Apples to oranges.
The financing for the St Louis project is cloudy and is heavily based on owner input. With cost of project increasing it becomes more cloudy. If Stan wont invest, its a moot topic
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
The financing for the St Louis project is cloudy and is heavily based on owner input. With cost of project increasing it becomes more cloudy. If Stan wont invest, its a moot topic
Pales in comparison? He would own the Inglewood stadium, the ground it sits on, all parking, concessions, other event revenues, advertising dollars, naming rights, etc.... He would own the PSL money without the city trying to claim it as "public" funds.
With how they are supposedly setting up the St Louis stadium, he won't really own anything but the team that plays in it. After all the costs involved in owning an NFL team, the ROI on what it appears is being proposed in St Louis doesn't look very promising - nor does it look like it comes close to what he would receive in Inglewood. And I think this is what is going to be the real issue facing Peacock and St Louis. He can secure funding that includes monies that would normally go to an owner. Can he pull it off in a way that makes all the NFL owners agree that it is a good deal for Stan.
I don't know that answer but I am going to guess there will have to be some major tweaks from what we are currently looking at.
Which if you go back to my initial post that you selected one item from and ran with I acknowledged. Nobody could fault somebody in or around the St Louis area for disliking him for the potential move, this isn't the first time I've said this. But if people are able to separate that from everything else then maybe we can get objective assessments of him as an owner. If you had an owner with all of Stan's characteristics but wanted to keep the team in St Louis he'd be lauded as a great owner. But because of the potential move he's a horrible owner. When in reality he's a good owner, but because of the move it makes him a bad person. Those of us not in LA or in StL for the most part like him as an owner but don't like what he's doing to the fan base.
Lets go back to this for a second and analyze Khan who seems to be revered around here.
2015 the Jaguars are $36 million under the cap, which includes a $21 million because they underspent last year. That 2014 season they were $27 million under the cap which included a $20 million rollover from 2013. In 2013 they were $22 million under the cap which included a $19 million rollover. Khan is revered because he put money into the stadium yet his team continues to under spend and hasn't put anywhere near as good of a product on the field as the Rams have. We all get he's hated for the potential move but to love Khan who won't spend anywhere near the salary cap and put a product on the field? I just don't get that.
2015 the Jaguars are $36 million under the cap, which includes a $21 million because they underspent last year. That 2014 season they were $27 million under the cap which included a $20 million rollover from 2013. In 2013 they were $22 million under the cap which included a $19 million rollover. Khan is revered because he put money into the stadium yet his team continues to under spend and hasn't put anywhere near as good of a product on the field as the Rams have. We all get he's hated for the potential move but to love Khan who won't spend anywhere near the salary cap and put a product on the field? I just don't get that.
Very good point. For us in St. Louis, the commitment to keep a team in the area is head and shoulders above a winning product at this point, which is why Khan is revered around these parts. The perception here is that this mess wouldn't be going on if he were the owner. It may be false, but it is what it is. Don't get me wrong, we WANT this team to win, but keeping the team here is a much more important issue for us.
Jaguars spent the 2nd most this off season, only behind the Jets
not getting where this "cheapness of khan" is coming from
I might be a bit late on this..........they changed the distribution of the money in the proposal. Less money will now be derived from the bond extensions and more from the PSLs.
Agreed. If anything, there's an outside shot. My understanding is that the Broncos are currently held in a trust. The Trustees are evaluating his immediate family members in order to determine if any of them are competent and qualified to operate the franchise. If that fails, I've seen rumors that Elway may be assembling a consortium of local Denver businessmen to purchase the club. Think John Elway may have an inside track over Kroenke?
Come on Iced. This is the potential value of their FA contracts if all of them are completed. It has virtually nothing to do with anything in this discussion.
Jaguars spent the 2nd most this off season, only behind the Jets
not getting where this "cheapness of khan" is coming from
This was revised on Friday.It was in the presentation by Peacock plus multiple sources 985 was the max and low of 860 .
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/colu...cle_07b205e5-34cd-5d54-997b-991dce328e84.html
Been off of here for a few days. Tried to barrel through all the wisdom on your various threads here. Just out of curiosity, did anyone post this link to the Tax Credit Application that the STL Regional Sports Authority filed late last week?
This changes the financial landscape of the Riverfront project. Be sure to read Exhibit D which contains the Cost/Benefit Analysis.
They really make a case for the effort in that section.
http://www.stltoday.com/dome-author...pdf_ac12ca5e-03da-5ae5-97c1-ed3bca283e2b.html
This changes the financial landscape of the Riverfront project. Be sure to read Exhibit D which contains the Cost/Benefit Analysis.
They really make a case for the effort in that section.
http://www.stltoday.com/dome-author...pdf_ac12ca5e-03da-5ae5-97c1-ed3bca283e2b.html
The Ripper
Starter
The change in ownership % was done for the Broncos, Falcons, Cots and the Chargers so the family can keep control but who knows if the domestic violence charge against John Bowlen will have any effect. The Broncos ownership trust is almost as convoluted as the Raiders and that could delay any transfer of ownership for years.
The Ripper
Starter
Yes, we know it was in response to another post about the original. ]
The funding has been changing almost on a weekly basis.
The Ripper
Starter
Jaguars spent the 2nd most this off season, only behind the Jets
not getting where this "cheapness of khan" is coming from
This year since he has had all that infusion of revenue playing in London
Jaguars spent the 2nd most this off season, only behind the Jets
not getting where this "cheapness of khan" is coming from
Yes they signed a couple free agents and still have the most cap space in the NFL going into the season once again. They've only spent 78% of their salary cap. If Kroenke was doing that on top of the possible move the screams of outrage would never end.
The Ripper
Starter
Compelling. Look at the projected revenues over 35 years and compare it with what the City of St Louis has to pay out over 35 years. Lease payments of 35 years of around $ 200 million with only $ 115.7 in revenues to St Louis. That's another 2.5 million per year shortfall.
bluecoconuts
Legend
There was literally just a rumor that Khan was looking to move to London... While I'm not really buying it, I haven't seen anything to suggest that he wouldn't play hardball or try to move the Rams if he was the owner instead of Kroenke. Seems like a silly comparison to me.
The Ripper
Starter
I was talking about the home game they play each year since that one home game has 2x the revenue of a regular game.
I'm not seeing it - they've chased after big free agents every year... Do you think they should overpay poor talent?
And again, they have head coaches and a money guy - where do they play in this?
And just because you spend money doesn't mean anything - look at the Redskins..perennial off season hype champs with tons of cash floating around, nothing to show for it.. And then when you add in the cowboys and look back to their "Salary dumping" scandal, its' easy to see why its better to take a cautious approach to FA.. I mean hell its not like the Jaguars had a cap-gobbling contract like Bradford's either
Perhaps they assume that the shortfall will be recovered by "the positive economic impact of other sports/entertainment events that are expected to take place in the new stadium complex"?
- Status