- This topic has 52 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 4 months ago by
.
-
Latest Thoughts on Stan Kroenke, the Rams and the NFL in St. Louis
Shane Gray posted on January 08, 2015 11:12By now, most everyone is aware of Sam Farmer’s Los Angeles Times report that broke the news of St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke’s plans to team up with Stockbridge Capital Group to construct an NFL stadium and multifaceted development at Hollywood Park — a location that has been rumored as a potential league venue site since the mid 1990s.
As Farmer points out, there have been more than a dozen L.A. area stadium proposals that have come and gone over the last 20 years. Will the aforementioned Kroenke plan, however, finally be the one that goes from conceptualization to reality and ultimately bring the NFL back to L.A.? At this point at least, the answer to that question would appear to be a yes.
With that said, I would like to touch on a multitude of topics in response to the prospective Kroenke/Stockbridge Capital Group stadium development:
-As I have pointed out previously, there has never been a team relocate with a state of the art venue plan approved in its current market, even prior to the introduction of the NFL’s relocation guidelines and certainly not since they were tweaked and tightened following the moving mayhem that took place in the 1990s. When considering how the NFL controls the L.A. market, that specific league guidelines are in place related to potential relocation and the above-mentioned historical precedence that no team has moved with an approved stadium plan in place at home, local fans have reason to maintain hopes of keeping the Rams in St. Louis.
-In spite of the thinking of a vast many observers, the Rams future is a long way from being decided.
For one, As Bill Plaschke of the L.A. Times emphasized here with supportive evidence, both the pro Rams to L.A. crowd and the keep the Rams in St. Louis contingent should take a wait-and-see approach in regard to anything NFL to L.A. related. Those who are suggesting the Rams to L.A. is somehow a done deal need a reality check.
As I detailed in this feature a few months back and as was covered this week by Farmer and Nathan Fenno of the L.A. Times, the league and its franchises have extensively used the nation’s number two market to help spur deals in other cities. In fact, the Farmer/Fenno column linked above reports that 18 teams have been connected to L.A. at some point in recent years.
For whatever reason(s) — in spite of lessons that should have easily been learned by the history shared above — people are completely convinced that this time it just has to be different. Inexplicably, people in the media and other interested observers alike have already decided that there is no chance that any of this could be leverage related.
But why in the world is that stance taken? Aren’t these people looking at this from a very close-minded and limited perspective?
How come people assume that there has to be a limit to a leverage play, rather than understanding that the bigger the play the bigger the possible reward? Short of loading up the moving vans and driving out of town, there is no official leverage limit that actually exists. Even then — as was evidenced with the Seahawks fiasco in 1996 — that doesn’t guarantee a move.
In short, the bigger the play the bigger the potential response in terms of getting a larger and better deal from a city and state. To think otherwise is foolish.
I guess the fact that The Kroenke Group voluntarily released this information days before the local proposal was to come out — and yes we are talking about “Silent Stan” here — could not have possibly involved other motivations other than the ones that people assume that it did. Apparently, it is inconceivable that this news broke intentionally for the reason of upping the ante for a better offer from Peacock/Blitz just before the proposal was submitted to Nixon and released to the public. Nixon, by the way, will get to recommend changes that he sees fit upon viewing the plan.
I mean, I know it is just beyond absurd to consider, but what if the potential L.A. project indeed was made known at this time to help ensure that the St. Louis proposal was pressured to the utmost at the last second to entice the very best offer possible in the next few days? Nah, that couldn’t possibly be something that a shrewd businessman would even consider doing. Impossible.
Sorry for the overly thick use of sarcasm, but it is as if people just assume there is some imaginary line in the sand that says if you cross this point then what is occurring just cannot possibly involve an effort to extract a more beneficial deal. It’s as if the thinking is that if it looks a little real and a little threatening then that could indeed be leverage, but when something is done that actually creates an even greater position of power and positioning and looks even realer, well, then that somehow eliminates the possibility of leverage.
Sorry, but just as it is silly to dismiss the potential that Kroenke could ultimately make a strong attempt to both build a venue in L.A. and move the Rams, it is also just as silly to assume that there is no chance that any of this is possibly related to coercing an optimal offer.
On that point, Brent Schrotenboer of USA Today and Woody Paige of the Denver Post are among many who have suggested the possibility of a very powerful leverage play being at work here in an attempt to get the very best deal conceivable in Missouri.
Secondly, even if a move is ultimately attempted, its approval is far from a lock. The league tightened and altered the moving guidelines since the musical chairs of relocation that occurred during the 1990s, as former Raiders CEO Amy Trask told Jim Thomas in this report. A team would have to prove it has exhausted all options in its current market and meet a plethora of requirements as detailed in the NFL’s rules for relocation — many of which the Rams have not yet met.
Let me be clear: the Rams did not meet relocation guideline requirements during the arbitration process, in spite what some desperately want to believe. They have certainly not “exhausted all options in the current market”, among other prerequisites which have not been met.
Yes, the Rams would be free to go due to the arbitration ruling if St. Louis was not trying to put together a viable new stadium plan. If that were the case, then yes, the arbitration process would have went a lot further towards placing the Rams in position of fulfilling the league’s relocation criteria. But with St. Louis working on other options and a stadium plan that the league is said to like, the arbitration process was not anything close to the be all/end all related to the Rams future in the STL.
In addition, Bleacher Report’s Jason Cole reports that Chargers owner Dean Spanos believes he has at least nine votes in place to block an attempted move even if Kroenke were to attempt to uproot the Rams.
Thirdly, even if Kroenke attempts to move without approval, an unapproved move could cost a rogue franchise their share of league-wide TV revenues, among other possible penalties. Obviously, such financial losses would be significant as each NFL team took in nearly $200 million in TV revenues a year ago.
With all that said, there are a plethora of possible outcomes regarding this situation, including but not limited to:
-The possibility of Kroenke developing and profiting from the land around the proposed new edifice and then leasing the football facilities out to another team or team(s) — even if done in the name of Stockbridge — and profiting from both the stadium and surrounding development while keeping the Rams in St. Louis in a new venue with added revenue streams that would significantly increase the value of his franchise while avoiding a relocation fee and other costs associated with a move. That would be quite the coup, but would anyone put it past him at this point?
As for Governor Nixon’s Dave Peacock/Bob Blitz stadium task force and their coming proposal, they will and should forge forward with the retention of the Rams being the first priority of their effort to secure a multidimensional development that would include a new stadium, the retention of the NFL, the prospects of an MLS franchise as well as extensive ancillary development surrounding the facility.
Rather than throwing their hands up and crawling into the fetal position due to the news of Kroenke’s L.A. interest, the Peacock/Blitz team should be all the more determined to fight for the Rams by continuing to work directly with the NFL to bring about a solution that makes it virtually impossible for the organization to relocate.
Some have said, why try to keep them if they want to go?
First, far too many are assuming the appearance of wanting to move equates to a fact that Kroenke indeed desires to move. In spite of the strong indications that this is the case, it is not necessarily so.
Secondly, there are but 31 cities in the world who play host to the National Football League, and hosting one of the franchises is a big deal. If the Rams leave, there are no guarantees that another team will ever again call the Gateway City home.
Thirdly, for those who are justifiably upset at Kroenke, why let him have what many believe he wants without fighting tooth and nail to keep the Rams? Why make it easy on him? Why not work with the NFL to do everything possible to stop him from removing the Rams from Missouri? For those angry with the Rams owner, what better way to get back at him than for the city and state to come up with a plan that prevents him from getting what many have decided he desires elsewhere?
Finally, if the NFL blocks a move of the Rams and Kroenke is dead set on getting to L.A., he might then decide to sell the franchise and buy another team to perhaps attempt to move to California rather than keeping ownership of the Rams in St. Louis. At that point, he could either be stuck in the Lou or sell the club to another ownership group.
With all that and more considered, leaders should clench their jaws and move ahead with steadfast determination to see this through and come away with their stated goals achieved. Now is not the time to quit, it is the time to start fighting with enhanced fervor.
While focusing on the Rams, it is wise that the Peacock/Blitz team continue to look into other alternatives (hello Raiders or Jags) and do what is reasonable to retain the NFL and move forward with a project that could do at least four things:
1: If done correctly, it will retain an NFL presence in some way shape or form — preferably with the Rams. After all, starting with a new fanbase for a third time would be far from an ideal outcome.
2: A new venue would free up the dome to add dates from August through January and increase revenues there substantially. At last report, the dome/convention center was bringing in north of $150 million per year. With the facility enhanced and adapted, it is possible that eventually those revenues could double (and certainly create a net gain annually over what new venue costs would be per year).
3: This project would facilitate development of blighted land and bring year round jobs to a region of St. Louis that could use them, as well as enhance tourist activity which also generates more revenue.
4: A new venue could also bring the MLS to the Gateway City, something that would generate added revenues at the stadium and in the city while making a whole lot of soccer lovers very happy.
–As for the possibility of adding another NFL team if the Rams indeed attempt a move and get away, a new venue could accomplish that feat with the increases in franchise value and revenue streams it would bring considered.
An educated guess would suggest that both the Raiders and Jaguars could be in play under that scenario.
The Raiders would bring a natural rivalry with the cross-state Chiefs (assuming they remained in the AFC West), and the Jaguars would bring owner Shad Khan and top executive Mark Lamping — among others — home to the St. Louis region.
–At this stage, the best thing for fans in both St. Louis and L.A. to do is to let the dust settle just a bit.
There are a lot of variables at play here, and this saga in St. Louis — and in L.A. — is far from over. In fact, there will be several more twists and turns before things are ultimately resolved.
AgamemnonI can’t believe someone is posting that Shane Gray crap here.
It is me, grits. I will have to look for some more. 😉 In the mean time, all I have is this.
NFL
Find this article at: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000169306/article/minnesota-vikings-unveil-images-of-new-downtown-stadium
Minnesota Vikings unveil images of new downtown stadiumAssociated Press
Published: May 13, 2013 at 09:17 p.m.
Updated: May 14, 2013 at 03:35 p.m.MINNEAPOLIS — Opening the roof over the new home of the Minnesota Vikings would have forced planners of the $975 million project to eliminate some of the fancy features.
So the team, the public agency in charge of the stadium and the architects designing it literally saw the light. The yet-to-be-named multipurpose facility will have a translucent roof and moveable front windows.
Bryan Trubey, the lead architect for the project for the Dallas-based HKS Sports and Entertainment Group, presented images to a crowd of fans, public officials and members of the Vikings organization Monday night. The event took place at the Guthrie Theater, a few blocks from where the stadium will be built in downtown Minneapolis.
It will replace the 31-year-old Metrodome, which the Vikings will vacate after the 2013 season. They’ll play outside at the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium for two years while the new venue is under construction.
In 2016, the Vikings will move back indoors. From the look of the new 65,000-seat building, though, they’ll feel a little like they’re playing in the elements, albeit with a controlled climate and protection from the rain, wind and snow.
“It’s a beautiful building,” center John Sullivan said after the unveiling.
The steeply pitched roof will let natural light stream in, making the covered, glass-centric stadium seem more like it’s outside. Trubey said the covering will be the world’s largest transparent roof.
“Clear is the new retractable,” he said.
Like the aquatics center in Beijing built for the 2008 Summer Olympics, the southern half of the stadium’s roof will be built with a material known as ETFE, ethylene tetrafluoroethylene. The solar power generated from the sun that streams in will help make the building more energy-efficient.
The slope of the roof will also allow for easier snow removal. The Metrodome’s Teflon roof infamously collapsed during a storm in December 2010, forcing the Vikings to play their last two home games that season elsewhere.
The Vikings have also focused on creating a fan experience that can’t be replicated elsewhere, from special lounges for following fantasy football results to intimate sightlines to the sidelines. Two giant scoreboards will measure more than 50 feet by 120 feet each.
Dozens of purple-jersey-clad fans snatched up the limited amount of free tickets available to the public, singing a couple of bars of the team fight song, “Skol Vikings,” before the program began.
They cheered the handful of key officials who helped shepherd the project to approval through the tricky channels of state and city politics. One of the luminaries who appeared on stage to tout the design was former Vikings head coach Bud Grant, who took the team to four Super Bowls.
“I’ve always been an advocate of outdoor football,” Grant said. “Not anymore.”
The Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority unanimously approved the design, forwarding it on to the city of Minneapolis for review. Minnesota lawmakers hoped they could pay for the stadium without new taxes, relying instead on electronic gambling devices in bars and restaurants to cover $348 million in state debt.
But establishments and their patrons have been slow to embrace the new games, and the money has been barely trickling in. The law gave state officials the power to launch a new scratch-off lottery game and impose suite taxes to cover any gaps, but there has been no indication they will.
Instead, Gov. Mark Dayton and top legislators are working over various options, including a new sports memorabilia tax, to make up the difference. Bonds to pay for stadium construction are supposed to be sold in August, but the state might alter the process to keep costs down. They’ve insisted that construction will proceed as scheduled.
The Vikings and the NFL are on the hook for $477 million, including a $200 million loan from the league. The city of Minneapolis will contribute $150 million, through redirection of existing hospitality sales taxes.
“We’re using public money, but at the same time it’s going to benefit the public,” Sullivan said. “In my mind, as a taxpaying resident of the state of Minnesota, that seems like a good way to spend our tax dollars.”
View more photos of the new stadium design here.
Copyright 2013 by The Associated Press
Agamemnon“…it will replace the 31-year-old Metrodome, which the Vikings will vacate after the 2013 season. They’ll play outside at the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium for two years while the new venue is under construction.
In 2016, the Vikings will move back indoors. From the look of the new 65,000-seat building, though, they’ll feel a little like they’re playing in the elements, albeit with a controlled climate and protection from the rain, wind and snow….”Vikings are gonna play outside
for two years ?Damn. That will bring back some
memories of the old, cold days.
http://fs64sports.blogspot.com/2010/12/1969-kapp-brings-vikings-from-behind-to.htmlw
v
JONES SAYS RAMS CAN MOVE When the St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke announced plans last week to build an 80,000-seat football stadium near downtown Los Angeles, it raised the specter that he might unilaterally move his team to Southern California.
After his announcement, the N.F.L. reiterated that any team relocation must be approved by at least 24 out of the league’s 32 owners. The N.F.L. controls the Los Angeles market, and Commissioner Roger Goodell has said that any move there must be done in an orderly way.
But in an interview last week, the Dallas Cowboys’ owner, Jerry Jones, said that while he prefers that the owners approve any team moving to Los Angeles, a team could possibly move there without league approval.
“As it would turn out now, apart from the league saying no, you can move there,” he said. “Keep in mind that teams have moved without the permission of the league. They just have.”
Asked if Kroenke could move on his own, Jones said: “He can if the league says he can’t.”
Asked if the N.F.L. preferred to coordinate any relocation, Jones said: “Again, there are just certain things that clubs can do.”
Jones’s comments are bound to stir interest in a murky and emotional process because he is one of the N.F.L.’s most powerful and unconventional owners.
The league said last month that the Rams, the San Diego Chargers and the Oakland Raiders would not move to Los Angeles in 2015. But Kroenke has the ability to shift to a year-to-year lease at the Edward Jones Dome, where the Rams play.
That would give him the flexibility to leave St. Louis in the coming years.
“The idea of Stan going ahead and making his announcement was driven by all of the right things,” said Jones, who cited Kroenke’s having a deal for a location and his owning a team with “a great legacy.”
Jones added, “All of that is to me a very positive thing for Los Angeles and for the N.F.L.”
Last week, civic leaders in Missouri unveiled plans to build a new 64,000-seat outdoor stadium in downtown St. Louis to persuade Kroenke to stay. KEN BELSON
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/sports/football/buffalo-bills-make-it-official-rex-ryan-is-their-coach.html?smprod=nytcore-iphone&smid=nytcore-iphone-share&_r=1&referrer= Agamemnonhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8b0HnC4d_A
@ 39 seconds in. The Broncos might be for sale in 2015. That could add an interesting twist to the drama. 😉 Agamemnonvery interesting. wow.
I could post stuff the bernie wrote, but who wants to post stuff by bernie. 😉
AgamemnonRams Staying or Leaving? The Arguments for Both Sides
Last week provided quite a five days of news on the stadium front for the Rams. On Monday, we learned from the Los Angeles Times that Rams owner Stan Kroenke had partnered with Stockbridge Capital group to develop the land and build a stadium on the old Hollywood Park race track plot he purchased in Inglewood, California, about five miles from Los Angeles International Airport.
Then on Friday, Missouri Governor Jay Nixon’s task force of former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock and local attorney Bob Blitz unveiled their plans for a new 64,000 seat stadium on the St. Louis riverfront. Both Rams fan bases, in L.A. and St. Louis, have reason to feel good about their chances to be driving to home games in 2016. Here are some of those reasons…
For Los Angeles:
Rams owner Stan KroenkeKroenke’s actions have made it clear he’s not interested in having his team in St. Louis.
-Kroenke’s actions over the course of the last year clearly showed a desire to move his franchise to L.A. Not talking to the customers who support his team in St. Louis, refusing to talk to anyone in a position to help him build a stadium in St. Louis, and initially purchasing the land at Hollywood Park were all clear indicators that he doesn’t want to run his business in St. Louis.
-The NFL clearly wants a team in the USA’s second largest market. Several owners have made it a point to tell people that the Rams were going to move. Commissioner Roger Goodell has frequently talked about getting the league back in L.A. The NFL has its television network based in L.A., and has made no secret of its desire to half a west coast wing of the Pro Football Hall of Fame.
-From a media standpoint, Fox Sports is based in Los Angeles, and ESPN has developed a major presence there. L.A. is the entertainment capital of the world, and provides media coverage for a franchise there that isn’t available in St. Louis.
-There are a lot of incredibly rich businesses and people in Los Angeles. When the NFL sent out a questionnaire to potential fans in the area, the league asked about their willingness to pay $50,000 for lower level club PSL’s, and $25,000 for upper level. Kroenke is planning an 80,000 seat stadium that will likely cost $1.5 billion. Combine that with a relocation fee of $500 million, and it’s a $2 billion move. An average PSL price of $25,000 for 80,000 seats would give Kroenke $2 billion, allowing him to pay off his stadium without affecting his personal fortune. As we all know, you don’t make $5.6 billion by spending wildly on what someone else will pay for.
-Visiting teams would realize a windfall if the Rams would charge a minimum of $100 per ticket, as was suggested in the NFL questionnaire. There’s a 60/40 split of non-premium ticket proceeds for each game. So the teams in the NFC West, from a financial perspective, would certainly prefer 40% of the take of 80,000 really expensive seats in L.A. to 40% of the 64,000 pretty expensive seats in St. Louis.
-That rich fan base is passionate about bringing the Rams back. The Rams welcomed those fans to a tailgate get together in San Diego when the Rams visited there in December. The passion for the Rams is greater in the Southland than their passion for the Chargers or the Raiders, teams that also could in theory relocate.
-It’s far from a guarantee that St. Louis and Missouri government leaders will approve an extension of the bonds that currently are applied to the Edward Jones Dome. Even if it is simply an extension of what people are already paying, there are people in our country, as we know, that don’t want the government to get or spend any additional dollars for any more time.
-The NFL has already bent their rules to accommodate Kroenke. They agreed to allow him to skirt their cross ownership rules by continuing to own the Denver Nuggets and Colorado Avalanche until December of 2014. When he decided he needed more than three and a half years to comply, they gave him a one year extension. If they’re going to allow Kroenke to skirt those rules, why not the relocation guidelines?
For St. Louis
-St. Louis has detailed plans for a new stadium. As Jay Nixon’s stadium task force, attorney Bob Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock unveiled details on Friday. They provided knowledge of where the facility will be, how it will fit, where parking will be, how it will be financed and what level of support taxpayers and fans will have to provide.
dave peacock-2Dave Peacock has been in close contact with the NFL regarding stadium plans for St. Louis.
-The NFL is aware of the St. Louis plan. Multiple reports suggested that the NFL was blindsided by Kroenke’s plan, but Peacock met with NFL Vice President-Stadium Development Eric Grubman, and has been in constant contact with the league about his plans.
-The franchise is already based in St. Louis, and the NFL’s own relocation guidelines say “Because League policy favors stable team-community relations, clubs are obligated to work diligently and in good faith to obtain and to maintain suitable stadium facilities in their home territories, and to operate in a manner that maximizes fan support in their current home community.” These guidelines, ironically, are a result of the Raiders moving to Los Angeles in 1982 without league approval to do so.
-St. Louis and Missouri have displayed enough alacrity in terms of providing the Rams a proposal, especially considering that Kroenke won’t communicate with them. Red McCombs purchased the Vikings in 1998 and approached new governor Jesse Ventura about a new stadium, and Ventura told him he wouldn’t even consider it.
Then McCombs met with new Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty in 2003, and Pawlenty said he would provide no help. McCombs sold the team to the family of Zygi Wilf in 2005, and they worked with the state until reaching a stadium deal in 2012. The Vikings will start play in their new stadium in 2016, eighteen years after their first request. The 49ers wanted to build on the site of Candlestick Park starting in 2006 and were rebuffed. They worked out their deal with Santa Clara in 2010, and started play at their privately financed Levis Stadium in 2014, eight years after their first try. Jim Irsay of the Colts declared that he needed a new stadium in 2002, and reached agreement for the construction of Lucas Oil Stadium in August of 2005. The Colts moved into their new facility six years after their first request, in 2008. The Chargers first asked for a new stadium in San Diego in 2000, and are still trying, with their seventh mayor since their initial request. In Atlanta, Falcons owner Arthur Blank requested a new stadium in April of 2010, and reached agreement to fund most of the new facility more than three years later, in May of 2013. With Blank footing 70%-80% of the bill, that stadium will open in 2017, seven years after the initial request.
bob blitzBob Blitz, another member of Nixon’s task force, has indicated corporate support is strong for an NFL team in St. Louis.
So while the narrative from the Rams may be that the region didn’t act quickly enough for their liking, the fact is that the Rams beat the CVC in their arbitration on February 2 of 2013, not even two years ago. Until then, nobody knew if there would be a need for a new facility. Relative to the rest of the league, if the team’s owner doesn’t participate, how can a proposal within two years that would have the team in a new stadium eight seasons later be too little, too late?
-St. Louis, despite the departure of at least ten Fortune 500 companies since the franchise arrived in St. Louis, has enough corporate support to make an NFL team more than competitive. On Friday, Peacock said “I like to deal in fact and data. The facts are half of the NFL teams play in cities with less Fortune 1000 companies than St. Louis has. We have seven of the top 200 private companies in the country. From just an economic standpoint, about 13 teams play in cities with a smaller GDP, if you will, or economy, than St. Louis. So it’s hard for me to say we don’t have the business support or the capability of business support.” The Rams seem to think that those companies should spend money with them simply because they’re in the NFL. If the Rams compete on the field at a higher level, they’ll be able to utilize those companies for their financial gain.
-The financial consequences of trying to move a franchise without approval could be enormous. In August of 2010, Kroenke joined a club of 31 other owners and agreed to abide by their rules. Of course, that includes relocation guidelines. The league will determine any relocation fee. And in 1996 when Ken Behring moved the Seahawks to Anaheim for a week, the NFL threatened to fine him $500,000 a day for every day he was there. $500,000 a day would wipe out Kroenke’s fortune in less than three years.
-With a new TV contract that started this year and runs through 2021, the league won’t see much immediate financial impact from a move of any team to Los Angeles. Certainly that market will contribute more to NFL properties with merchandise sales, but having those eyes on televisions for a team in L.A. won’t benefit the league until the next TV deal. Financially, the only major beneficiary of a move in 2016 would be Kroenke, and as those pesky guidelines say, “no club has an “entitlement” to relocate simply because it perceives an opportunity for enhanced club revenues in another location. Indeed, League traditions disfavor relocations if a club has been well-supported and financially successful and is expected to remain so.” The Rams traditionally have been well supported in St. Louis, relative to their on-field success, and indeed had their highest attendance since 2008 this past season.
Ultimately, the owners own the L.A. market and will make this decision, and it may not please St. Louis fans when all is said and done. But after Friday’s announcement, it would seem as if St. Louis is able to pull this stadium proposal off, the NFL would have to throw its rules out the window to allow a Rams transfer back to Los Angeles.
http://www.101sports.com/2015/01/12/rams-staying-leaving-arguments-sides/
Agamemnon
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
