urbanSTL

I'd agree with that. Also factor in that a lot of the football owners are legacy owners of sorts.

A member of the Irsay family has owned the Colts since their time in Baltimore. Actually, they acquired the Colts by trading the team they previously owned—the LA Rams—to Carroll Rosenbloom. Rosenbloom married Georgia Frontiere, who of course ultimately moved the Rams to St. Louis. Her kids still own a small stake in the organization, I believe.

The Bidwells purchased the football Cardinals back when they were in Chicago and the team has remained in the family through moves to St. Louis and Phoenix.

Al Davis and now his son have been managing partner of the Raiders from Oakland to LA and back to Oakland (and perhaps back to LA once again or maybe even San Antonio, but I doubt it).

You've got Bud Adams from Houston to Tennessee. Lamar Hunt from Dallas (very, very briefly) to Kansas City. The Maras in New York and the Rooneys in Pittsburgh (though neither of these franchises have the relocation aspect).

So it's definitely a valid point that the owners themselves often feel a lot of attachment to the teams identity. This goes against what we love about our local sports team, but to them it really is their baby regardless of where they're running it from.

While it is very frustrating to continually read, and their voice is potentially more loudly heard given the market, I can understand LA fans' call to bring them back. Given your own admission of a desire to hold on to the Big Red, how can you criticize them for the same thing given that it's a real possibility to bring not just the logo but the actual franchise back.

If in 2078, the stars aligned so that for some reason AB InBev had to dissolve or redistribute its components and the possibility arose to re establish an independent Anheuser Busch in St. Louis, would future locals dig into our nostalgic pride and form a movement to publicly support "bringing them home"?

Or to keep it in sports, I'd campaign to bring back the Hawks if ATL's situation were in jeopardy and someone was working to acquire them here.

I'm not necessarily criticizing them. Although, I can't stand the 'Bring back the Los Angeles Rams" movement on Facebook. All they do is rip St. Louis with derogatory terms like Stank Louis and other terms. They are biased and if you make a constructive point, they rip you and tell you to F off. They are idiots, for the most part. That is a sect of the LA Rams fans, that I cannot stand. I can't blame them for wanting the Rams back, so they can relive history. However, taking shots at STL, mostly unwarranted, is childish and self-serving. Just for the record, I would never criticize someone who wants something for nostalgia purposes. It is in our nature as humans, to cling on to the past. Just have some class and that group is classless, for the most part.

Frank Cusomano said that Peacock/blitz already showed the Rams a first version of the stadium and that the Rams liked it

^^As Stan tries to buy the rest of the land in Hollywood Park, next to the 60 acres he already owns.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Area.aspx

That land is right under the LAX runway approach. How noisy is it there?

"trying" to buy it? another leverage play?

^I don't think so. He already pulled the trigger on a deal to buy 60 acres. Why not buy more.... I think he is truly looking to buy this land to put a stadium, if the NFL allows him to move. As I've said, this land buy is what makes the Rams situation different from ANY other team's situation, with regards to using LA as leverage. NO other owner actually purchased land that can be used as a stadium. If he buys the Hollywood Park land, I think the a move is inevitable, assuming the NFL approves it. I know Bernie said yesterday, that it will be tough for Stan to prove a financial hardship, but I think if the NFL owners will make anything happen they choose. If they want Stan in LA, it will happen. As far as I know, only Dean Spanos (SD Chargers owner) and anyone he is aligned with, are against the move. If has long been rumored Stan wants the rest of the Hollywood Park Race Track land. This article goes back to Jan 2014.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... -land.html

If you look hard, you can see the old track behind the land he currently owns, across from The Forum.
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.956697, ... e0!6m1!1e1

The guys from 920 CBS Sports Radio did a mini-poll and all of them said they expect Stan to apply for relocation, if for anything, to make sure if things fall through here, he is ready to go. I think his motive is to move if at all possible. Bernie is such a flip-flopper on this thing, I am losing faith in his sources. . . Look on the right side of the page.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0f31a.html

Can you just apply for re-location without committing to move? I guess yes since the Seahawks moved to LA for 2 weeks in the 90s before getting a stadium deal in Seattle

the idea that Stan would spend half of his net worth ($2B) on a business that brings in about $20-50Million a year in net income just doesn't seem realistic. He would be in his late 70's- early 80s before he starts seeing real profits on it....sure the value would increase but does value mean that much to a guy who isn't planning on selling?

I think Stan is all about money, but there is another factor. He wants to be a global sports player (which he already is), but wants to be even more of a sports mogul. If he is the owner of the LA Rams, that label fits much better. I think ego and reputation are big factors in this situation. If he can make his money back over time, that initial investment won't be so hard to swallow. What baffles me, is the fact that any owner would want to share the spotlight in LA, with another team. I know the metro area has 18 million people, but if the Rams suck and the other team is good, the Rams become an afterthought. Can you imagine this historically bad decade of losing, if the Rams had been in LA. The stadium would be empty. There are too many other things to do out there, besides watch awful football. Then again, here in STL, there are better things to do as well. Reflects in the attendance and goes to show you, market size is less relevant in the NFL. If your product sucks, people will not show (unless your Green Bay). If it is good, your venue is full. That simple.

but does Stan really want that? He isn't on the sidelines at end of games like Jerry Jones and Arthur Blank (Falcons owner)....while he does have a extensive sports portfolio, he has a biggest real estate portfolio.

^Seems like he does want that reputation and has a huge ego, but does not want to be in the limelight. Although, before all of this started, Stan was being seen all over LA, Denver and London. Lately, he has been a man of mystery. We need to find a professional paparazzi guy to follow him around and drill him until he speaks. If they can find celebrities in public, why not him.

http://www.thfrealty.com/index.php/our- ... ie-center/

Brighton, CO 396 acres - 2 million square feet of retail and 3,000 families. We all know, this is what Stan does. The 60 acres in Inglewood were suppose to be a Wal-Mart, Hollywood Park for as long as it's been under development has been zoned for retail and residential.

If the Rams leave St. Louis with a funded proposal for a stadium on the table, they'd be the first to do so. Seriously if Stan leaves St. Louis, where by most estimates he'd only have to pay ~$250M, to go build a stadium on his own dime in LA, then he's not the businessman he's believed to be.

I just can't see it happening, great game of leverage though.

I think your sentiment is right arch, but I think you're underestimating how much Stan will need to contribute in STL. It's going to cost about $1 billion to build the stadium. He can get $200 million from the NFL G4 loan program (unless they've recently upped that). I don't see the public getting put on the hook for $600 million. I'm hoping it's not even $500 million, but I think it'll be capped there for sure.

I'm looking for $250-400 million in public funds. The rest to be made up for by Stan.

But that's really not so bad. He'd own his own brand new stadium with many new revenue streams and have land surrounding the stadium to develop. His franchise value would increase significantly (and could do so more with a winning team).

In LA, the franchise value thing is also true, and actually to a significantly greater degree. But he'd also be paying hundreds of millions for the stadium land. He'd be paying $500 million to $1 billion in expansion fees. And he'd be paying $1-1.5 billion or more (things cost more in LA and the NFL will want to go ALL OUT) for the stadium itself.

LA is going to be more profitable than St. Louis, but in a behemoth like the NFL that shares a lot of its revenue, it's not going to be instantaneous. It'll take many, many years for those profits to cover the costs. And Stan's history isn't one that suggest he's going to sell the team, so franchise value doesn't matter as much. In fact, it seems like his son will carry on his legacy as a sports owner, so a sale might be unlikely even after Stan is gone.

I'm not suggesting that will be any time soon. I hope not. But I will say that he's 67, and the long-term benefits of moving to LA just might not matter as much to him when it will cost so much in the short-term. This is doubly true if he really cares about Missouri and St. Louis.

I think he stays. I think he wants to. But he's not going to make it easy. He'll play this LA leverage game for all it's worth to get the best deal he can in St. Louis.

And then he'll build a Walmart development on the Hollywood Park site. Or sell it to the NFL so they can build a stadium for a different team there. Or just sell it to someone else.

That's my hunch. But there's no way to know anything for sure.

jstriebel wrote:I think your sentiment is right arch, but I think you're underestimating how much Stan will need to contribute in STL. It's going to cost about $1 billion to build the stadium. He can get $200 million from the NFL G4 loan program (unless they've recently upped that). I don't see the public getting put on the hook for $600 million. I'm hoping it's not even $500 million, but I think it'll be capped there for sure.

I'm looking for $250-400 million in public funds. The rest to be made up for by Stan.

But that's really not so bad. He'd own his own brand new stadium with many new revenue streams and have land surrounding the stadium to develop. His franchise value would increase significantly (and could do so more with a winning team).

In LA, the franchise value thing is also true, and actually to a significantly greater degree. But he'd also be paying hundreds of millions for the stadium land. He'd be paying $500 million to $1 billion in expansion fees. And he'd be paying $1-1.5 billion or more (things cost more in LA and the NFL will want to go ALL OUT) for the stadium itself.

LA is going to be more profitable than St. Louis, but in a behemoth like the NFL that shares a lot of its revenue, it's not going to be instantaneous. It'll take many, many years for those profits to cover the costs. And Stan's history isn't one that suggest he's going to sell the team, so franchise value doesn't matter as much. In fact, it seems like his son will carry on his legacy as a sports owner, so a sale might be unlikely even after Stan is gone.

I'm not suggesting that will be any time soon. I hope not. But I will say that he's 67, and the long-term benefits of moving to LA just might not matter as much to him when it will cost so much in the short-term. This is doubly true if he really cares about Missouri and St. Louis.

I think he stays. I think he wants to. But he's not going to make it easy. He'll play this LA leverage game for all it's worth to get the best deal he can in St. Louis.

And then he'll build a Walmart development on the Hollywood Park site. Or sell it to the NFL so they can build a stadium for a different team there. Or just sell it to someone else.

That's my hunch. But there's no way to know anything for sure.

Stadium here won't be $1b. $800m tops, land and infrastructure is about 15% of that. General split has been 60%public 40 % in the last decade

Agreed on the price tag, I can't see an outdoor stadium in St. Louis costing much more than that. I'd love to see a 55/45 split $440M Kroenke+G4, $360M public. It's the least he can do for this horrible decade of football and the torment of loyal fans.

I suppose you guys are right if it's truly an open-air stadium. I still wonder if it won't wind up with a retractable roof, though. Perhaps that's part of the negotiating. "We'll pay 60% of this $800 million open air stadium. We'd love a retractable roof, but you'll need to cover the $200 million to make it happen." And then they're down to 48%. Or something like that.

You're also right about most public splits being slightly more on the public, I'm just not expecting it to work out that way here. I think the public pays less than 50% here. But we'll see.

Woody Paige says if we build it, he will come. Claims to know Stan well. I hope he is right.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... adium.aspx

PS- It is at the very end of the interview, last topic discussed.

Well, at least the LA speculation gives Rams fans something to talk about.

jstriebel wrote:But I will say that he's 67, and the long-term benefits of moving to LA just might not matter as much to him when it will cost so much in the short-term.

He's 67 in billionaire years which is probably equivalent to low to mid 30's. He'll be alive long enough to see the long term benefits of moving to LA.