urbanSTL

^ there is a relocation fee and some believe that the next NFL team that wants to move will have to pay $1 billion+, maybe even $2 billion. So does Stan or any other owner really want to wait 10-20 years to turn a profit? lets not forget in LA he would have to pay for most of the stadium cost, so thats another $1-1.5 billion.

That's been one of my main counter points to the notion that the Rams are moving. Stan would be nearly 70 by the time he'd start playing in a new LA stadium (could be sooner if he were in a big rush, but doubtful).

It's entirely possible—though I certainly hope he lives a long and healthy life—he'd never see the franchise come out in the green on the move to LA. I think the profitability of LA over STL is sometimes overstated. It's probably between $80-$100 million a year depending on team performance.

That'd be a long-term move, especially considering Stan would be building the stadium. And it just doesn't make sense for him to do.

One of the only real arguments I see for Stan relocating the team is the supposed value increase.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Rams' value would be $2.5 billion if they relocated to Los Angeles. That would immediately put them ahead of the Dallas Cowboys as the NFL's most valuable team (NOTE: I don't actually believe the value increase would be that significant. The Rams' brand is not going to leapfrog teams in the nation's largest market New York, nor brands as established as Dallas Cowboys, just because they're playing in the nation's second-largest market. This is entirely for the sake of argument.) They're currently worth about $875 million, so that would be a jump of $1.625 billion.

How much would relocation fees to Los Angeles cost?

Per Forbes, hypothetical expansion fees in L.A. are expected to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion per team. The federal court ruling in NFL v. Davis held that the NFL, while they cannot simply impose a team from relocating, can impose relocation fees of whatever amount they please. Assuming the NFL owners would rather not miss out on a comparable payday from the fees, we'll go with $1 billion for the Rams relocating.

After that, how much do you think the cost of Stan building his own new stadium in Inglewood, CA would be?

Keep in mind that as of now, and for the foreseeable future, that is the only viable way the Rams would move to Los Angeles (AEG is all but dead by all reports, no one is interested in the Majestic City of Industry proposal, and no one wants to get involved with former Dodgers' owner Frank McCourt to build a stadium near Dodgers Stadium). Well, per Fox Sports, the new 49ers' stadium in the Bay Area figures to be about 1.2-2.3 billion dollars.

So after paying relocation fees and the cost of a new stadium, the Rams' value would increase about $1.625 billion (again, realistically probably not even that much), but their owner would be out about $2.25 billion. And that's not including the higher costs of doing business in the NFL generally.

Keep in mind, also, that unlike the MLB, NBA, and NHL, the franchises do not own the rights to broadcast (or sell the rights to broadcast) their games on TV. Those TV contracts are negotiated collectively, by the NFL as a whole, with FOX, NBC, CBS, ESPN and their own affiliated NFL Network. Every month, the owners all receive a check for the same amount for the TV revenue. St. Louis gets the same amount of money in TV revenue as does Green Bay, as does Oakland, as does New York, etc.

What I'm trying to get at here is that until Los Angeles bucks up and publicly finances AT LEAST PART of a new stadium, they ain't getting a team.

By the same token, unless STL bucks up and finances AT LEAST PART of a new stadium, the Rams will remain in "free agent" status. By all accounts, the powers-that-be in STL are ready to talk. But I don't think Stan will receive their communications until there's another viable threat he can use as leverage against them. Right now and for the foreseeable future, L.A. ain't it.

I think to this point Saint.Louis has no choice but to buck a few million like every other city has.. I think the Rams are going to have a exciting season this upcoming season and for years to come...

^ there is no doubt that the state and the city will pay something, probably around $300 million for a lets say $800m stadium

I had been a charter PSL holder until this year. The Rams called me a few times about renewing. I asked if they could tell me if the Rams will be here in 2015. They would not. For some reason they are strongly committed to selling tickets here through the 2014 season. But not 2015. They spent a ton of money convincing us the dome is a dump for the option to break the 30 year lease 10 years early. They won. Which means no dome improvements. How are their most loyal fans supposed to interpret their commitment to us?

Profitability isn't overstated by moving to LA. Way more opportunities to make way more money in LA than STL.

Stlien, I have to agree. Either the two biggest sales in US pro sports are the biggest flops or the most profitable - Dodgers and pending sale of Clippers.

I think the sale of the Clippers is over stated and simply a billionaire buying a team at any cost but even the other offers were well above a billion. However, I think the sale of the Dodgers was well vetted for the market and good indication that their is lot of money to be had in the LA market. Yes, Dodgers has a huge history and can own its cable broadcast in one of the biggest TV markets but Rams have the NFL which is heads above in terms of value and dollars.

dredger wrote:Stlien, I have to agree. Either the two biggest sales in US pro sports are the biggest flops or the most profitable - Dodgers and pending sale of Clippers.

I think the sale of the Clippers is over stated and simply a billionaire buying a team at any cost but even the other offers were well above a billion. However, I think the sale of the Dodgers was well vetted for the market and good indication that their is lot of money to be had in the LA market. Yes, Dodgers has a huge history and can own its cable broadcast in one of the biggest TV markets but Rams have the NFL which is heads above in terms of value and dollars.

How so?

The profitability of the Dodgers comes from TV dollars. The NFL doesn't work like that, though. The LA market will mean increased TV dollars to every team, equally. The team that moves to LA will not benefit more than any others on the TV side of things.

There are other ways to make profits in a larger market, but not so many that it will be a huge windfall that easily overcomes the expenses a team moving would face.

^Exactly.... With the NFL TV deal, teams have to make money on stadiums/gates, parking, concessions..etc..etc...

That is why markets like Green Bay continue to thrive. That is also why NFL owners push for new stadiums so much more frequently.

While those arguments are valid, I think the Rams brand has a huge potential to grow much more in LA, especially if they were to change the logo/uniforms as KD has referenced as possible in the near future. In the mass and social media hotbed of LA, the Rams would get so much more press than they get here which to me would translate into more financial opportunities through advertising. Not to mention all of the hollywood and popstar types that would be publicly jumping on or back on the Rams bandwagon. Maybe I'm way off there.

Obviously I'd much rather see a uniform/logo change concurrent with their announcement for long term STL plans. It'd be crazy to see them unveil red uniforms as they have said would be a nod to the original Cleveland colors. Hard to picture.

To get to the team for a moment, I feel like media's opinion of this team is mimicing the opinions of whether or not they'll move: they're all over the place. Power rankings are ranging from middle of the pack (17 on a recent one) to 31st in terms of roster strength in front of only Jacksonville. I'm sticking to my guns on their ceiling at 8-8, maybe 9-7 and I am not expecting playoffs this year. I'm not sold on the offense. What I do expect for this season, however, is no blowouts, low scores, and very competive games. I will be very disappointed if events such as last fall's SF and DAL games occur this year. I hope the offense surprises everyone with their consistency for gains.

Success breeds value, I love how were the 2nd to last team in value currently but in 2000 we were valued at #12 ahead of the Pittsburgs Steelers. This could very well be a strong football town if we a good decent run of success (even competitive). Apart from the miracle 3 years we had from '99-'01 we have basically been abismal

http://www.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Dail ... TIONS.aspx

Michael Sam Signs Rams Contract, Celebrates in Style at Just John Nightclub
Monday, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:00 AM



http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... htclub.php

Do you guys think STL residents will support a tax increase for a new stadium?

It depends on what type of tax it is and how much the Rams are putting in. Sales Tax - I doubt it. Hotel/Tourism tax - more likely.

stlien wrote:Do you guys think STL residents will support a tax increase for a new stadium?

Yes.

The fear of losing the team is going to make a lot of people want to pay for a stadium;

even though, L.A. does not even have anything ready for a team. California already has the Chargers, Oakland A's, and Raiders who need new stadiums the people there are unwilling to pay. The 49ers, Golden State Warriors, Sacramento Kings are all getting new venues. I don't think their willing to spend a billion on a new football stadium with all of the spending their doing for all of these teams, plus their high taxes in general.

I do not think STL residents would approve a tax increase in any form for the sake of the Rams, but my guess is that it will not come down to that. If I had to make a prediction, I'd guess it'll play out like it did two years ago in Minnesota:

In that instance, most of the state and local officials postured hard against the Vikings and refused to approve any public money for a new stadium for years, then suddenly reports surfaced that the Vikings' owner visited Los Angeles to begin inquiring on a new stadium there while NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell visited Minnesota to personally negotiate a new stadium deal with the state government, which then passed with absolutely no approval from the voters of the Twin Cities, much less the rest of Minnesota. You can read about it more here:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/78324 ... ernor-says
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Viki ... ota-042012
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/Minn ... sue-041912
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/05/1 ... dium-bill/

Here, the local and state officials will posture similarly against Stan Kroenke for a while, maybe even years, then one day reports will surface of Kroenke appearing in Los Angeles while cranes are pulling up to his new 60-acre plot there in Inglewood, while Roger Goodell visits with the Missouri government and negotiates a new stadium deal that will pass.

Ultimately, it won't matter what STL residents will or won't support. For better or for worse.

As you can see in the links I provided above, Goodell expressly and publicly warned Minnesota to act or else risk losing the Vikings. For comparisons' stake, Goodell's most recent public remarks regarding the stadium situation between the Rams and St. Louis were positive:

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 7a8ac.html

^ Exactly, The NFL is not leaving St. Louis. If Stan wants a new stadium, Roger and Jay (or whoever is governor at the time) will grant his wishes. The $Billion stadium deal will definitely be settled by 2020.

I'm wondering, now that the Rams got out of their lease by asking for a Taj Mahal, what changes to the dome might they REALLY be willing to accept in order to sign, say, a new 15 year lease there? In other words, what would it take to bring the dome up to the average of the NFL stadium experience, rather than the top tier? I'm guessing it would be somewhere between what the Rams requested and what the CVC offered. Maybe a combination of some improvements to the dome now, coupled with an iron-clad contract to have a new stadium 15 years from now, or pay some hefty penalty.

If we were able to remove a large part of the EJ Dome roof and open the stadium to the elements on demand to brighten up the place, would it then be considered a good stadium? I'm not sure I understand what the major drawbacks of the stadium are, compared to, say, the Chiefs stadium? Almost all of the improvements proposed by both the CVC and the Rams were for the filthy rich in their luxury boxes. Neither side offered anything for the regular fan -- not even blue cushioned seats to replace the current red hard plastic seats. In fact the Rams proposal wanted to push the regular seats even further from field center than they are now. (The arbitrators sided with the Rams on this, claiming more distant seating is a characteristic of top tier stadiums.)