Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... af5a7.html

NFL tells St. Louis to firm up stadium plan

IRVING, Texas • In the National Football League’s great stadium race, deadlines emerged Wednesday, while league officials issued stern warnings and stadium backers squeezed their proposals to wring out sweeter deals.

A key member of the NFL’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities warned St. Louis stadium planners that the league cannot seriously consider any local proposal unless aldermen first approve a financing package now before a board committee.

Then news broke that Rams owner Stan Kroenke had sent a letter to the league’s LA committee agreeing to partner with another team in his proposed Los Angeles stadium, if owners allow him to move there.

By day’s end, NFL owners and officials had set a list of deadlines: Hometown stadium plans will be due to the NFL, in their most complete form possible, by Dec 28. Team owners can apply to relocate on Jan. 4.

And league owners scheduled their next meeting — which could include a relocation vote — for Jan. 12 in Houston.

“I don’t know what’s going to happen,” said San Francisco 49ers owner Jed York. “I really don’t. I think this is unchartered waters right now.”

NFL owners arrived here this week, at the Four Seasons hotel and resort in this golf-course-filled suburb of Dallas, with hopes of pinning down details on a string of stadium proposals from San Diego to St. Louis.

Kroenke has proposed building a nearly $2 billion stadium in Inglewood, Calif., and moving the Rams before next season starts. San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis have countered with a two-team proposal in Carson, Calif., just down the freeway.

The two sides have not always been amicable. But the LA committee urged Kroenke to make room for another team in Inglewood. Late last week, the enigmatic owner wrote to the committee promising a partnership.

Kroenke’s letter offered a 50/50 split of stadium construction costs and game-day revenue.

Non-NFL dollars, such as concerts and other events, would not be split, nor would those raised outside of a specified stadium footprint — such as income from the accompanying retail developments Kroenke plans to build around the Inglewood stadium, league sources said.

Owners were happy with Kroenke, several said. Still, they said that Kroenke didn’t now have the 24 of 32 votes he’d need to move his team.

But owners largely maintained on Wednesday that their first priority wasn’t LA — it was evaluating proposals to build new stadiums and keep football teams in home markets. If San Diego and St. Louis can nail down public financing, and secure the needed legislative approval, owners wouldn’t allow other owners to move their teams to Los Angeles, they suggested.

“St. Louis and San Diego are trying to push things forward at this point,” York said. “I want to make sure, first and foremost, I look at what happens in the home markets, and then we’ll get to if there’s an LA opportunity.”

NEW DEAL for St. Louis Stadium

At the same time, news leaked out in the vaulted hallways here that Kroenke wasn’t the only one working to sweeten his stadium proposal. St. Louis had pitched a new deal, too.

Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force had, a few weeks ago, proposed using a $158 million naming rights deal to pay for a portion of the construction cost on a potential St. Louis riverfront stadium.

But in recent private correspondence with the league, Nixon’s task force said it would give naming rights back to the team, a league source said. The task force suggested, instead, using anticipated game-day tax revenue to back construction. Those taxes were, in previous versions of the deal, supposed to reimburse the NFL team for the loss of naming rights dollars.

Neither city officials nor Nixon’s stadium task force commented on the subject. But owners said they generally thought it was a good move for St. Louis.

“They’ve restructured their deal somewhat,” said Houston Texans owner Bob McNair, a member of the league’s influential LA committee. “And so I think they’ve made some good progress. But there’s a lot that remains to be seen in their proposal.”

Still, McNair also warned that St. Louis was on the verge of trouble.

Nixon’s stadium task force, he said, must pin down all financing details and governmental approvals before the league can even consider St. Louis’ $1 billion stadium proposal.

“Until its certain, there’s no deal,” McNair said. “You really can’t consider it until it’s certain. So it’s in their best interest to firm it up.”

The St. Louis plan is now stuck in the Board of Aldermen’s Ways and Means committee. The committee has held three public hearings, but has yet to schedule a vote on the city financing package. The board goes on winter break in a week-and-a-half and returns Jan. 8.

McNair frowned at the potential January aldermanic vote. “Yeah, that’s not going to help them,” he said.

McNair is among those owners pushing for a relocation vote in January. The LA proposals, he said, are solid.

“I think they’re both in good shape,” he said. “They’ve got good proposals.”

St. Louis needs its plan nailed down, and fast, to assure league owners that the task force can produce the money and approvals it says it can, several owners have said.

“Is the local community putting up a proposal that’s a firm proposal — or is it just conversation?” McNair asked.

“In any of the three communities, we don’t have any proposal that is a firm deal in which they say we’ve gotten all the governmental approvals, and we have the money, and we have the sources, and everything’s ready to go,” he said.

“And that’s where we need to be in order to make a decision.”

If St. Louis can’t get a deal done by December, that might just be it, some owners said.

“It’s not like this deadline has snuck up on people,” York said. “We’ve been really clear when things need to get buttoned up. People know what the deadline is, and what they need to have done.”

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 24675.html

Gordo: Kroenke makes his play with NFL owners

Rams owner Stan Kroenke entered the NFL's race to Los Angeles with a big head start. He possessed everything needed to finally bring the league back to that critical market.

He had lots of money. He owned a team. He had a nice chunk of land in Inglewood, Calif. He connected with a real estate development partner with much more land. They gained municipal support and presented an impressive $1.86 billion stadium proposal to NFL owners.

He was missing just one piece: a second team to go in with him. If he could woo another owner for the project — preferably well-respected San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos — then he could hit the finish-line tape.

So the news from the NFL owners meeting is significant. Kroenke says he is willing to go 50-50 with another team to make his Inglewood project happen. In his earlier dialogue with fellow owners, Kroenke suggested a more one-sided arrangement.

But his competition is not going away. That $1.75 billion Carson, Calif., proposal advanced by the Chargers and Oakland Raiders owner Mark Davis gathered momentum among some owners.

The Orange County Register had this take:

Tuesday's developments are a further indication of the amount of votes Spanos and Davis and their allies have secured for the Carson project, league employees said. While the Carson project does not have the 24 votes needed for relocation, Spanos and Davis are believed to be significantly closer to the figure than Kroenke.

The latest pitch from Kroenke's allies is a significant departure from how he earlier viewed a second team in Inglewood.

During an August NFL meeting on the Los Angeles situation in suburban Chicago, Kroenke was asked during his presentation on the Inglewood project by Chicago Bears chairman George McCaskey if the stadium could host two franchises. Yes, Kroenke replied, a lease agreement with a second team could be drawn up very quickly.

While Kroenke's new pitch is more generous than his previous position, he may need to go further.

The San Diego Union-Tribune had this take:

A major issue with the Rams' proposed partnership is that while the second team would ostensibly be an equal partner in the stadium, it precludes that team from involvement in the surrounding development, stadium design and other facets that would certainly be points of contention. Essentially, the second team would share construction costs and realize only game-day revenue, according to one source who has seen the proposal.

It was far more likely that Spanos would accept an offer to be a tenant than to take on the debt of construction without a greater stake in the surrounding revenue possibilities.

So Kroenke has more work to do. But if he is willing to play nice, NFL owners could compel Spanos or Davis to take an enhanced deal with him and end this standoff.

If he gets to that point, it would be very hard for Dave Peacock, Jay Nixon and Co. to halt the move.

• NFL owner to STL stadium planners: Firm up financing

Some NFL owners have insisted they won't OK a Rams move if the franchise has a viable stadium plan in place. But that subjective assessment will not be made in a vacuum.

Bottom line: If Kroenke can sell an Inglewood partnership to another team and the owners at large, they will find enough fault with the St. Louis financing to approve the move.

NFL owners are eager to get back into LA. They want a resolution sooner than later. They have kicked this issue down the road for 20 years and they want a solution.

If Kroenke can deliver that solution, he will win the race.

There is no way St. Louis is going to get this done in time, and the naming rights for the river front stadium is a joke. National Car Rental payed 158 million for Naming rights. How much would a company pay for the naming rights to the Inglewood stadium? Maybe more then what Farmers payed for the downtown stadium. Funding will never get passed the alderman, St. Louis is BROKE and at least at this point it looks like they can't get public money for a stadium. The St. Louis task force has 5 weeks to get this done and after all the crap they put forth over the last few months what makes anyone think they will get this done. Its going to be The LA Rams And The LA Chargers in LA in 2016.

Yackemflaber- Welcome to the board. I agree with what you're saying. One minor correction. STL only has about a little more than 3 weeks or 15 business days (until Dec. 28th) to get the financing completed. Even if they come up with financing for only about 30-35% of the stadium there's no way that SK or any other owner would be interested in that in the crummy STL market. The Rams will obviously qualify for relocation and the STL plan won't be acceptable to the NFL.

I wasn't sure where to post these, so I'll just post them here. This won't help STL "firm up" their stadium plan.

Shane Gray STL Rams on Twitter: "@JoeMarciano If it gets out of committee, which looks more likely, I'd say it's over 90% BofA passes it by then."
Shane Gray STL Rams on Twitter: "@JoeMarciano If it gets out of committee, which looks more likely, I'd say it's over 90% BofA passes it by then."

According to Shane, STL will more likely to get it done by 12/28 deadline.

I have no doubt the BoA will pass the package by Dec 28, however,
1). Will the final package be deemed acceptable by Stan and be viewed as such by his fellow NFL owners? Indications are that it would NOT acceptable
2) where will the $75M come from that just got taken off the table from the naming rights payback scheme? The Mizz Legislature? I don't think so.

majik wrote:I have no doubt the BoA will pass the package by Dec 28, however,
1). Will the final package be deemed acceptable by Stan and be viewed as such by his fellow NFL owners? Indications are that it would NOT acceptable
2) where will the $75M come from that just got taken off the table from the naming rights payback scheme? The Mizz Legislature? I don't think so.

I think they pass the bill next week but call me naive bc I don't think it even matters anymore.

What if they go on their scheduled holiday recess/vacation on Dec 11?

The question is, what bill since the proposal has changed and so far the alderman have not seen the revised financials that were sent to the NFL. The other issue is that the new term sheet still uses game day taxes to fund the stadium which is still the owners money since those taxes directly effect the prices the the team can charge.