New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • 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
Not open for further replies.
That's what worries me, new owners who are thinking "I want a big top of the line stadium like Inglewood, but what if my city says no and offers something less than that? If we say no to the Rams leaving, then I might be stuck, even if another city offers me up something better...."

Who knows how they are thinking, but if they're thinking that, it might be hard to convince them to say no.

Good point. Fair point.

But it also is a very limited market in cities willing to do that. How many cities make a serious bid to bring the NFL?

LA is offering nothing to get an NFL team or the Inglewood project, so SK is betting the house on his stadium investment and retail complex.

Also, these owners make money hand over fist. Not every owner like SK is just concerned with maximising profit and being the big fish, some actually love their cities and football.
 
I heard Dave Peacock say something on an interview with 101ESPN. I am paraphrasing, but it goes something like this....the $millions teams use to pay for their portion of stadiums can actually be financed against the revenue generated by the new stadiums so that no money actually comes out of the pockets of the owners. I hadn't thought about it before I heard him say that, but it makes perfect sense.

So, if they can do that in publically funded stadiums surely they can do that in privately funded stadiums. If an team owns the land, pays no rent, can generate revenue from concerts, host lush Hollywood events, charge large amounts for PSLs, Luxury suites, sponsorships, and etc., it would seem that a sharp business person could keep the financed amount to a minimum (let's just say for argument it's a fourth of the stadium cost or $450 million). Throw in a market that has lots of millionaires and has been without a team for 20 years and you have a no lose proposition. SK is a sharp business man and knows how to make money while keeping the money he already has in hand. Not all NFL owners are as sharp as he is, most can't afford to finance half a billion dollars, and not all markets are as lucrative as LA. With one team in LA a stadium can be built with no public money, if you have great borrowing power and great business acumen.

This is exactly right. I'm not sure it works in smaller markets but teams no longer need public money for stadiums, at least not in bigger markets. The PSL and naming rights money can virtually pay for the stadium like they have with Levi....
 
That's what worries me, new owners who are thinking "I want a big top of the line stadium like Inglewood, but what if my city says no and offers something less than that? If we say no to the Rams leaving, then I might be stuck, even if another city offers me up something better...."

Who knows how they are thinking, but if they're thinking that, it might be hard to convince them to say no.
In the words of the great Spock, "the needs of the many outweighs the needs of the few...or the one". Or as fans and owners hope for from great unrestricted free agent players..."the riches they've made in the past will lead them to giving us a hometown discount."
 
That's what worries me, new owners who are thinking "I want a big top of the line stadium like Inglewood, but what if my city says no and offers something less than that? If we say no to the Rams leaving, then I might be stuck, even if another city offers me up something better...."

Who knows how they are thinking, but if they're thinking that, it might be hard to convince them to say no.

I have a really hard time seeing the NFL saying no to an owner who wants to move his team, with his money, into his stadium. I just don't see that happening. The NFL is about money. Are they really say no to it?
 
I have a really hard time seeing the NFL saying no to an owner who wants to move his team, with his money, into his stadium. I just don't see that happening. The NFL is about money. Are they really say no to it?

If they have any sense, yes. Are they going to say no to two stadiums in 25 years when other teams languish in 30-40 year stadiums?
 
If they have any sense, yes. Are they going to say no to two stadiums in 25 years when other teams languish in 30-40 year stadiums?

Do you really think the NFL would let one owner move and not make sure the other two owners are taken care of with new stadiums to their satisfaction? This fascination with claiming San Diego and Oakland will be without a stadium if Kroenke moves the Rams fascinates me.
 
I have a really hard time seeing the NFL saying no to an owner who wants to move his team, with his money, into his stadium. I just don't see that happening. The NFL is about money. Are they really say no to it?
If the NFL is all about money, my money is that we will have a team move to Canada in the next 5-10 years as those markets are the next financial frontier without the travel issues of Europe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamzFanz
Do you really think the NFL would let one owner move and not make sure the other two owners are taken care of with new stadiums to their satisfaction? This fascination with claiming San Diego and Oakland will be without a stadium if Kroenke moves the Rams fascinates me.
Agreed. Everyone of them will get a new stadium. The only question is which city will the stadium be located.
 
Do you really think the NFL would let one owner move and not make sure the other two owners are taken care of with new stadiums to their satisfaction? This fascination with claiming San Diego and Oakland will be without a stadium if Kroenke moves the Rams fascinates me.

No, I don't. Which is why keeping the Rams in a solid market makes sense and allowing two teams into a single stadium in a city that actually wants them also makes sense.
 
No, I don't. Which is why keeping the Rams in a solid market makes sense and allowing two teams into a single stadium in a city that actually wants them also makes sense.
So does allowing the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood and keeping the Raiders in Oakland. Both of those cities want the teams and it can be done. I guess it's my fascination with the assumption that the only way teams will get new stadiums is with Carson, I just don't understand that.
 
So does allowing the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood and keeping the Raiders in Oakland. Both of those cities want the teams and it can be done. I guess it's my fascination with the assumption that the only way teams will get new stadiums is with Carson, I just don't understand that.

Oakland hasn't even presented a plan. Saint Louis has a plan, has options on the land, has jumped the legal hurdles, and is dedicated to keeping its team even though its current stadium isn't even aged. The land is being razed, the financing is in place, the unions have been bought, the politicians smell the money.

This is like the signs dispute we had where you relied on tweets. I'm here, I see what is going on.

The stadium here WILL be built. I'm giving 70% odds that the Rams, who agree that it is being built for them and have contributed to the planning, will play here.
 
Last edited:
No, I don't. Which is why keeping the Rams in a solid market makes sense and allowing two teams into a single stadium in a city that actually wants them also makes sense.

I know this is all relative, but regarding this "solid market," the Rams are the lowest franchise value in the NFL. Plus I do recall quite well getting a bunch of emails from the St. Louis Rams the last two years selling tickets to their games for as low as $8/seat. You can barely get tickets to LA's WNBA team, the Sparks, for that amount. You can't even get movie tickets for that amount in LA. I can go on and on.
 
I know this is all relative, but regarding this "solid market," the Rams are the lowest franchise value in the NFL. Plus I do recall quite well getting a bunch of emails from the St. Louis Rams the last two years selling tickets to their games for as low as $8/seat. You can barely get tickets to LA's WNBA team, the Sparks, for that amount.

When your product sucks, sell low. It's not hard at all to believe that Rams don't sell well when they suck just like they did in LA. Are they profitable? Very.
 
So does allowing the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood and keeping the Raiders in Oakland. Both of those cities want the teams and it can be done. I guess it's my fascination with the assumption that the only way teams will get new stadiums is with Carson, I just don't understand that.

I don't get why people assume Chargers and Rams is something thats going to happen...as if Spanos or Kroenke has never thought about the possibility themselves..

Two owners garnering votes to block each other are going to suddenly work together, particularly where one owner is going to be majority owner and one a tenant? Umm, okay. Not likely at all, imo.

I see the NFL having to choose between the two projects before these two ever share a stadium
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamzFanz
If they have any sense, yes. Are they going to say no to two stadiums in 25 years when other teams languish in 30-40 year stadiums?

uh, yeah...... I think that's what he's saying.
 
Oakland hasn't even presented a plan. Saint Louis has a plan, has options on the land, has jumped the legal hurdles, and is dedicated to keeping its team even though its current stadium isn't even aged. The land is being razed, the financing is in place, the unions have been bought.

This is like the signs dispute we had where you relied on tweets. I'm here, I see what is going on.

Oakland doesn't have a plan? Interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-officials-to-discuss-new-Raiders-stadium-6387354.php

Not as far along as St Louis for sure but no plan? You sure about that?

As for signs the debate on the Rams not allowing signs in St Louis practices? Oh right you said Demoff was lying when he said it had been Rams policy since what 2009 or 2008? That's right I forgot Demoff's a well known liar. ;)
 
When your product sucks, sell low. It's not hard at all to believe that Rams don't sell well when they suck just like they did in LA. Are they profitable? Very.

Not sure how you measure profitability that's directly attributed to the St. Louis market. I'm assuming you're talking about the tv money each NFL team gets plus whatever other profits are shared amongst all the teams. Merchandising, you know it's practically impossible to find a Rams jersey in any major sporting good chain in LA. Thankfully, I get all my Rams gear online. Try finding Rams-related videos on youtube.

As far as the product sucking, that's basically what you get with a Georgia Frontiere team. GSOT was truly an anomaly during her reign.
 
I don't get why people assume Chargers and Rams is something thats going to happen...as if Spanos or Kroenke has never thought about the possibility themselves..

They did, when Kroenke first started working towards this project his partner was Spanos.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.