urbanSTL

wabash wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

^No one can predict anything about the future plans of the NFL, except me, who can predict that Jacksonville will move to London.

Jacksonville is perhaps the most likely team to move to London, but... I can't imagine any team is ever going to move to London, given that they would be crippled competitively because of the massive time difference and travel times.

St Louis is a football desert. I believe it is the only metro in the top 50 with no NFL or division 1 college football within 2 hrs. (OK, 1 hr 55 minutes from City Hall to Faurot Field) Wash U is division 3.

Thought this might be a good place to start a trend of requiring all teams to track head collisions - with video or sensors - and impose heavy fines by law for each bump over levels that cause long term damage. Effectively outlawing the NFL here under current rules and forcing high schools to end football or shift to a touch or flag format.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Lots of teams are facing the dilemma of aging venues, old owners and expired leases.

I wouldn't say it's "lots" of teams... 22 of the current stadiums were opened in the last 23 years, and 2 more will be joining that list next year. That leaves 6 NFL stadiums that are more than a quarter century old - Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Arrowhead Stadium, New Era Field, Mercedes-Benz Superdome, and Hard Rock Stadium. Four of those six stadiums have undergone massive renovation projects ($200M+) in the last 20 years - Solider Field and Hard Rock Stadium are effectively new stadiums when compared to their original build outs. That leaves Lambeau Field and New Era Field. The former is an institution in itself, and is never going to be replaced, though it is always being upgraded. New Era Field in Buffalo is the only stadium in the NFL demanding near immediate replacement.

The Dome was obsolete before its 20th birthday. As ATL has exhibited in baseball, the “average” stadium has a 20-30 year lifespan before it is “obsolete” (for NFL standards) as constructed. Now, Saying that, renovations can be made to those stadiums but in a lot of instances it becomes more cost-effective to build a new venue. Over the next 10 or so years, more teams will be looking for new stadiums or renovations. There are many approaching 20 years old. Every new stadium raises the bar.

https://footballstadiumdigest.com/2017/ ... to-newest/

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Lots of teams are facing the dilemma of aging venues, old owners and expired leases.

I wouldn't say it's "lots" of teams... 22 of the current stadiums were opened in the last 23 years, and 2 more will be joining that list next year. That leaves 6 NFL stadiums that are more than a quarter century old - Soldier Field, Lambeau Field, Arrowhead Stadium, New Era Field, Mercedes-Benz Superdome, and Hard Rock Stadium. Four of those six stadiums have undergone massive renovation projects ($200M+) in the last 20 years - Solider Field and Hard Rock Stadium are effectively new stadiums when compared to their original build outs. That leaves Lambeau Field and New Era Field. The former is an institution in itself, and is never going to be replaced, though it is always being upgraded. New Era Field in Buffalo is the only stadium in the NFL demanding near immediate replacement.

The Dome was obsolete before its 20th birthday. As ATL has exhibited in baseball, the “average” stadium has a 20-30 year lifespan before it is “obsolete” (for NFL standards) as constructed. Now, Saying that, renovations can be made to those stadiums but in a lot of instances it becomes more cost-effective to build a new venue. Over the next 10 or so years, more teams will be looking for new stadiums or renovations. There are many approaching 20 years old. Every new stadium raises the bar.

https://footballstadiumdigest.com/2017/ ... to-newest/

Very much disagree. The only three stadiums in football to get replaced before they were 30 years old were the Pontiac Silverdome, the RCA Dome, and the Georgia Dome (and almost but not quite the HHH Metrodome - it lasted 31 years as the Vikings home).

Three stadiums of the exact same type (non-retractable domes) getting replaced after notably shorter time spans does not suddenly mean the average lifespan for ALL stadiums is 20-30 years. It means dome stadiums are generally obsolete (although the biggest one in the world isn't going anywhere anytime soon). There are no current NFL stadiums under 25 years old that are considered obsolete - the only NFL stadiums that did hit obsolescence prior to turning 25 were all dome stadiums, something that probably should have stopped being built in the early 1980s.

The current era of palaces has raised the bar. Comparing past stadium cycles to those of today is an apples to oranges comparison. Based upon current construction and design, all of those stadiums built around the year 2000 are “obsolete”. That doesn’t mean they will be replaced. More than likely 30 years plus they will need to be significantly renovated or replaced. While I agree that these standards are ridiculous, it’s as simple as keeping up with the Joneses. Look no further than StanK’s palace, Jerry World or Mercedes Benz Stadium in ATL.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

^ So you’re saying that the NFL was a failure in St. Louis?   STL would not be a good market? That would be completely untrue. There were a significant number of owners that did not want to abandon the St. Louis market.   Even the cartel members that schemed the move know that St. Louis was a good market. They just wanted the riches of LA more than anything. St. Louis was collateral damage.

And for the record, I completely disagree with you with regards to St. Louis only being mentioned because of the lawsuit.

Also, I think if you Google just about any viable metro area without a team, along with “NFL expansion” you could find articles.

I am saying the NFL isn't going to want any part of St. Louis after this lawsuit.  I think STL would be a fine market, but if someone sues you, you usually look in other places first to do business in the future. Especially if they can get money out of a city for a stadium, which wouldn't be the case here. If STL was going to offer to build a stadium (even the deal they offered the Rams), then sure the chances would go up. But we all know that isn't happening.

I am not saying there is no way they come back, I just can't see scenario that actually has a real chance of happening that would lead to them coming back in the near future. 

The thing I’m more frustrated over was losing any chance of hosting 2026 World Cup matches because Kroenke moved an NFL team from here when that should, in theory, have nothing to do with whether World Cup matches end up here or not. While I was not the biggest fan of National Car Rental Field as a plan, and wanted a better design than that, it still could have hosted World Cup matches. That could have been a huge enough economic boom to at least somewhat nullify the subsidy such a stadium would have required.

^I don't personally care much if the NFL comes back or doesn't. It's not a game about which I have any passion, so . . . 

As an interested outsider, I have to believe that the owners are a combination of super-wealthy fanboys and businessmen. Which is to say they're in it for a mix of love and business, heavily tempered by business since even the fanboys have a lot of money and likely want it to stay that way. If St. Louis is good for the league I don't think most of them would let the suit stop them. Hell, half of the fanboys probably understand, seeing as they'd be pissed too. Kroenke may not be without fans, but I don't get the idea he's terribly popular among the other owners. The businessmen are probably an all or nothing proposition, so the facts will speak for themselves. If there's more money for the NFL in St. Louis than other potential markets they'll come. If there's not, they won't. The XFL, which is clearly a related business, believes there is money here.

And the above is probably true win, lose, or draw. It might not even matter much if the league loses badly in the suit. After all, Stan has agreed to foot the bill, so if they lose there will be more litigation as Stan tries to get out from under the crippling debt and the league works to stick it to him. Remember, this is the gift that keeps on giving. I can't believe the litigation will stop even if somehow we get a lightning fast decision forking over a couple of the big B bills and it survives all appeals. Once that's over there will be a whole new round of litigation deciding who pays and working out the bankruptcy settlements. (Oh, now isn't that an attractive word?)

So to me it's really just a question of whether or not this is a good market for them. Obviously the public financing thing makes a difference, but the era of public financing might be over. Except in Texas, maybe, where football is reputedly the unofficial state religion. (And I'm not sure it isn't official at this point.) But I can't see Portland shelling out for a publicly funded stadium, or Sacramento. So that may not even matter. It really might just come down to where there's the best stream of ad revenue, seat licenses, and ticket sales, and so forth. Maybe that's Portland. Maybe it will be in ten years. Maybe not. Portland is awfully close to Seattle. Meh . . . who knows.

But . . .

Let's win this suit! Go team!

Fraydog wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2019

The thing I’m more frustrated over was losing any chance of hosting 2026 World Cup matches because Kroenke moved an NFL team from here when that should, in theory, have nothing to do with whether World Cup matches end up here or not. While I was not the biggest fan of National Car Rental Field as a plan, and wanted a better design than that, it still could have hosted World Cup matches. That could have been a huge enough economic boom to at least somewhat nullify the subsidy such a stadium would have required.

There is no way you could cost justify building that stadium just to host World Cup matched without a permanent NFL tenant on board. The "huge economic boom" would have barely covered the cost of the infrastructure around the stadium, much less the stadium itself. It's not as if we would have been the city hosting the finals, or even the semifinals. And if the stadium had been built that's hardly a guarantee we would have been chosen as one of the host facilities - 49 stadiums from 44 different cities entered the bidding process, and ultimately only 16 cities are going to make the cut (with six of them being in Canada and Mexico). Both SoFi Stadium and Allegiant Stadium (Las Vegas) have already been eliminated from consideration in the voting process, so having one of the newest stadiums is obviously not a guarantee of winning one of the hosting slots.

DTGstl314 wrote: There is no way you could cost justify building that stadium just to host World Cup matched without a permanent NFL tenant on board. The "huge economic boom" would have barely covered the cost of the infrastructure around the stadium, much less the stadium itself. It's not as if we would have been the city hosting the finals, or even the semifinals.

I was not advocating building NCRF without an NFL client.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

DTGstl314 wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

wabash wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

^No one can predict anything about the future plans of the NFL, except me, who can predict that Jacksonville will move to London.

Jacksonville is perhaps the most likely team to move to London, but... I can't imagine any team is ever going to move to London, given that they would be crippled competitively because of the massive time difference and travel times.

The Jaguars aren't going anywhere unless the deal between the city and Cordish / Shad Khan for Jacksonville's version of Ballpark Village completely breaks down.  They have been making noises about needing a new stadium soon, but they also clearly intend to stay as they seem to be following a similar overall blueprint as the Cardinals did.  I highly doubt Cordish would have signed on as a development partner unless Khan had assured them that they could get a deal done with the city, and that the Jaquars will be there for the foreseeable future.  They will likely leverage all of this potential investment to then extract a sweetheart lease and tax incentive deal for a new "privately-funded" stadium (like Busch III) in the next couple years.

$450 Million Lot J Redevelopment Deal Includes $233.3 Million In City Incentives 

Shad Khan, Jaguars expect Lot J development to begin in early 2020

Here's a follow-up Forbes piece to the ESPN article that came out several days ago.

Nov 30, 2019, 02:18pm
Why Stan Kroenke, NFL Will Likely Be Singing The Financial Blues Over The St. Louis Lawsuit
Sports Money
Patrick Rishe Contributor 
I cover the economics of the sports industry.

LOS ANGELES RAMS
When the courts force wealthy billions to turn over years of emails and phone calls, this usually spells endgame.
With a sizable settlement forthcoming to the injured party.

Well, the National Football League and Stan Kroenke, owner of the Los Angeles Rams, may slowly but surely be moving towards a financial settlement with various parties from St. Louis and Missouri that would even make the famed Silna brothers blush...former owners of St. Louis’ ABA basketball team who arguably orchestrated the greatest deal in sports business history.
You remember Daniel and Ozzie Silna, don’t you? The brothers who owned the Spirits of St. Louis ABA team. The brothers who wouldn’t except a $3 million buyout from the NBA in 1976 when the ABA folded and didn’t absorb the Spirits as an expansion. The brothers who, instead, negotiated what amounted to 57% of one share of the NBA’s media revenues in perpetuity...which accumulated to over $300 million by 2014. The brothers who were finally bought out by the NBA at the beginning of 2014 for an upfront payment of $500 million!

While I don’t know if the various plaintiff parties in the St. Louis region’s lawsuit versus the Rams will end up receiving financial restitution of this size, it’s increasingly looking as if an eventual settlement will emerge. Perhaps not in 2020, but eventually.
And here’s why:

• The recent ESPN article looking at the Rams and Chargers battling for Los Angeles relevancy dedicated a portion of the story to the growing “leaguewide headache” of the lawsuit pitting the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex against the Rams and NFL is “threatening everyone’s bottom line”.
• As the afore-mentioned article notes, “the St. Louis plaintiffs have quietly won every court motion and decision” to this point, including keeping the case in the courts and out of arbitration.
• The most recent victory being that the U.S. Supreme Court denied the Rams request to issue a stay to the plaintiff’s request to provide multiple years of phone records and emails for discovery.

And that’s where things begin to get dicey, financially speaking, for both Kroenke and other NFL owners.

• First of all, as the ESPN article noted, and as part of an indemnification agreement signed prior to the Rams relocating to Los Angeles, Kroenke must pay all legal bills for the teams and the league. And, apparently, the legal bills for some teams have exceed $10 million.
• As wealthy as Stanley is - with an estimated wealth of nearly $10 billion - I’ve got to believe that, eventually, his lawyers will advise him to “punt” and settle...especially if there is something especially damning in his past email or phone communications which seal his legal fate in this case.
• Furthermore, the ESPN article noted that St. Louis is now “seeking each owner's cut of the Rams' and Chargers' $550 million relocation fees” (or about $35 million per team) as additional restitution. So as the bottom line of other teams now becomes potentially impacted, all the more reason to suspect pressure from within the league will be brought to bare upon the Rams’ owner.

In speaking with at least two lawyers not involved with this case about trends and procedures during the adjudication process, the message is pretty consistent. Namely, as the plaintiffs in this case keep winning court motions and decisions, this only strengthens the plaintiffs’ bargaining leverage.

And as one lawyer shared confidentially to me, “Can you imagine what might be on the owners’ emails and phone records? There’s no way that’s going to see the light of day.”

Translation...the odds of a sizable settlement in favor of the St. Louis plaintiffs’ only increase as (1) their side wins more motions and (2) the more salacious any potentially damning information contained in league or team communications.

The Rams and Chargers both have a Herculean challenge ahead of them...to fill SoFi Stadium on Sundays during the 2020 season and beyond in a crowded sports market where most NFL fans living in Los Angeles are transplants from elsewhere who will likely just assume visit their favorite local sports bar to watch their own home team.

But the Rams, the league, and other NFL teams may have an even larger Thanos-like challenge in avoiding a hefty financial settlement with parties from St. Louis.

A lawsuit that’s unlikely to evaporate into dust with a click of the fingers.

Patrick Rishe
Follow me on Twitter or LinkedIn. Check out my website or some of my other work here. www.patrickrishe.com
I'm the Founding Director of the Sports Business Program at Washington University in St. Louis, as well as a Professor of Practice in Sports Business within their Olin Business School. I am also the Founder and CEO of Sportsimpacts, where I've conducted over 85 studies since the company's inception in 2000...including research at 3 Super Bowls, 3 Final Fours, MLB All-Star Games, Ryder Cups, and numerous Division I NCAA Championship events. 



https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... e243db7b11

"...who will likely just assume visit their favorite local sports bar..."

sigh.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 28, 2019

Jerry Jones will never allow Austin or San Antonio in the league.   I doubt Houston would allow that either. 

I hear this a lot, but don't buy it at all.  An NFL team in that market is inevitable.  Downtown San Antonio and Austin are not even 80 miles apart, and the combined metro areas are over 4.5 million with a 20%+ growth rate since 2010.  That makes it larger than the Minneapolis-St. Paul CSA, and very soon larger than the Seattle-Tacoma CSA.

Furthermore, this market is over 3 hours from Dallas, hardly within anything that could remotely be considered Cowboy's territory, and ostensibly Jerry Jones is all about "growing the revenue pie".  Even if Jones were against it (and were to live another couple decades), there's no way the NFL, and all of those small market teams looking for a new stadium, will ignore a large, fast-growing broadcast market in the heart of football country for long...  

^ I understand the demographics. I spend a lot of time in Austin for work. That is cowboys country. I’m not ruling it out because Austin is an absolute boom town. However, you have to remember we’re dealing with the cartel. And Jerry Jones is one of the leaders. He pretty much calls the shots along with several other owners. Once he is gone, it could happen, but I doubt it.

^My bad

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Dec 02, 2019

^ I'm seeing the same article as the one from a few posts above.

And it's a really lousy article either time.

Got our Rams PSL refund today.  We had two $1000 30-year PSLs we bought in 1995, so I got a check in the mail today for $600 for the missing 9 last years of Rams football.  I'll take it since I assumed I would get $0 when the Rams left.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

Jan 06, 2020

Got our Rams PSL refund today.  We had two $1000 30-year PSLs we bought in 1995, so I got a check in the mail today for $600 for the missing 9 last years of Rams football.  I'll take it since I assumed I would get $0 when the Rams left.

I got mine too.   I had two $250 so I got $150 better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.  Dinner on Stank this weekend.

I thought that the NFL lawyers were supposed to be running out of delay tactics, and a trial date was supposed to be set by now.  But I haven't seen even a mention of the city / CVC suit in a couple months.  What's up with that?

Rams submitted an argument against SC decision not to hear the case on Jan 8th. I’m not a lawyer, but the Rams reasoning for SC hearing or overturning the lower court decision seems decent.

I’m not sure what the process looks like now. It hasn’t been distributed to the Feb 21st conference.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.asp ... 9-672.html