GRITS (ie. the 12/16 to ? "LA thread")

waterfield wrote:

If your around: looks like no one including the Rams are coming back here any time soon.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/

Reason the Chargers are staying put is as follows Waterfield. Their decision has nothing to do with the Rams.

San Diego situation: The following from ESPN article, ” JMI Reality, the development company responsible for the San Diego Padres’ Petco Park, has proposed building a $1.4 billion multipurpose facility with a retractable roof that would house a new football stadium for the Chargers, along with planned expansion of the convention center that would include an exhibition hall below the football field, and a meeting room and ballroom space in an attached building, with views of the field and bay.

However, the Chargers have not built consensus on the proposal with local business and community leaders. If consensus on a proposal is met, a possible vote on the project could appear in front of voters on a countywide ballot as early as the general election in November 2016.

The proposal would need a two-thirds majority vote in order to use hotel tax money as a funding source for the project. That funding source has been contemplated for use on the convention center expansion.

San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer has indicated his willingness to work with the Chargers on a stadium solution, as long as taxpayers are protected.

“We have to get this done,” Faulconer said in an interview with local radio station The Mighty 1090. “It’s too important to us as a city. And it’s not just the city, it’s in fact the entire San Diego region. The Chargers are extremely important to San Diego. The Chargers belong in San Diego.

“We have a facility that is outdated, and that’s just the facts. I’ve been on the job for eight months now, and I’ve said we have to call the question. We have to get this done. And we have to bring everybody to the table to solve this once and for all. And I’m committed to doing that.””

looks like it’s down to either the rams or the raiders.

or not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5IMeODLND8
I heard Kronke is building a castle/ [stadium, stadium is Latin for stadium] in France.

St Louis fans are so anti-Rams that they will not even buy a fucking 8.00 ticket off stub hub to go see a pro football game?
They don’t fucking deserve a franchise.

Grits

There are only a couple of football towns that would stick with the team through the futility we put up.

Green Bay is one of them. I’m not even sure I can name the other.

And the obstacles to moving are real. The relocation fees will be REAL. The owners gave Kroenke time to settle the cross ownership issues and in 4 years, he’s done nothing other than ask for another waiver which has some owners peeved.

And any owner would be jealous of an owner who eventually “got” LA.

So it’s hardly a slam dunk.

I don’t care where they play.

joemad wrote:

bnw wrote:
St. Louis fans have suffered more than any other fans for more than a decade and at one stretch set the NFL record for futility over a three year period. When a decent product was put on the field the dome was sold out. Lately it could be St. Louis fans are tapped out from buying St. Louis Cardinals playoff tickets to watch the unbeatable LA Dodgers get beat again. What owners are going to give up huge franchise fees or the leverage on stadium upgrades an unnecessary existing franchise move to the LA market would deny? Why do you think LA deserves an existing NFL franchise after losing two NFL franchises in a years time while the NFL has continued to reap record profits in the 20 years since it left LA? Sorry the second largest media market excuse doesn’t fly since the NFL hasn’t lost money since LA was abandoned.

1) STL also lost a franchise and was overlooked for expansion when Jax was awarded a team.
2) you need to consider the ownership of the NFL teams that left LA… The Controversial Al Davis, who left Oakland when the Raiders had no attendance issues and he left LA back to Oakland on whim… More importantly, Georgia was the ownership team that left when John Shaw found a loop hole in Anaheim to leave So. Cal. when the local hockey team built the stadium.

Gotta agree with GRITS,
1) Stan is the most powerful owner in pro sports, owns a professional Soccer team in the Premier League, and an NBA team and each case he owns the land for each of his teams, with exception of the RAMS
2) He bought 60 acres of land in LA
3) Hired a coach that also oversaw a move from Houston to Tenn.
3a) When Fisher was hired, Fisher asked for no move guarantee clause for the RAMS, Stan denied that clause.

Per GRITS points, i’m not sure that the most powerful owner in professional sports wants to own the least valued NFL franchise. Winning seasons in STL will not cure that, but location and branding will.

We disagree. No biggee. Kroenke is a businessman and as long as the Rams make a good return on his investment he has little incentive to leave. The TV contract alone probably pays the freight and decent profit margin these days. Fisher was hired because he was the best established candidate available. Why would Kroenke agree to such a clause and deny himself the future leverage with the city/county/state? He could just as easily broke such a clause and paid any judgment as it’s small change to a billionaire. Also, JAX is a nightmare. A real mistake. That team may be the next to move.

• This reply was modified 10 years ago by bnw.

We have to be able to discuss this without the harsh language and sniping at posters. I think calling someone “a delusional rube” is pushing that line. I think we can make all our points on even the most controversial topics without doing that kind of thing.

just like Grits is brining up the 2nd largest market, you keep playing the abandoned city card. That happened in STL.

Yes, STL did build a stadium to lure a team, but the problem was/is, the stadium was outdated before it was even completed. There was nothing state of the art from the TWA dome.

Georgia left for a short term pay day…… We all knew that the team would be devalued for leaving to a much smaller market… Georgia got her payday from STL.

Business is profit, if you’re not making an optimal profit, you’re not in business. Selling tix for 8 bucks to see an NFL game is not a sustainable business model.. I can’t even get to see a High School game for $8.00.

Here’s the thing.

Los Angeles is NOT going to build a stadium with public funds. It just WILL NOT.

The 9er Stadium is private. The likely proposed Charger stadium that’s being talked about is PRIVATE.

Any LA stadium will be private.

The finances have been gone over. Likely $1.5B for a stadium. The NFL will INSIST on the LA stadium being a landmark for the league. They’ve already stated that they want Super Bowls back there and the Draft is going to be in LA for 2015, iirc.

The relocation fee? Well, let’s just be clear that it will be north of $1B.

So, we’re talking $1.5B financed, and $1B in payments, but it’s still $2.5B in the hole to move.

For…what? maybe an extra $1B in equity? The revenue projections had REALLY better be there…

Now, we can’t talk about the Clippers and Dodgers sales too closely because THEY also include VERY lucrative local television contracts. The Dodgers have 81 games away… many of which can be televised. I’m not sure how many are under the latest contract, but it’s substantial. And the radio rights aren’t cheap, either. And while the Clippers aren’t a huge draw, they STILL have that local TV contract.

NO NFL team has a local TV contract and the number of games preclude economy of scale revenues like Baseball and even to a lesser extent Basketball can achieve.

NFL teams get the BIG network monies, gate receipts, and licensing.

I would challenge the math about Kroenke doing better in LA. Based on what?

Equity? In what term? Immediately, the debt would outweigh any “value” from a balance sheet perspective.

Income? Well, sure, he’ll make more. I would expect a fair bit more. However, I’m not sure it offsets the relocation fee, let alone the stadium cost. I could be generous and say the difference between a stadium in St. Louis and the NFL Flagship stadium in LA, but even still, I’m not sure the income difference covers either one.

I think LA is an option that Kroenke will pursue because he has to. If he doesn’t, he’ll be mired in stasis while local politicians dither until eternity.

That said, he’s about as Mizzou as Mizzou gets and if he can make the balance sheet work in his favor in St. Louis, it’s far more likely he does that.

PLUS, he’ll have the added bonus of not drawing the ire of fellow owners who would INSIST that he rectify his cross-ownership issues.

See, if he moves the Rams to LA, you can guarantee that there won’t be any more leeway on THAT issue. Losing LA as the big lever will materially damage the other owners (not able to extort cities for new stadiums as easily and that will cost billions of dollars in the long term to NFL owners just in stadium costs alone). So, rest assured that any move to LA will require tons of compensation and every *i* dotted and every *t* crossed.

I have no idea what’s gonna happen and I’ll believe any of it when I see it. So many teams have used LA as leverage to get what they want from their current locale – so I’m having a hard time committing myself either way. Minnesota was the latest to leverage LA. Jacksonville, San Diego, and Oakland have or are doing similar things. But, this St Louis to LA thing just keeps hanging on – likely because nobody is hearing what Missouri or St Louis will or won’t do to make the Rams happy.

But, as far as a business model goes, what if Kroenke owns the stadium and two teams use it? That’s the most recent scenario I read or saw being discussed. So, mucho parking – stadium concessions, stadium box and lots of people buying 9 dollar cups of warm beer and 7 dollar soda’s and the trendy Hollywood-LA types sitting in their lavish boxes being catered to and don’t forget the mystery meat cooked on a stick a few days ago and reheated for too much money. All the while – the Rams and the Stadium that Stan can build will be worth untold billions more than the Rams in St Louis with an aging dome.

The NFL in LA would be huge after being gone for 20 years.

Mackeyser wrote:

Here’s the thing.

Los Angeles is NOT going to build a stadium with public funds. It just WILL NOT.

The 9er Stadium is private. The likely proposed Charger stadium that’s being talked about is PRIVATE.

Any LA stadium will be private.

The finances have been gone over. Likely $1.5B for a stadium. The NFL will INSIST on the LA stadium being a landmark for the league. They’ve already stated that they want Super Bowls back there and the Draft is going to be in LA for 2015, iirc.

The relocation fee? Well, let’s just be clear that it will be north of $1B.

So, we’re talking $1.5B financed, and $1B in payments, but it’s still $2.5B in the hole to move.

For…what? maybe an extra $1B in equity? The revenue projections had REALLY better be there…

Now, we can’t talk about the Clippers and Dodgers sales too closely because THEY also include VERY lucrative local television contracts. The Dodgers have 81 games away… many of which can be televised. I’m not sure how many are under the latest contract, but it’s substantial. And the radio rights aren’t cheap, either. And while the Clippers aren’t a huge draw, they STILL have that local TV contract.

NO NFL team has a local TV contract and the number of games preclude economy of scale revenues like Baseball and even to a lesser extent Basketball can achieve.

NFL teams get the BIG network monies, gate receipts, and licensing.

I would challenge the math about Kroenke doing better in LA. Based on what?

Equity? In what term? Immediately, the debt would outweigh any “value” from a balance sheet perspective.

Income? Well, sure, he’ll make more. I would expect a fair bit more. However, I’m not sure it offsets the relocation fee, let alone the stadium cost. I could be generous and say the difference between a stadium in St. Louis and the NFL Flagship stadium in LA, but even still, I’m not sure the income difference covers either one.

I think LA is an option that Kroenke will pursue because he has to. If he doesn’t, he’ll be mired in stasis while local politicians dither until eternity.

That said, he’s about as Mizzou as Mizzou gets and if he can make the balance sheet work in his favor in St. Louis, it’s far more likely he does that.

PLUS, he’ll have the added bonus of not drawing the ire of fellow owners who would INSIST that he rectify his cross-ownership issues.

See, if he moves the Rams to LA, you can guarantee that there won’t be any more leeway on THAT issue. Losing LA as the big lever will materially damage the other owners (not able to extort cities for new stadiums as easily and that will cost billions of dollars in the long term to NFL owners just in stadium costs alone). So, rest assured that any move to LA will require tons of compensation and every *i* dotted and every *t* crossed.

Won’t the three other NFL teams in the state stand to lose revenue from an LA team? Read an interview with Kroenke years ago that mentioned his mother-in-law is a huge St. Louis Rams fan too. How about tax liability in LA vs. St. Louis?

GreatRamNTheSky wrote:

Won’t the three other NFL teams in the state stand to lose revenue from an LA team? Read an interview with Kroenke years ago that mentioned his mother-in-law is a huge St. Louis Rams fan too. How about tax liability in LA vs. St. Louis?

BNW where is the money coming from in St Louis? Who is going to pay for that stadium? You seem a bit myopic to deny that the Rams will triple their franchise value in LA. Right now, in case it has escaped you they are last or next to last in franchise value in the league. Plus they make the least amount of profit off their home games.

Plus the Rams are buying up tickets just to lift the blackout.

Lets not forget the millions still being paid on the original loan going back to 1995. They have at least 11 more years to pay those millions annually and now you want to add on top of that?

What business man in his right mind would not take the opportunity to be king in LA and triple his franchise value?

Kroenke owns the land and he knows how to get these things financed. You and your cronies in St Louis sit there and crow about Peacock and his Holy Grail plan and yet you give no credence or acknowledge that Kroenke has people who are good at developing a plan as well. The NFL has stated over and again the right owner and team for LA is what it will take. Well, Kroenke has the cash
and he is a savy businessman. The team is on the rise and soon will be a contender and they already have a fan base in LA.
The money awaiting the Rams and the league in LA far outweighs anything St Louis can offer. Those are the facts!

Grits

Peacock? Mama Walton being a ST. LOUIS Rams fan is all I need to know. Why would Kroenke be willing to lift the blackout if he wanted to move the team? You’re not making much sense.

bnw wrote:

You’re not making much sense.

I speak as a nomad who is not in either so. cal or StL (though I have lived both places). It would suffice, I think, simply to say something along the lines of “we strongly disagree.” Both of you are making perfect sense, but only in terms of the different premises each of you accept as foundational. Since no one really knows anything and may not for a long time, those premises include a lot of speculation…meaning this is a clash of opinions. Opinions heavily soaked in passions, since there are “hometown” considerations on both sides.

zn wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>bnw wrote:</div>
You’re not making much sense.

I speak as a nomad who is not in either so. cal or StL (though I have lived both places). It would suffice, I think, simply to say something along the lines of “we strongly disagree.”

I already did that 16 posts ago. I don’t appreciate the unwarranted bagging on St. Louis by someone who thinks he is superior simply because he lives in southern CA. The team is in St. Louis for a reason. Part ownership was sold to Kroenke for a reason. When the team was looking for offers a few years ago no LA money was around then or now.