Not sure about that part. I think his deal with other group is nothing more then a land swap and a very small stake. Also the NFL strongly dislikes their stadium being part of a larger development. This is why John Clayton keeps reporting that the NFL prefers Carson
Another note, things seem to be hitting the fan in San Diego. Charger rep said only way the team says beyond 2015 is if NFL somehow delays relocation
Too many things they can't control can go wrong....it also told Oakland very publicly that it wasn't happy that their (now failed) stadium plan was part of a development. (That thing was a joke btw, the developer wanted 20% of the team in exchange for $200m which the team would have to return back to him
As part of their contribution).
The fact that Kroenke owns a stake in the Inglewood development is just Kroenke being Kroenke, though. That development is going to be significant whether they build it around a football stadium or not. And he'll gain money the way he's gained most of his money (okay, it may not involve a Walmart) as a result.
While I do think Kroenke is very much trying to get to LA, his bets have always been hedged. He'll gain football wise either way, and he'll gain in LA either way.
Jay-Z did not enter into a JV with Nets ownership! A joint venture is a very specific form of legal organization entwining two or more parties and most certainly is not a land swap and small stake of one party in another's established business. Stockbridge and Kroenke joined forces as Hollywood Park Land Co. to develop the project.
So the Wisconsin Senate was able to get over some challenges and passed the arena funding plan for the Bucks, but the County Executive is complaining about a $4 million/yr. hole in the County budget that they'll have to figure out.
An amendment added a $2 per ticket surcharge that the Bucks did not like; it'd be nice if we could add something like that on top of the existing entertainment tax. I also love how Walker has been backing this hard based on income tax revenue.... a true conservative!
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?
dbInSouthCity wrote:^..$3.5B is nonsense...a global and worldwide brand like the Cowboys aren't even 3.5
But they're close. http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/list/
And they Cowboys don't have any sort of surrounding development: just acres upon acres of parking lots surrounding AT&T Stadium.
but what does surrounding development have to do with the NFL team value? he cant count is as part of the team value.
And Cowboys value has a HUGE * next to it, unlike the other 31 team the cowboys have a deal with the NFL where they dont share some of the revenue like other teams, they keep it all. Look at the value of the NYC NFL teams, thats probably where an LA team would be.
"The financial dominance of the Cowboys began in the 1990s when the NFL sued Jones over the right of the Cowboys to ink licensing deals with Nike and Pepsi that competed directly with the league-wide sponsorship agreements (which each team in the league gets an equal share) with Coca-Cola and Reebok. When the suits were resolved with a legal distinction separating National Football League Properties and the Cowboys brand from Jones and Texas Stadium, the oilman was off to the end zone.
Another coup for the Cowboys, who are the only team in the NFL to distribute their own merchandise: The league’s new collective bargaining agreement, which began last season, specifically excludes the team’s wholesale merchandise revenue, projected to be $80 million last year, from the revenue pool shared with the players (royalties paid on Cowboys merchandise do continue to be shared with the players).
In a new stadium, the St. Louis Rams (in St. Louis) would be valued at $1.5 billion, said John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University economics professor and expert on sports economics.
That’s compared with a Los Angeles-based Rams franchise that would be worth an estimated $2.1 billion, if not more, Vrooman said.
Nice to have someone with actual academic credentials relevant to this discussion weigh in. I realize he added the "if not more" caveat, but his estimate is far more in line with my expectations.
The Rams are currently valued at .93 billion. The Inglewood Stadium cost has been set at 1.85 billion. Stan's expected contribution to the hypothetical new STL stadium would be .25 billion.
So the question is: Does Stan want to throw down the 1.85 billion to make the Rams increase about 1.17 billion in value? Or would he be amenable to throwing down .25 billion to make the Rams increase about .57 in value?
I'm willing to bet nothing is off the table at this point.
In a new stadium, the St. Louis Rams (in St. Louis) would be valued at $1.5 billion, said John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University economics professor and expert on sports economics.
That’s compared with a Los Angeles-based Rams franchise that would be worth an estimated $2.1 billion, if not more, Vrooman said.
Nice to have someone with actual academic credentials relevant to this discussion weigh in. I realize he added the "if not more" caveat, but his estimate is far more in line with my expectations.
At $1.5billion the Rams would surge up from 32nd (least valuable) to a tie for 10th most valuable.
In a new stadium, the St. Louis Rams (in St. Louis) would be valued at $1.5 billion, said John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt University economics professor and expert on sports economics.
That’s compared with a Los Angeles-based Rams franchise that would be worth an estimated $2.1 billion, if not more, Vrooman said.
Nice to have someone with actual academic credentials relevant to this discussion weigh in. I realize he added the "if not more" caveat, but his estimate is far more in line with my expectations.
At $1.5billion the Rams would surge up from 32nd (least valuable) to a tie for 10th most valuable.
And all for the relatively miniscule investment of .25 billion. Like I said, I bet nothing is off the table at this point.
^ I agree nothing is off the table, but we all but know Stan's preference is to go to LA -- and I submit that beyond economics his personal ego is a big part of the equation -- the question is what happens if he is denied that opportunity. He could try to sell, sit in the Dome for awhile, decide to make a new stadium even fancier; we just don't know.
This goes back to bylaws, also. It seems pretty clear there are stipulations that the motivation to leave a market cannot be for increased financial opportunity alone.
Stan and the Rams can claim that the lease didn't include any mandatory negotiations for a new stadium, however, "exhausting all options" to stay in a market certainly does which the NFL is responsible for mandating. The fact that the owner can't/won't/or refuses to sit down with the city and taskforce should eliminate his ability to negotiate with LA. The fact that he is rich enough to make this happen on his own is just his and the NFL's hubris shining through.
I think a deal will get done to avoid 3 teams filing for relocation. Who that deal pertains to is what remains the wildcard.
What little optimism I have left falls into a few focal points:
1) I don't see Dave Peacock "failing" or getting screwed by the NFL without some form of major concession
2) Stan's silence is just as strong in LA as it is in STL. There have been very little public details regarding his stadium since January compared to Carson
3) Carmen Policy
4) San Diego and Oakland situations are currently obtunded
Our own legal hurdles and potential inability to foul up the funding could make those points moot, however, but as JS indicated, Stan had to be prepared for STL to mess this up as I'm sure, given our history, it is a real possibility.
Finally: can anyone provide a link or more information about the Howard Balzer "report" (referenced a few pages back) that Stan may be willing to kick in more money to the STL effort? With even a modest investment from the team the stadium here could be even more of a spectacle and capable of increasing value. I think the forthcoming corporate sponsorship study the taskforce is currently putting together with an outside firm will be important.
Here's the thing about this value discussion anyways...
I know these guys all have huge egos, and they can probably use the team value as leverage for some things, but the truth is that value only matters the day you decide to sell.
Kroenke has never sold a major pro sports team. He acquires them. And the LA deal obviously isn't set up to where he would sell them right away. If it were, he'd probably lose money based on his up front investment.
The only scenarios I see that involve Kroenke selling are if he finds a way to acquire the Broncos and/or if he's forced to stay in St. Louis and it's decided that he needs to get out at that point.
But Kroenke is probably not selling. And as his son is carrying on his sports empire, the family probably isn't even thinking about selling "some day." So while the value isn't at all irrelevant, it's not actual cash in Stan's pocket, so the impacts of the value change shouldn't be overstated, in my opinion.
In order for STL to make the case that the Rams have failed to "exhaust all options," they need an option ready to go when the moment of truth comes. The NFL has already set a special meeting to discuss L.A. this August. We really need to hear back about that RSA/City suit.
Very true, however, some of the legal hopscotch could very well have been avoided if the owner wasn't a complete mook who ignored serious local efforts to appease him. Imagine how the taskforces' proposals would have been received if Stan was sitting behind Dave P. at the podium, engaging the media and public that he will seriously consider investing if the right proposal is made available. Any affirmation from ownership that they give a damn and care about their market and guys like John Ammann stick to making sure law students can handle themselves in court instead of wasting everybody's time playing Perry Mason against the mean old city who they perceive as independently/unilaterally trying to assist a disinterested billionaire.
It seems to me, that the August meeting will yield very little additional details besides the generic press speak that Sam Farmer prognosticated last week. The October meeting will determine our fate unless Peacock and Co. are invited in August and have some concrete $ numbers at the ready.
Costs bumped up a bit to $1 billion (increase all on public) and the percentage of public funding has changed a bit.... considerably less from bond extensions made up by more from state tax credit programs and psls.
