The St. Louis plan in Inglewood does that—obviously, so does the Carson site. No one expects two stadiums to be built in Los Angeles. But, increasingly, there is an expectation that one stadium will be built in greater Los Angeles, and it will house one or two teams. Kroenke’s plan is the most advanced.
Potential end game: Rams move to Los Angeles. Chargers can’t get a deal done in San Diego and join them in Inglewood. And by 2019, Derek Carr will be the quarterback of your St. Louis Raiders.
Which leads us to this unfortunate part of the story: Kroenke seems (and I say “seems,” because of his actions, not because of his words—there have been none) to be the most determined owner to want to move to Los Angeles. The Chargers and Raiders want to stay put. But San Diego and Oakland have nothing stadium-wise in the works. St. Louis is by far the most aggressive with the best plan to keep the Rams, right down to an agreement to clear a 90-acre blighted plot downtown to make way for the stadium. And get this: Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon has an agreement with skilled construction workers in eastern Missouri to work round the clock (three eight-hour shifts a day, every day) so the stadium could be finished in 24 months … without workers taking overtime. That’s significant because if the first shovel goes in the ground by this August, the NFL could have a pristine new St. Louis stadium built in time for the 2017 season. (That’s likely too fast a timetable; it’s more likely that stadium construction would start later, and the venue would be ready in 2018 or in time for the NFL’s 100th season, in 2019.)
So St. Louis has an owner with one foot out the door but with a solid plan to keep the team in a beautiful stadium. The preferred goal of San Diego and Oakland is to stay in San Diego and Oakland. Or, as Grubman said: “St. Louis is being aggressive and specific. San Diego recently has shown potential to be aggressive, but has not yet been specific. Oakland has been neither aggressive nor specific.”
It’s a tough place to be for St. Louis. But you wouldn’t know that by talking to former Anheuser-Busch president David Peacock, who, along with local lawyer Robert Blitz, is heading up the local effort to keep the Rams. Or, in an unspoken but obvious alternative, to make St. Louis so attractive that if the Rams leave some other stadium-needy team would have to strongly consider a potential turnkey operation in Missouri.
“We’re trying to move with speed and certainty, with no ambiguity,” Peacock said over the weekend. “This is the right moment in time for a new stadium in St. Louis. We have a lot of young people moving to our urban core, which you couldn’t have said a few years ago.
“Stan has all kinds of options. We understand that. We can’t worry too much about that. I would be more concerned if we weren’t having regular dialog with Kevin [Demoff] and Eric Grubman about all facets of the plan. We are relying on the integrity of the league’s bylaws. If you assemble all the important pieces—the control of the land, the stadium financing, the cost-certainty, the stadium plan—I don’t know … If we do everything we say we’re going to do, it’s hard to imagine 24 owners would vote against it. If we do our job, I can’t imagine 24 votes to approve the Rams moving.”
The St. Louis stadium project looks to be on solid ground. There’s the standard $200 million league loan that several teams have used, a $250 million commitment from the owner, an estimated $150 million from the sale of seat licenses (which may be optimistic, but it’s close to the level of the commitment at the new Minnesota stadium), plus the remainder to be raised through a combination of local, county and state taxes, plus a commitment of some player and coach state income tax revenue to be funneled to the stadium project. (An unusual revenue source, to be sure, but the thinking goes: if there’s no team, then the state gets zero dollars from some high-earning individuals now located in another city.)
But is it enough? And if Kroenke leaves, will it be enough to attract another team? I’ve thought about this a lot, and several people connected to the story say I’m not the first one to suggest this is the end game: Rams move to Inglewood. Chargers can’t get a deal done in San Diego and join them in Inglewood. Raiders, left without a stadium option, take the St. Louis deal. And by 2019, Derek Carr will be the quarterback of your St. Louis Raiders.
That is a virtual sports-talk-show bit of guesswork by me. But it’s the most logical thing I see, putting all the puzzle pieces together. I have a feeling, though, the puzzle is going to look different in six months. And it’ll look significantly different than that on March 2, 2016.
The reason it’s impossible now to predict how each domino will fall is this: Each team has an owner, a city, local officials, a state government and some emotion involved. Los Angeles has four possible venues with desperado leaders—all of which and all of whom are wild cards. Some people won’t make decisions until pressed to the wall. So it’s really impossible to know what the reaction of one owner will be if one city does something, or Los Angeles does something else. What Kroenke has done well for himself so far is to create options. Billionaires are usually good at that. Kroenke’s no exception.
So we let the process play out, knowing that by the time the NFL turns 100 the second-largest city in the country should finally have a team (or two) back. Whichever teams they may be.
“If you asked the 10 people closest to this issue to all write their predictions down on what will happen to these teams [and the Los Angeles market] and seal them in envelopes, you’d have 10 different answers written down,” Grubman said. He’s right—but Kroenke’s in the best position of them all, here in the first quarter of the Los Angeles game
March 6, 2015 at 2:04 am #19558zn
ModeratorGordon: Relocation talk reduces Rams draft intrigue
By Jeff Gordon
While most pro football fans were gearing up for their team’s big games in recent years, Rams fans have fired up for the annual NFL draft.
Each spring they channeled their inner Mel Kiper Jr.-Todd McShay personnel debate. They watched college all-star games, tuned into the scouting combine, pored over draft projections and wondered which collegiate stars would bring hope to Rams Park and break the cycle of despair.
Recent drafts have been way more entertaining than the actual games. The remarkable Robert Griffin III heist made the Rams a major draft story three years running.
While the Rams have remained predictable with their game strategy — especially on offense — they have pulled some clever surprises at the draft. Last year’s class was one of the best St. Louis has ever seen.
But that fun is done. As preparations for the 2015 draft intensify, many Rams fans merely shrug.
This team seems unlikely to captivate us with its draft maneuvers. Les Snead spent No. 4 and No. 6 picks to add run-stuffing safety Mark Barron to his stack of run-stuffing safeties last season, so the team lacks the volume of picks needed to get highly creative.
Then there is the larger issue of the Rams’ future here, or lack thereof. Owner Stan Kroenke is trying to move to team to Los Angeles. Many fans view the 2015 season as a farewell tour, given the momentum Kroenke’s Inglewood project is gaining.
Yes, there’s a chance St. Louis could emerge from this chaos with a new stadium and a place in the league. But local fans become more alienated by the day, so they spend less time wondering which 2015 additions could make a difference by 2018.
Right now Rams fans in Southern California are more interested in that topic.
The Rams’ offseason activity has added to the local indifference. Their free agent priority appears to be the interior offensive line. One of their top draft priorities is offensive tackle.
Injury-battered Jake Long was another in the long line of expensive free agent busts for the Rams, and the offensive line is crying for fresh legs.
Iowa offensive tackle Brandon Scherff is a person of interest to the Rams, assuming he gets down to the No. 10 slot. Stanford’s Andrus Peat could fit that bill, too, and he appears likely to be there for the Rams.
Yes, the Rams could buck up and overpay free agent Joe Barksdale to remain at right tackle. Yes, coach Jeff Fisher and Snead could sift through the slim pickings and (gulp) add another tackle from the open market.
But circumstances suggest drafting a tackle is the right play, instead of going for a wide receiver like Kevin White, Amari Cooper or DeVante Parker. The Rams could re-up Kenny Britt to continue his mentoring of Brian Quick and count on Mountaineer pals Tavon Austin and Stedman Bailey to finally break out.
Should that plan fail, the Rams can target wide receivers in future drafts after firming up the offensive line foundation.
Adding fresh blockers wouldn’t do much for marketing … but at this point, marketing is a moot point for the franchise. There isn’t much the sales department can do to move tickets to fans in this region for this season.
The Rams can only hope their opponents don’t travel well in 2015.
Fisher is prepared to take a similarly patient approach at quarterback by giving Sam Bradford one more season, assuming the money makes sense.
Why not? The free agent alternatives are pedestrian and the 10th overall pick seems unlikely to yield their quarterback of the future.
The Rams can trot out Bradford one more time, find a solid back-up and draft somebody with long-term potential in the second or third round.
So what if Bradford breaks down again? The Rams could just leave him on the curb with the used player lounge furniture if the team packs up and moves to SoCal.
The team could get its fresh start with a new quarterback better than, say, Brian Hoyer. Next year’s free agent quarterback class can’t possibly be as bad as this one.
Fisher kept things in house by promoting quarterbacks coach Frank Cignetti to the offensive coordinator post vacated by the oft-maligned Brian Schottenheimer.
This was a sensible move. Cignetti helped coax reasonable production from Shaun Hill and Austin Davis last season after Bradford went down. Fisher isn’t looking to reinvent his offense in the fourth year of his regime, so the status quo rules.
Cignetti accepted the challenge of taking Fisher’s familiar run-oriented philosophy and getting better results. And maybe, just maybe, the Rams will actually complete a few passes to Austin down the field for a change.
New quarterbacks coach Chris Weinke was also a solid hire under the circumstances. He refined his teaching skills at the IMG Academy, working with aspiring NFL quarterbacks like Russell Wilson and Cam Newton.
This is an entry level position coaching job, so the uncertain Rams future shouldn’t concern him. Weinke is getting his big break at the highest level of coaching.
He will get to mold whichever young quarterback the Rams draft. He is bringing lots of energy to this challenge.
At least somebody around here is excited about what the organization’s long-range future may hold.[/quote]
March 6, 2015 at 2:10 am #19560zn
ModeratorWhy Goldman Sachs Wants the Chargers in Los Angeles
Beau Lynott
Investment bank Goldman Sachs wants the Chargers to move to Los Angeles. They also want the Rams to stay in St. Louis, and out of Los Angeles.
The firm is working diligently on both fronts.
Those are not Goldman’s publicly stated positions, of course, but it doesn’t take much analysis to arrive at this conclusion.
SportsBusiness Journal’s Daniel Kaplan, citing unnamed sources, reported Monday that Goldman Sachs will finance the Chargers’ costs of moving to L.A. by covering “any operating losses suffered by the team in the first few years in that city as well as costs for any renovations needed in a temporary venue.” If they relocate, the Chargers are expected to play in the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum or the Rose Bowl while a new L.A.-area stadium is under construction.
Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani confirmed to ESPN that the Chargers have a long-standing working relationship with Goldman and that the firm will work with them on financing a new stadium in the Los Angeles market.
“We are in a hyper-competitive environment regarding Los Angeles at this moment, and so we won’t be releasing specifics on our work with Goldman Sachs,” Fabiani told ESPN. “The bottom line is that we, along with Goldman Sachs, are completely confident that the Raiders/Chargers L.A. stadium proposal can feasibly be financed.”
Fabiani has been less than fully transparent about the Chargers’ dealings with Goldman Sachs as recently as January, when he refuted a report out of St. Louis that the team and firm had reached an agreement to build a stadium in L.A.
Goldman’s relationship with the Chargers is not new. (Nor are Fabiani and Goldman strangers.) Covering the team’s losses and renovation costs related to relocation, if true, is definitely a new wrinkle.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs managing director Greg Carey is advising Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s task force on building a publicly funded stadium to keep the Rams from moving to Los Angeles. The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority hired Goldman two years ago to find ways to keep the Rams, or at least NFL football, in St. Louis.
Bloomberg:
the [Missouri task force] has a potent player in Greg Carey, a 54-year-old Goldman Sachs Group Inc. banker who is known in professional sports circles as the guru of stadium financing. Under Carey, Goldman Sachs has worked on more than two dozen stadium deals, the company says, amounting to more than $11 billion in financing.
Carey’s specialty is crafting deals that are lucrative for team owners, often at the expense of taxpayers. What sets him apart, say his clients and critics, is his ability to steer projects through conflicting interests of teams and local government officials. He often does so by using obscure tools available in public finance to help owners get low-interest loans, avoid taxes or tap subsidies.
Carey also steered financing of the San Francisco 49ers $1.27 billion stadium in Santa Clara, cited by Fabiani as a template for the proposed Raiders/Chargers stadium in Carson.
49ers management and Goldman executives touted their work on the Santa Clara stadium in a promotional video.
“It was one of the most exciting transactions that I’ve been able to work on in my career,” Carey says in the video. “We actually committed $850 million of our own capital as a construction loan to ensure that the stadium could be built.” (It’s slightly more complicated than that.)
Carey was understandably excited about financing an $850 million loan. San Diegans might be less than excited about the implications of Goldman’s involvement with the Chargers and their prospects of remaining in San Diego.
Goldman Sachs could not expect to earn nearly as much in commissions, fees and interest from a San Diego stadium as they would from the proposed Raiders/Chargers stadium in Carson. The Carson proposal is for a privately financed $1.7 billion stadium, modeled after the financing used for the 49ers stadium in Santa Clara.
The Chargers described their view of the different market situations in a statement announcing their partnership with the Raiders:
A stadium can be financed in Los Angeles because the LA-Orange County-Inland Empire marketplace is able to support the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) or Stadium Builder Licenses (SBLs). These licenses provide a significant amount of funding for the stadium project, as the City of Santa Clara and the 49ers recently demonstrated with the public-private partnership and the record-breaking SBL sales that helped make possible the financing of Levi’s Stadium.
In addition, the LA-Orange County-Inland Empire area is the second-largest media market in the country, and as a result, revenues from the sale of naming rights, advertising, and sponsorships will be significantly larger than they would be in San Diego. Taken together, simple economic realities make a financing reliant solely on stadium-generated revenues possible in a large market such as Los Angeles.
It’s all about PSLs/SBLs and their ability to raise hundreds of millions of private dollars for building a stadium. The Chargers and Goldman Sachs don’t think the San Diego market can generate enough PSLs to build a stadium privately.
National University System Institute for Policy Research President Eric Bruvold is preparing a study that concludes San Diego County would have to cover up to 65 percent of the cost of a new stadium. Bruvold said San Diego might buy $50 million to $100 million in PSLs, but not a large proportion of the overall package. That would mean much less private financing for lenders to the project.
That’s where the shadow of a potential conflict arises.
Goldman Sachs would substantially benefit from a privately built stadium in Carson. Their paid advocacy for the St. Louis Stadium Authority also compels them to strive for a solution that keeps the Rams in Missouri, which would bring an ancillary benefit of keeping the L.A. market open for the Carson stadium.
If the Chargers end up with a San Diego stadium solution, Goldman Sachs will have done their duty to their client, in that they would have helped them reach a satisfactory outcome. But will Goldman act as an honest broker if they are involved in negotiations to build a stadium in San Diego? It would go against their own financial interests in Los Angeles and St. Louis. They stand to gain much less if a stadium is built here.
I asked representatives of the Chargers, the mayor and the mayor’s task force to comment on Goldman’s possible involvement in the stadium process in San Diego.
Citizens Stadium Advisory Group spokesman Anthony Manolatos said the group hasn’t had any contact with Goldman Sachs. He didn’t dismiss the idea of the group meeting with Goldman at some point, though.
“Possibly, but probably not. The focus of the advisory group is on determining what site is best, then developing a financing plan for public consideration. It’s not all that interested in what’s going on Carson,” Manolatos said.
“It would appear to me that Goldman Sachs would be conflicted. I expect if it got that far, negotiations would have to be with another investment bank,” Manolatos said. “It appears there would be a conflict.”
Craig Gustafson, the mayor’s spokesman, said he needed to look into the issue and get back to me. I’ll update this post if I hear back.
I emailed several questions to Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani. At first, he offered just a boilerplate response: “Goldman Sachs has been the team’s longtime investment banker, something that we have been very public about over the years. A Goldman representative even spoke at the Carson2gether press conference on February 20. So our relationship with the firm is hardly news.”
When I pressed him on the questions I’d asked, he wrote: “With regard to the City of San Diego, we of course have not yet seen any specific ideas from the Mayor or the task force, but we will certainly be prepared to have the appropriate experts from our side evaluate whatever might be proposed in the future.” He added: “To date Goldman has not met with the Mayor or any task force members.”
So, would “appropriate experts from our side” mean Goldman could advise the Chargers on a future San Diego stadium proposal?
“I can’t answer that hypothetical question since we have no idea what specific issues will be raised by the task force or the mayor. We would always try to bring the best expertise to bear on a particular issue, after evaluating what’s needed, checking for client conflicts, and so on,” Fabiani said.
Oh, and the NFL’s “point man on the L.A. market“? That’d be NFL Senior Vice President Eric Grubman — a former Goldman banker.
Goldman Sachs representatives declined to comment for this story.
It isn’t ethically or legally wrong for Goldman Sachs to be the Chargers’ financial partner and stadium adviser. If, however, San Diego officials end up in stadium negotiations with Dean Spanos and his investment banker, they may wonder whether the Carson stadium is too lucrative for Goldman to let fail.
March 6, 2015 at 7:33 am #19563wv
Participant“… Under Carey, Goldman Sachs has worked on more than two dozen stadium deals, the company says, amounting to more than $11 billion in financing.
Carey’s specialty is crafting deals that are lucrative for team owners, often at the expense of taxpayers. What sets him apart, say his clients and critics, is his ability to steer projects through conflicting interests of teams and local government officials. He often does so by using obscure tools available in public finance to help owners get low-interest loans, avoid taxes or tap subsidies….”I did not
need to read this,
first thing in the Morning.Do you have any cute bunny videos?
Maybe a dog playing with an orangutan?w
v -
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.