City vs Rams Lawsuit

jstriebel · PostJul 14, 2015#21512015-07-14T19:41+00:00

There was an interview a month or two back where Peacock seemed to imply that moving forward on just an MLS venue could be an option.

I think that in all likelihood that would be our best option based on cost. I know some of you find that terribly disappointing, but I think it would be the best possible cost/benefit for us.

But we'll see how it plays out.

DogtownBnR · PostJul 14, 2015#21522015-07-14T20:28+00:00

Would the Pruitt-Igoe site be large enough to hold an MLS stadium and parking? Just saying, if the NFL venue is not going to be built on the North Riverfront, I'd rather see it developed, assuming that actually happens. Not just parks, I mean real development. Then an MLS stadium somewhere else close to Downtown, that does not require demo of historic structures.

I wonder, (if it HAD TO BE one or the other, no choice) if it came down to North Riverfront or South Riverfront demo for a stadium, which location the majority of us would choose. I prefer the North Riverfront site. I still think the South Riverfront has better building stock. Just my humble opinion. Anyone???

dweebe · PostJul 14, 2015#21532015-07-14T20:43+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:Would the Pruitt-Igoe site be large enough to hold an MLS stadium and parking? Just saying, if the NFL venue is not going to be built on the North Riverfront, I'd rather see it developed, assuming that actually happens. Not just parks, I mean real development. Then an MLS stadium somewhere else close to Downtown, that does not require demo of historic structures.

I wonder, (if it HAD TO BE one or the other, no choice) if it came down to North Riverfront or South Riverfront demo for a stadium, which location the majority of us would choose. I prefer the North Riverfront site. I still think the South Riverfront has better building stock. Just my humble opinion. Anyone???

Another location that I like for an MLS stadium is the area bounded by 21st, 40/64, Jefferson and Market.
-The MSD headquarters building could stay.
-Move the Union Station Metro stop to the west side to serve both attractions.
-Plenty of parking. Maybe even Wells Fargo could be encouraged to rent their parking out if it's needed?

roger wyoming II · PostJul 14, 2015#21542015-07-14T21:26+00:00

^ I saw Hassan tweeted that location for an NFL stadium today. I do like the thought of moving some of those businesses into the CBD if an agreement could be reached.

Another location where that sort of thing might be possible for MLS is just west of the Convention Center... that would be great with fans spilling out from Wash Ave into the stadium and back again.

dweebe · PostJul 14, 2015#21552015-07-14T21:35+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I saw Hassan tweeted that location for an NFL stadium today. I do like the thought of moving some of those businesses into the CBD if an agreement could be reached.

Another location where that sort of thing might be possible for MLS is just west of the Convention Center... that would be great with fans spilling out from Wash Ave into the stadium and back again.

I swear I didn't see that tweet (I don't follow him.) Great minds must think alike.

Greatest St. Louis · PostJul 14, 2015#21562015-07-14T22:18+00:00

I'm just anxiously awaiting the Order issued in the RSA/City public vote lawsuit. I'm really intrigued to see where it goes (and as one who wants to see the stadium built, hopeful of a favorable ruling for the RSA). I thought I saw somewhere someone said it was expected last week, but we're about halfway into this one and still crickets.

C'mon, Judge...

dweebe · PostJul 14, 2015#21572015-07-14T22:44+00:00

http://www.turfshowtimes.com/2015/7/14/ ... roenke-bio

Short of giving the stadium to Stan for completely free and throwing in a bunch of land for him to develop, I don't see how we can keep the Rams. I feel the train has left the station already.

urban_dilettante · PostJul 15, 2015#21582015-07-15T06:07+00:00

this is the journal article than John Oliver cited on his segment—a review of 20 years of economic research on stadium subsidies along with economists' consensus on the matter (spoiler: 95% surveyed are opposed to stadium subsidies). just gonna leave it here…

http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-econo ... ega-events

gary kreie · PostJul 15, 2015#21592015-07-15T10:57+00:00

Governor Scott Walker says taxpayer subsidy for new Bucks arena in Milwaukee is common sense and fiscally conservative.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolit ... tml?ipad=y

blzhrpmd2 · PostJul 15, 2015#21602015-07-15T18:46+00:00

dweebe, what is it about that article that furthers the notion they are gone? From the version of that article I saw the other day, many were positing the opposite.

dweebe · PostJul 15, 2015#21612015-07-15T19:49+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote:dweebe, what is it about that article that furthers the notion they are gone? From the version of that article I saw the other day, many were positing the opposite.

The moment Kroenke moves the Rams to Los Angeles they triple in value (if not more).

moorlander · PostJul 15, 2015#21622015-07-15T19:57+00:00

dweebe wrote:
blzhrpmd2 wrote:dweebe, what is it about that article that furthers the notion they are gone? From the version of that article I saw the other day, many were positing the opposite.
The moment Kroenke moves the Rams to Los Angeles they triple in value (if not more).

The moment the Rams get a new stadium here their value will also go up considerably. The article Dweebe posted doesn't seem to have anything to do with a move.

roger wyoming II · PostJul 15, 2015#21632015-07-15T20:33+00:00

^ currently we basically pay Kroenke to have a team here; that'll change significantly for whomever the owner is if a new stadium is built.

I think the central question in terms of the team's value is would there be potential owners jumping at the chance to contribute $250 million and enter into a fair lease for the Rams playing in a new stadium? I dunno. Whathisname thinks Kroenke would just take advantage of his right to annual extensions for the next nine years or whatever if he is forced to stay. (Of course Kroenke could afford to do whatever he wants.)

dweebe · PostJul 15, 2015#21642015-07-15T20:42+00:00

moorlander wrote:The moment the Rams get a new stadium here their value will also go up considerably.

Not much. Might move the Rams up the list, but not the huge jump he'll get relocating to LA.
http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

moorlander wrote:The article Dweebe posted doesn't seem to have anything to do with a move.

Kroenke having his bio pulled makes it seem to me like he's running away and hiding before the move. That's just my opinion.

Mound City · PostJul 15, 2015#21652015-07-15T20:50+00:00

dweebe wrote:
blzhrpmd2 wrote:dweebe, what is it about that article that furthers the notion they are gone? From the version of that article I saw the other day, many were positing the opposite.
The moment Kroenke moves the Rams to Los Angeles they triple in value (if not more).

Really? What is the basis of your financial analysis?

dweebe · PostJul 15, 2015#21662015-07-15T21:03+00:00

Mound City wrote:
dweebe wrote:
blzhrpmd2 wrote:dweebe, what is it about that article that furthers the notion they are gone? From the version of that article I saw the other day, many were positing the opposite.
The moment Kroenke moves the Rams to Los Angeles they triple in value (if not more).
Really? What is the basis of your financial analysis?

The crappy Clippers sold for $2 billion last year while the Atlanta Hawks sold for $700 mil a few months ago. The Dodgers were also sold for over $2 billion and are supposedly worth twice as much as the St. Louis Cardinals.

If the Rams move to LA and have the market of 15,000,000 people to themselves as well as a surrounding office/residential/entertainment area there's no reason they can't gain tremendous value. The Jets and Giants share the NY market and are worth $2.1 and $1.8 billion respectively.
http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/

Mound City · PostJul 15, 2015#21672015-07-15T21:19+00:00

I'm not arguing against the notion that the Rams' value would always be higher in L.A. than STL all other things equal, but it seems pretty preposterous to me to claim the Rams' value would suddenly leapfrog the Patriots, Redskins, Giants, etc.

In the NBA and MLB, t.v. revenue is based on market size, so I get the Clippers, Dodgers, and Hawks being worth what they are relatively speaking. In the NFL, t.v. revenue is shared evenly among all 32 teams, so I don't think comparisons with those franchises are particularly helpful for the purposes of this discussion.

roger wyoming II · PostJul 15, 2015#21682015-07-15T21:35+00:00

^ I think another factor would be if there is 1 or 2 teams in the market... I assume if it was only the Jets or only Giants, the survivor would be worth much more.

But again the question for me more is not so much LA but what does the fact that the free ride would be over in STL + $250 million do the equation here.

dweebe · PostJul 15, 2015#21692015-07-15T21:38+00:00

Mound City wrote:In the NBA and MLB, t.v. revenue is based on market size, so I get the Clippers, Dodgers, and Hawks being worth what they are relatively speaking. In the NFL, t.v. revenue is shared evenly among all 32 teams, so I don't think comparisons with those franchises are particularly helpful for the purposes of this discussion.

Somewhat fair point. Watch the Cardinals team value jump a bunch when their next TV contract is up.

But just like everything else in LA is way over valued, right or wrong their team values are also artificially inflated

gary kreie · PostJul 15, 2015#21702015-07-15T22:06+00:00

I'm surprised so many people are so anxious to see the Rams leave. The city only needs to provide about 1/10 the cost for a new stadium in their downtown. I for one just happen to believe it is best for the future of St. Louis that we stay an NFL and MLB city.

But if all the portions of the funding comes together except the small City of St. Louis portion -- totally paid for by visitors to either Rams games or conventions -- then I have no problem with talking to St. Charles, Jefferson, or St. Louis Counties to see if they want a new NFL stadium. The Mayor thinks it is important to St. Louis, but the media and comedians who probably don't live in the city have the city public convinced the taxes on games won't quite cover the fixed bond payment the first year, and I guess they assume inflation will be zero for 30 years so can never cover the fixed yearly payment. So no point in beating a dead Clydesdale.

dbInSouthCity · PostJul 15, 2015#21712015-07-15T22:07+00:00

If the Rams moved, their value in LA would be a bit over $2b. Maybe $2.2b. This isn't the MLB or NBA where teams have deals with regional sports networks. Question is does Stan spend well over $2.5b for new stadium, relocation fee, rent at temp site, new Hq ect when he can probably get the Rams valuation here to about the middle of the pack without spending a penny (let's not kid ourselves about the $ he will put up front, he will get that back in tax breaks in no time)

Also have to considering that LA market would be shared with 1 other NFL team, 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 major college football teams and 2 major college basketball teams, mls team, NHL team. So person per team is about the same as here

jstriebel · PostJul 15, 2015#21722015-07-15T22:20+00:00

Yeah, I don't think the value of the Rams will increase as much as some people think. But it will be very significant. And I also could just be flat wrong.

As far as what the Rams value might do if they stay in St. Louis but get a new stadium, maybe we should look north.

The Vikings were ranked 28th out of 32 teams in value at $796 million in 2011. After moving past relocation concerns and getting a stadium deal signed off on, they jumped to 22nd and valued at $975 million in 2012. They moved up in value and rank incrementally the next two years (as of the last rankings, they're 20th at $1,150 million).

I don't know, but I suspect they'll go up even more when the new stadium opens.

The Vikings haven't been historically bad like the Rams, but they haven't been very good either. So I think it's a decent comparison.

So I'd say it'd be reasonable to expect the Rams value to go up about $250-300 million.

If any of us are in the right ballpark and the Rams value in LA goes up between 100-200% and the Rams value in St. Louis goes up 25%, then another way to look at it would be that Kroenke would basically be seeing a value increase that's equal to the investment he'd need to make in each market in the first place.

PostJul 15, 2015#21732015-07-15T22:23+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:If the Rams moved, their value in LA would be a bit over $2b. Maybe $2.2b. This isn't the MLB or NBA where teams have deals with regional sports networks. Question is does Stan spend well over $2.5b for new stadium, relocation fee, rent at temp site, new Hq ect when he can probably get the Rams valuation here to about the middle of the pack without spending a penny (let's not kid ourselves about the $ he will put up front, he will get that back in tax breaks in no time)

Also have to considering that LA market would be shared with 1 other NFL team, 2 NBA teams, 2 MLB teams, 2 major college football teams and 2 major college basketball teams, mls team, NHL team. So person per team is about the same as here

2 NHL teams, in fact. (If you're counting the MLB team in Anaheim, then the NHL team should count as well.)

dbInSouthCity · PostJul 15, 2015#21742015-07-15T22:34+00:00

Forgot about the Ducks.

So
Dodgers, Angels
ducks, Kings
Clippers, lakers
Galaxy
USC football, basketball,
UCLA football, basketball
Other NFL team

12 pro/ncaa teams

roger wyoming II · PostJul 15, 2015#21752015-07-15T22:36+00:00

Don't forget Stan is a major investor now in the larger Inglewood project so I think that comes into the financial equation as well.... but again he can afford to do whatever he wants and the LA glam also comes into play as opposed to owning the Saint Louis Sticks even if it comes at a premium.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode