The Ripper
Starter
The issue isn't funding for the stadium. Goldman isn't providing the operating funds for the teams.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
They are providing upgrades to temporary facilities in the deal. While not operating costs, I don't think any NFL team has to really worry about those. It's not like they lose money.
Nah, you're fine. I understand where you're coming from. Kroenke has the deeper pockets. But the NFL teams won't have to worry about losing money with the profit sharing. It doesn't matter which team is in LA, they will probably pull really close to the same revenue.
Enjoyed debating with you. We kind of have an unwritten rule with this thread. Just leave it all here. Kinda like Vegas, what happens in the relocation thread, stays in the relocation thread. We're all friends outside of here, whether we want the team to move to LA or not.
bluecoconuts
Legend
The Ripper
Starter
They will. The salary cap goes up so the expenses will increase along with the cost for marketing and operations in LA. The other issue is debt service. There's only so much shared revenues cover and the local revenues are important for all teams and even making more the numbers may be an issue.
Neither are STL and LA.
The more I read about this issue from the pro-LA side the more abundantly clear it becomes:
Meeting the needs of people in San Diego (or socal in general) is simply a bigger priority than the small handful of hermits that camp out in the ghost town of Saint Louis...
The Ripper
Starter
Yes, all true but their's no difference both teams have a long term lease that both can get out of.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Spanos is second fiddle to anyone in LA, Rams or Raiders. Kroenke isn't just writing a 2 billion dollar check, but he's got the money, and he has the money to invest in the city, and he doesn't need any help from the NFL, nothing like that. Spanos can borrow money to build a stadium, but he can invest the type of money Kroenke can into the market to really make the idea work.
Again, Raiders or Rams, the Chargers are second fiddle at best. The big difference is that in Carson he's going to pay more to be that second fiddle.. He'll get more returns, but no matter what he'll be the owner of the other LA team.
There was word a while back about the NFL would rather keep San Diego if possible because they want to put Super Bowls there again in a top stadium (it really is a beautiful city)... Plus it gives them more options for Super Bowls, they love Super Bowls in warm weather areas.
They also have more operating costs in Carson (about 300K a year for the gas vents)... It's not that they'll go broke (although an article said it'll take about 30-40 years for Carson to be operating in the green) but that is less money to invest into the market. Having a brand new stadium is only part of the equation.
I think that Carson is a viable project, and the NFL would happily select it.. I maintain Inglewood is the better project in pretty much every category, but Carson is a doable project as well.
bluecoconuts
Legend
I'm not on the "move to LA" side.
I'm also not saying that we need to ignore St Louis in order to protect San Diego. I'm pretty much saying the opposite, that it's not right to ignore San Diego fans to protect St Louis fans.
It's not right for ANY city. So when people say that the Chargers should move instead of the Rams, I'm saying no, it's just as unfair to San Diego fans as it is to St Louis fans.
When people say "If the Rams move to LA I have to get direct TV to watch all the games" well so do people in San Diego.
The Ripper
Starter
Understanding the dynamics of LA and San Diego is difficult unless you have lived there. Pulling up a map and calculating the distance or even the drive time is irrelevant because the 2 hour drive turns into 4 or 5 easily. There's only one way into and out of San Diego but the fans still can drive. It can be an extremely difficult but it can be done but most in SD won't make the drive. True fans will just not the casual fan.
Last edited:
The salary cap increases along side league revenues. That's the whole point of a salary cap, to prevent lop sided teams and prevent the league from going broke.
The Ripper
Starter
The Ripper
Starter
The relocation fee also increases the salary cap so they will pay that plus the relocation fee. Shared revenues may or may not go up initially for the TV contract but it will for the relocation fee
I know what your saying and agree completely. I know your not on the move to LA side, but even if you were, my comments wouldn't have been aimed at you.
San Diego fans don't deserve to lose their team more than STL fans.
But I do believe they could cope much better.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Really? I thought it was a year, so basically it's about 3.6 million per year...
bluecoconuts
Legend
5. The NFL Network will live here: The NFL Network is currently based out of Carson, Calif., which is not Los Angeles. (Well I was born in a small town. And I live in a small town. Probably die in a small town.) It will stay there with this stadium, but it'll get a full reboot with a separate 8-acre campus for NFL media to operate. That's nearly as much land as my pappy owns.
The NFL network studios are located in Culver City, not Carson, which is about 20 miles away. Both cities are within the border of Los Angeles County.
Not all fans. I'm planning on becoming an STL troll once they move.
If it's a true year to year, there'd be no penalties to leave. That's a pretty basic legal principle.
The Ripper
Starter
Sorry but the once they move needs to be blue because nothing has happened.Not all fans. I'm planning on becoming an STL troll once they move.
- Status