I’ve been trying to think of what to say about yesterday’s NFL non-action around moving teams to L.A. or not — in short, the owners of the St. Louis Rams, Oakland Raiders, and San Diego Chargers submitted presentations on the same L.A. stadium plans that we all already knew about, then no one decided anything — and while I was thinking, Barry Petchesky of Deadspin went and did it for me:
It’s a simple matter of math at this point. The NFL is going to move at least one team—Giants owner Steve Tisch says “it’s better than 50-50” that a decision will be made by the 2016 season—and Oakland is the only chopping-block city currently unwilling to offer its team’s ultrawealthy owners hundreds of millions of dollars to stay. Mark Davis has no attachment to the Bay; sentiment doesn’t factor into it.
Good for Oakland, honestly. It—like St. Louis, like San Diego, like every single American city—has much more important things to spend its limited funds on. But this remains sad news for Raiders fans, who seem likely to lose their team, possibly as soon as next year. It’s not fair, but the NFL has all the leverage, because if Oakland won’t make any concessions, there are other cities that will. The only way the stadium scam will ever be stopped cold is if politicians everywhere simultaneously decide sports leagues don’t deserve handouts. It’s hard to see that happening in the near future. It’ll be even harder when politicians look at football-less Oakland, and know the NFL will be more than happy to call their bluff.
Well, maybe. Undeniably, Oakland has the least close to anything resembling a viable football stadium plan: Whereas St. Louis is offering the Rams to go halfsies on a stadum and isn’t sure how it’ll come up with its half, and San Diego has a plan to pay for maybe a third of a stadium that the Chargers hated the minute it left the presses, Oakland has hopes that maybe one day there will be a plan that can actually debated, but not very strong hopes at that. So with three teams and five slots (counting L.A. as two), it’s hard to picture Oakland not ending up an empty chair when this is all over.
That said, it’s never as simple as all that. What happens next is the NFL owners all sit around and figure out how to decide on which teams should most logically move for next season — oh, sorry, they figure out how to exploit the current situation to make the most money. For the time being (the course of the 2015 season, certainly), that should mean speaking ever more loudly about how two teams will be moving to L.A. in 2016, in order to keep fans and elected officials in St. Louis, San Diego, and Oakland panicked that they not be one of the two.
What happens, though, if — okay, when — we get to January and the three non-L.A. cities are still all in their various states of incomplete deals? Sure, you can set ever-shorter deadlines, you can fly Roger Goodell into town to frighten the state legislature, but eventually you need to decide whether to have your bluff called or not. Which means deciding whether to take the offers on the table from existing cities, or selecting Door #2, whether that be Inglewood or Carson.
And here’s where we run into unknowns again, because we simply don’t have a clue how lucrative the L.A. market is compared to the certain cost of being on the hook for paying for virtually all of the cost of building stadiums in Inglewood or Carson. And for that matter, the NFL may not know either. It all remains a massive game of chicken with unreliable information all around, which is no doubt one reason why the league has been stalling as long as it can, in the hopes that somebody makes somebody an offer they can’t refuse.
If I had to guess, I’d see three options. In one, Rams owner Stan Kroenke gets approval to move to L.A., then either the Raiders or Chargers join them. Whichever team is left out immediately starts threatening to move to St. Louis in order to get a better deal out of it current home town. In the second, the Chargers and Raiders move to Carson as planned, and Kroenke probably takes whatever deal he can get in St. Louis, though he’d lose a ton of leverage at that point. (One reason why option one is more likely to be approved by the NFL.)
Option three is the status quo: The NFL owners can’t come to an agreement, and decide to let things drag on into 2016. I’m not sure I’d say it’s likely — there’s little to be gained from stalling much longer than they have already — but it is 100% possible. Just keep in mind that none of this has to do with what makes sense: It’s a bunch of people demanding ransom in a chaotic situation, and those can often end in unexpected ways.
What are the chances that Kronke will want a second team in “his” building. He seems like the type of guy who wants to keep all the birthday cake for himself. Can the NFL force him to share? Or maybe they can at least force him to put up a ruse of sharing that it will so that will force the hands of San Diego and Oakland?
Of the three cities, it would seem that St. Louis is putting forth the most (misguided) effort to keep its team. If they lose the Rams, do you really think they would want to entice the Chargers or Raiders? Maybe the Bolts, but I can’t say they would welcome the “edge” that comes with ‘Da Raiders with open arms.
If you’re crazy enough to throw $450 million at the Rams, I think it’s fair to say you’ll take any NFL team that will have you.
Is LA building these teams a stadium? Or are the owners just so desperate for the LA market they are willing to build it themselves?
The latter. Unless they’re just bluffing. The answer may surprise you!
Is this going to come down to how much the owners are liked by their peers?
Kroenke can seemingly do this without the need for massive public funds (subsidies, sure, but he doesn’t seem to be asking Inglewood to pony up a few hundred million).
But if the other owners don’t like him, or they like him less than the idea of two teams in LA (which by the way didn’t work too well the last time it happened), then there’s not much he can do.
Six months ago I was thinking Kroenke and the Rams are gone. Now I think it’s 65-35 that the Raiders and Chargers end up in LA and Kroenke ends up in a market he doesn’t want to be (and with a city that probably does’t want him to some extent).
“Is this going to come down to how much the owners are liked by their peers?”
Very probably, because how else do you get 27 guys in a room to make a decision?
I agree with all 3 of Neil’s suggestions, but looking beyond the NFL, Oakland is what I find compelling because it involves the A’s, and even if they A’s remain stagnate– the threat of relocation remains too.
Could the Raiders move to Carson with the Raiders AND the Rams move to Inglewood while Oakland rebuilds on their current site. After the new Oakland stadium is built, the Chargers buy out the Raiders’ share of the Carson stadium project. I know its unlikely that LA will have 2 NFL stadiums, but I don’t look at it as NFL stadiums… I think 2 NFL stadiums along with the 2 current college stadiums would make LA the de facto Olympic/World Cup location, and Olympic/World Cup venues typically go unused for decades after their built. This would give each venue a viable tenant. I can’t justify the cost, but that characteristic of all Olympic/World Cup venues, right?
Back to Oakland, what would happen to the A’s? Could they occupy the Braves old stadium or play their home games in New York for a year or two while the Yankees/Mets are on the road….. I know thats extremely unlikely, but its thinking outside the box. Maybe the A’s occupy the Angels old stadium for a short while if they ever did relocate from Anaheim to Tustin….
The other 4 sports leagues have two teams in the L.A. market, there is no way that only one NFL team moves, it’s either two or none.
I see that side of it: They lost a team before and are desperate to keep this one. But would they roll out the same Brinks truck for a team, ownership and reputation of the Raiders? Would they really get all fired up for all that baggage? I don’t see it. (But I don’t live there either.)
Actually, I would love to see a scenario in which the Rams and Chargers move. If Oakland isn’t doing anything to keep the Raiders now, I can’t see them even listening to Mark Allen’s desperate, pleading voice mails or opening the heart-shaped boxes of candy he sends over. The several dozen roses would all end up unwatered and tossed in the trash.
ecco6t9, Goodell said, ” it would take 2 teams to satisfy the (LA) market” last year. The questions are who? Will there only be one or two stadiums? Will there be 3 teams? and would one of the 3 teams be temporary?
I assume the NFL quietly wants the finish product to have 2 teams in northern California & 2 teams in southern California.
It looks like the USOC is going forward with LA as their US Host City for the 2024 Olympics. I wonder how that will affect current stadium negotiations?
Kroenke is in for LA. Here’s why. The RAIDERS/Chargers Carson deal is a house of cards. Let’s say the Chargers at the 11th hour get the sweetheart deal they have been craving for years and they tell the RAIDERS, “sorry but good luck with the move. What happens to the RAIDERS? They can’t build a stadium in Oakland so how would they build one on their own in Carson. Same scenario for the Chargers if the RAIDERS get the deal. Unless, the NFL has a secret signed agreement from both Mark Davis and Dean Spanos stating that they have no intentions to returning to their cities, I cannot see the owners agreeing to the Carson deal.
So what if Kroenke get the nod and the NFL says you got to take one, which team comes to LA? I say the Chargers for one big reason: The Chargers have spent the last twenty years counting the LA region as theirs and if they were passed over for LA and you have three teams in the Southland, the Chargers will claim they are losing money because of a third team in Southern California. You kill two birds with one stone by moving the Chargers if it come to that.
Neil, I know the whole Raiders/San Antonio thing was initially just a leverage move by Davis to pressure Oakland, but could you see a situation where they end up there anyway? If the Rams and Chargers go to Inglewood, I could see Davis giving San Antonio a real opportunity to empty its coffers for him.
I’m sure Davis would take whatever offers he could get. Hard to see San Antonio outbidding St. Louis, but sure, maybe?
What about the odds on the Rams moving to LA and Raiders to St. Louis? The city’s giving up everything but Kroenke does not seem to want to stay at all.
Anything is possible, but if LA (or one of it’s suburbs) isn’t going to cough up major cash to subsidize one of the world’s most profitable league’s franchises, then I’d suggest neither the Raiders or Chargers are likely to head to LA.
First of all, they’ll have to pay the other owners for the privilege… which is hard to do if you don’t get a welcome wagon gift of at least $250m up front. Then they have to pay for a stadium… which is also hard to do, mostly because you believe you shouldn’t have to ‘cos all the other kids have one and they didn’t pay and…
Both these things will cut heavily into any actual financial benefit of being in LA vs Oakland/San Diego. This is doubly true if there is a decent bribe on the table in either city for these teams to stay (which, as Neil points out, is not presently the case).
Curiously, of course, all three of these teams have at one time called Los Angeles home and abandoned the city for greener pastures.
However, Mr. Kroenke is the wildcard here. He certainly has the means to build his own stadium (without even needing the NFL’s G4 plan or whatever number they are up to these days…). And he has the land he needs already assembled.
Unless his fellow owners have some particular beef with him being in LA, it seems to me he is the most likely to move there… possibly with the proviso that he will not control the whole market and that the league reserves the right to move another team their without his consent (or compensation due) in future.
If it comes down to a popularity contest, we would have to assume that Mr. Davis would finish third (heredity can work both ways)… but which of the other two would win?
… assuming the NFL is actually going to move a team with the ‘best deal possible’ rather than waiting and trying to extort the ‘best deal ever’… which I am not convinced they will in the short term…
When you have people sitting across the table from you piling their money up in front of you and begging you to take it, why on earth would you ever say ‘whoa’?
i make this short and sweet. GO L.A. RAIDERS 2016 Thank you
However this gets decided, I’m fairly certain it won’t be on the basis of votes in comment threads.
For Kroenke to be allowed to move and not the Chargers/Raiders it would mean the NFL would basically:
1) tell a city and state that is basically willing to give them a half a billion in free money “nah don’t bother”
2) Tell two of the longest tenured ownership families “yeah we’re going to let a guy who has been here 5 years go in ahead of you”
3) They will tell the cities that have been dragging their feet on replacing stadiums that are almost 50 years old “yeah you’re good, take your time, we’ll just fill the LA market with the team from the city that is willing to build a new stadium 20 years after opening the last one”
“2) Tell two of the longest tenured ownership families ‘yeah we’re going to let a guy who has been here 5 years go in ahead of you\'”
But that line of thought only applies if you assume that there’s a real net economic benefit in moving to LA. As John noted above, without a subsidy, that’s probably not the case. LA is a threat, not a goal.
“But that line of thought only applies if you assume that there’s a real net economic benefit in moving to LA. As John noted above, without a subsidy, that’s probably not the case. LA is a threat, not a goal.”
Yeah I think its silly for so many teams to be doing this. LA is a tougher market now than it was 20 years ago with so many teams becoming relevant when they were also-rans back in 94. USC football, Angels, Clippers, and Ducks weren’t relevant in 94. I am not sure what Kroenke’s deal is. I am sure there are better uses for the land then a stadium used 10 times a year and St Louis has a good offer.
“…fairly certain it won’t be on the basis of votes in my comment threads…”
Well, Roger Goodell’s decision making hasn’t always proven “unerring”. Maybe he should consider the FoS vote model…
Question Neil: I think (?) we agree that moving to LA might not be as lucrative as some think depending on how much the prospective owner has to self finance the stadium and relocation fee/scheme.
Assuming that is the case, do you have a sense of how valuable the NFL considers the LA market to be to the league as a whole?
One of the things I’ve always struggled with is the notion that LA is “without” football and that that market is full of untapped potential LA NFL fans.
If I’m an NFL fan and live in LA, I get access to MORE NFL product on OTA tv than I would if I were an NFL fan in any franchise host city. Further, I can still buy the NFL direct TV package if I want more. I can also buy Rams, Raiders or Jaguars merch if I want to for that matter.
In your view, is there any basis for the belief that the NFL could “tap” the LA market any more than it presently does if they moved a team there? If so, roughly how much “more” revenue do you think is there to be harvested (in the unwilling organ donor sense, of course)?
Maybe some lifelong Ram or Raider fan would switch to be a Charger fan if they were to move, or vice versa. But I remain unconvinced that there would be a stampede of fans to the new LA team’s merch outlets.
Even adding an expansion team in LA might only do a little more than reallot existing NFL fans from other franchises… I’m sure there would be some new business (particularly amongst the younger fans who grow up with the new team having ‘always’ been LA’s team). But does that really make it worthwhile for either owner or league in the near term?
Aqib:
What you say is correct, it would require making those elections in one form or another. But consider:
1) St. Louis has a plan, but no detail on how to pay for it. St. Louis is also the Cardinals domain period. As when the football Cardinals stopped over on their way from Chicago to Arizona, the Rams will never be the number one property in the city.
2. It’s true the both the Spanos and Davis families have been long term NFL owners. It is also true that both rely very heavily on the revenue from their NFL businesses in a way that most modern NFL owners do not (think Art Modell vs Steve Bisciotti, or Joe Robbie v Wayne Huizenga or Steve Ross). It is also important to remember how quickly a new owner like Jerry Jones displaced others on the NFL competition and expansion committees after arriving on the scene. In short, big money talks in the NFL. They respect their long term partners, but that respect has it’s limits.
Mr. Kroenke is a very wealthy man in his own right. He also happens to have married into America’s richest family. That counts.
“Assuming that is the case, do you have a sense of how valuable the NFL considers the LA market to be to the league as a whole?”
Meh. There’s some untapped revenue in PSLs and ad sales and the like, but what the NFL really cares about is its TV deals, and I don’t think they’d get anything extra for having an L.A. team or two. Which is why they’ve happily gone so long without an L.A. team.
I think this entire thing was set off by Kroenke deciding to play he Inglewood card, which forced the Chargers and Raiders to counter with Carson, to be sure they weren’t left out. (Whether left out of getting to move or of getting to threaten to move, there’s no way to tell.) At this point it’s possible not even the owners involved remember whether this was supposed to be a bluff or not, given how caught up everyone is in not being the team left without a chair when the music stops.
The moral: It’s usually a mistake to assume that sports team owners know what they’re doing any more than we do.
@John Bladen
Good move bring in Art Modell and Steve Bisciotti. Art Model, the long time owner of the Cleveland Brown/Baltimore Ravens got the new stadium, the revenue from tickets, suites, concessions, etc… and was still drowning so the NFL threw him a life preserver in Bisciotti who got a minority share of the Ravens. Bisciotti, being a billionaire was not going to be in Modell’s shadow so it was agreed upon that Model would sell his majority share minus 1% to Bisciotti. The NFL is a billionaire boys club. Mark Davis, Alex/Dean Spanos may be long-term ownership but at the end of the day they are not billionaires in their own right and there lies the problem. Kroenke is in the driver seat because he is in that club and he can move mountains.
“Aqib:
What you say is correct, it would require making those elections in one form or another. But consider:
1) St. Louis has a plan, but no detail on how to pay for it. St. Louis is also the Cardinals domain period. As when the football Cardinals stopped over on their way from Chicago to Arizona, the Rams will never be the number one property in the city.
2. It’s true the both the Spanos and Davis families have been long term NFL owners. It is also true that both rely very heavily on the revenue from their NFL businesses in a way that most modern NFL owners do not (think Art Modell vs Steve Bisciotti, or Joe Robbie v Wayne Huizenga or Steve Ross). It is also important to remember how quickly a new owner like Jerry Jones displaced others on the NFL competition and expansion committees after arriving on the scene. In short, big money talks in the NFL. They respect their long term partners, but that respect has it’s limits.
Mr. Kroenke is a very wealthy man in his own right. He also happens to have married into America’s richest family. That counts.”
The first line is entirely wrong. The City of St Louis already has won a court ruling allowing them to put up money and the state is within a few weeks of the same (no judge wants to be the one to kill the deal). Oakland has no plan at all. San Diego can’t put one together anytime soon.
Every owner in the NFL is a billionaire. They aren’t going to be wowed by the fact that someone else is as well. Your last line the Kroenke is wealthy in his own right and he “happens to have married into America’s richest family” is so false its laughable. Kroenke made his money developing strip malls anchored by Wal-Marts after he married into the family.
As for old owners vs new owners look at who is on the committee for LA opportunities. 5 out of the 6 are owners who have been there 20 years or more. Three of them Rooney, Mara, and Hunt are from families that have been there over 50 years. So while some new owners have gotten powerful positions in the league, its pretty obvious they are differing to long time owners to drive the decision.
“The first line is entirely wrong. The City of St Louis already has won a court ruling allowing them to put up money and the state is within a few weeks of the same (no judge wants to be the one to kill the deal).”
Actually, it’s the state that won a court ruling allowing it to allocate city money without a public vote. It still needs to actually find the money, though, and then have the legislature approve spending it (and possibly the city council as well, depending on what money it is).
There is a rather large funding gap in St. Louis at present. I’m sure Gov. Nixon has some ideas for how to fill it, but he hasn’t spelled those out yet, let alone gotten them approved.
My prediction of the ultimate result of the NFL/LA shuffle:
1. Rams announce move to LA for 2016, will play in LA Coliseum until Inglewood Stadium is built
2. Chargers announce partnership with Rams, rebranded as “Southern California Chargers”. Depending on whether the LA Coliseum will take two teams, they’ll play there as well. If not, they’ll play several lame duck seasons at Jack Murphy until the Inglewood Stadium is built.
3. NFL throws a bone to San Diego, agrees that the Southern California Chargers will play two home games a year in San Diego. Games will take place at Jack Murphy if SDSU wants to keep upkeep on it after the Chargers bolt. If not and Jack Murphy is leveled, games will be played somewhat awkwardly at Petco Park.
4. Carson remains the home of the Carson Landfill and nothing else.
5. Raiders leave Oakland in 2016 for…..St. Louis. They play at the Edward Jones Dome pending construction of the St. Louis riverfront stadium.
6. Oakland, you’re out. Please pack your bags and leave.
Rams/Chargers share a new stadium in LA. Raiders move to st Louis are in with the 49ers. A’s get new stadium on site.
“Actually, it’s the state that won a court ruling allowing it to allocate city money without a public vote. It still needs to actually find the money, though, and then have the legislature approve spending it (and possibly the city council as well, depending on what money it is).
There is a rather large funding gap in St. Louis at present. I’m sure Gov. Nixon has some ideas for how to fill it, but he hasn’t spelled those out yet, let alone gotten them approved.”
Yeah the city will be allowed to put up its piece, the state “extending bonds” or whatever they want to call it should get its court ruling soon. Missouri has retention elections for their judges, pretty sure no judge wants to be the one that kills the Rams deal. We know how the theater goes. Some politicians suddenly find religion on fiscal responsbility to take a stand on $12 million a year in state funds out of a $36 billion budget but it winds up being grandstanding as at the end of the day it always goes through. Does any politician really want to be the deciding vote that results in a team leaving?
I think we can all agree though that despite the fact its not 100% done the St Louis plan has a path to get there, where as San Diego does not. Oakland’s plan doesn’t exist. I just don’t see how the NFL would leave two franchises in 50 year old stadiums where a deal is nearly impossible in order to accomodate one which could have a deal done by the end of the year.
I suspect the Dallas Cowboys have a large following in LA, especially with training camp at Oxnard. They won’t be happy with many Dallas games on Fox replaced by the Rams (or the Raiders or Chargers if moved to the NFC).
Wouldn’t it be cool if Charger, Raider, and Rams fans totally boycotted home games this season?
Put the Rams and Raiders in Inglewood and use the relocation fees to help fund a new stadium in SD.
Or Put the Rams and Chargers in Inglewood and tell the Raiders to move into Levi’s like the NFL wanted in the first place (or let them pursue St. Louis or San Antonio).
I still think that first one makes the most sense, in part because the Chargers are by far the least desired of the 3 teams by NFL fans in LA. And I still believe that there is no realistic chance that the Raiders will get a new stadium in the Bay Area. I’ve asked it before, and I’ll ask it again: Why would the NFL provide funding for 2 new stadiums in the Bay Area (2nd being a hypothetical standalone Raiders stadium) when they wouldn’t do it in New York (NJ) and have said they won’t do it in LA. So to me, the only way the Raiders stay in Oakland is in the existing stadium and the only other way they stay in the Bay Area is by moving into Levi’s.
Aqib: It seems clear you hate Kroenke. What I don’t understand is why you appear bent on ‘explaining away’ his business success (a significant portion of which was achieved before his wife inherited her share of the family empire)?
Kroenke is a very rich man. The NFL likes extremely rich men even better than it likes members of the Rooney and Mara families. He has the means to make LA happen. Neither Davis nor Spanos appear to have that card to play.
If you are going to “award” the prize Los Angeles is perceived to be to one of your owners, which would you choose?
Aqib-
Funding at the state level will be very difficult for Nixon, since most people in the state are Chiefs fans. He not only has to convince the non-St. Louis representatives to vote for it, but there will be some from St. Louis who will oppose it anyway. A legislator from KC or Springfield would have no issues letting the Rams leave.
“Aqib: It seems clear you hate Kroenke. What I don’t understand is why you appear bent on ‘explaining away’ his business success (a significant portion of which was achieved before his wife inherited her share of the family empire)?
Kroenke is a very rich man. The NFL likes extremely rich men even better than it likes members of the Rooney and Mara families. He has the means to make LA happen. Neither Davis nor Spanos appear to have that card to play.
If you are going to “award” the prize Los Angeles is perceived to be to one of your owners, which would you choose?”
John its clear that you want the Rams to wind up in LA to the point where you will make stuff up. You look at Kroenke’s life story he made the money he made because he married into the right family. Just because he became a billionaire before his father-in-law died leaving billions more to his wife doesn’t mean that he didn’t make money because of who he was married to. Its spelled out right here:
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/page/hotread150318/st-louis-rams-owner-sparks-nfl-chaos-plan-move-team-los-angeles
If the NHL likes the extremely rich more than they like the Rooney and Mara families than why are members of the Rooney and Mara families on the committee and Jerry Jones, Paul Allen, Steve Biscioitti not? Again you’re ignoring actual facts in favor of assertions.
As for who would I choose, personally I wouldn’t choose anyone to go to LA. I think its stupid to think that after 20 years of not missing the NFL at all that it will be different this time around is silly. However, given the 2 proposals I pick SD and Oakland. Why? Becuase neither one of those teams has any chance of getting a deal done in their home market.
Also keep this in mind: both the St Louis stadium and Carson project are being backed by Goldman Sachs, which is where Eric Grubman the league’s point man on the stadium issues used to work. You know where the term “Government Sachs” comes from? Its because a whole bunch of Goldman alums wind up in the US Treasury (including Secretaries in both Republican and Democratic adminstrations) and things just magically go Goldman’s way. Look at how many franchise sales are brokered by Goldman. So while Stan is rich, Goldman is richer. So in addition to solving actual problems of 2 franchises instead of a non-problem of one, I have the backing of Goldman? Yeah I’ll take that.
I don’t know (no one does) but the Raiders seem to be in a stalemate situation.
It’s a given that stadiums are money losers, which is why owners try to pawn them off on cities. As much as anywhere most of California is ahead of the rest of the country in terms of public opposition to stadium funding. As such, most or all of the funding in LA or Oakland will have to be private.
If he thought owning the LA market was worth it, Kroenke could eat the loss of building a stadium. The Spanos family has less money than Kroenke, but they could probably manage it. Mark Davis doesn’t have that kind of money. Unlike the other two who made money and bought a team partially as vanity, Davis simply inherited his team from Al, who owned the Raiders and little else.
As such, the Raiders could move as the junior tenant of the Chargers or Rams but they probably can’t go to LA alone. That means if they have to go it alone they probably need to move out of California and to a state where stadium subsidies are less toxic.
What’s not quite clear as well is if LA is even that attractive. Yes, it is large, but most NFL revenue comes from national sources (TV deals, etc.) so you could move to Des Moines and do fine.
Furthermore, while LA is bigger than any of these cities, the Bay Area has a median income 30% higher than LA so the two aren’t too probably aren’t far apart in terms of people who can afford astronomical ticket prices. San Diego also has a higher median income than LA. From a business perspective St. Louis is the only metro area which is both substantially smaller and substantially poorer than LA.
Of course, the obvious outcome would be Mark Davis selling the Raiders and then letting a new owner with more options figure it out but he seems dead set against that.
Let me remind everyone that the Russell Athletic Field at Edward Jones Dome (formerly Trans World Dome) is 19 years old and cost $433 million to build (in today’s dollars). I wonder what we will be saying 20 years from now about today’s new billion dollar stadiums. meh?
I seriously don’t think who has the most money in the bank will have much to do with anything. Yes, Kroenke can fund a stadium out of his own pocket, but if an L.A. stadium pencils out as a good investment, then Spanos and Davis can easily enough go to a financial firm (Goldman or whoever) and just borrow the money. And if it doesn’t pencil out, then why would any of these owners want to do it in the first place?
(Unless you think Kroenke might want to just go and do this out of spite or crazy roll-the-dice investment gambling, which I suppose is possible, but doesn’t really seem his style.)
I don’t think it’s “spite” per se, though gambling is perhaps more apt.
Moving to LA is a risky proposition. The previous teams there did not do well financially. Kroenke can safely eat the downside risk. He doesn’t have to finance the deal at the high risk premium such an investment would entail. If Davis was to do it he’d have to finance essentially the whole thing and if he fails, he’s potentially wiped out. He walks away with nothing–no money, no sports team, he’s just a schlub.
By the way, in the end because of the economics of the NFL, I don’t think any of these teams are moving to LA. There’s little to be gained in changing markets if you have to pay for a stadium yourself. I’m simply pointing out Kroenke can if he wants to, Spanos probably can if he wants to and Davis probably can’t.
My guess is at least they think it will pencil out. While LA isn’t anywhere close to as hardcore about its NFL teams at NY is, the Jets/Giants were able to pull it off. While I think there will be issues over the long term in terms of keeping attendence up, my guess is they have figured the upfront PSLs and sponsoring every corner of the stadium will go a long way to financing it.
Jerry Buss showed that if done right, an owner can become a big celebrity in Los Angeles. Sometimes I think this might be the goal for Stan Kroenke.
Rams & Chargers move to Inglewood. Chargers pay rent for a couple years.
LA builds an Olympic/World Cup Stadium like Sochi did, and Chargers relocate their afterwards so there’s not another vacant stadium. An NFL team may be the best possible thing that could happen to a vacant Olympic/World Cup stadium other than being 100% privately funded.
Raiders relocate to San Antonio, and play in the Alamo Dome for a couple years while Texas does the southern thing & bends over for another new sports venue. There would then be 3 NFL teams in Texas, California, Florida, and New York……
I still have no idea what happens to the A’s.
It’s a conundrum. How does one build a stadium where no public stadium cash can be found? Wise Roger has pointed the way… 2 teams must occupy this land, doubling the much needed G4 dough.
But then a new conundrum arises – how do you let two members of the Club of 32 double their franchise values while 30 other member’s beaks grow parched at the very thought of this maneuvering?
So much money is needed, for land, construction, payola. Even the mighty NFL is finding that mountain hard to surmount, especially in the land of NPSC – No Public Stadium Cash.
What then do we do with the L.A. market? What we’ve done for 20 years – sell pictures of stadiums dressed in the colors of the teams whose home cities we need to snap to attention, and extort all the public stadium gravy there is!
@ John Bladen, you are amazingly uninformed. The Rooney and Mara families are much more respected than Stan Kroenke, and your relocation fee speculation is pure fantasy. The last 3 relocation fees charged were all $29 million. The destination of the relocation has always been irrelevant when coming up with the fee amount and fees have always been negligible. You really need to do your homework.
St. Louis and MO know exactly where their public funding is coming from, both the city of St. Louis and the State of Missouri won the lawsuits over the bond extension. The tax credits are simply a formality waiting for Kroenke to commit to the riverfront project.
It’s simply impossible for a single team to generate the revenue streams needed to service $1.7 billion or $1.85 billion worth of debt. The Inglewood stadium plan, as it’s been sold to the media, is a complete and total farce. The NFL has made it painfully clear that they don’t like owners relying on a surrounding real estate development to fund a stadium project. The NFL isn’t going for another landlord tenant relationship like the failed Meadowlands experiment. Carson owns the stadium land and has agreed to own the stadium which will shield all stadium building revenues like PSLs, naming rights, and luxury suite sales from both Federal and State income taxes. Kroenke’s stadium initiative did manage to get an open ended tax reimbursement deal for the HPLC project that’s potentially worth $100s of millions even if a stadium is never built. It was a clever fleecing of the Inglewood taxpayers based on the hype of an NFL team.
All of the credible data proves that the Raiders and Chargers are the most popular teams in the greater LA region and the Carson site is far superior to Inglewood because Carson is 157 contiguous acres dedicated to football while the Inglewood plan is trying to shoe-horn a stadium and parking into less than 60 acres with no room for practice facilities. Carson also has direct freeway to site access from the north and south.
Too many uninformed people get hung up on the fact that the Carson site is a former landfill not knowing that Metlife stadium is also built on a toxic waste dump that went through all of the same remediation and capping that Carson has been going through over the last decade. Over $150 million worth of cleanup has already been performed and the city of Carson has approved over $50 million in funding to install the methane extraction wells and cap the cite.
Carson is the clear leader at this point but I’m sure Kroenke will try his best to extract more public funding from his current market.
Guys, let’s watch the edging into personal insults, okay? Everyone here has a lot of good points to make, and I don’t want to have to start deleting any of them.
David, source on your statement that “Metlife stadium is also built on a toxic waste dump”? So far as I know, it was originally a wetland, then a parking lot.
And yes, the state of Missouri won its lawsuit on the bond extension. The bond extension isn’t going to be enough to pay for the public’s share of the stadium by itself, though, and Nixon hasn’t identified another source yet:
“Initially, Governor Nixon proposed to finance the new Rams stadium with the same government spending plan as the current stadium: $24 million a year, with half coming from the state, and the other half split between the county and the city. Unfortunately, the new stadium’s public cost would not only be higher—$400 million now versus $300 million then—but would also need to account for the roughly $100 million debt remaining on the Edward Jones Dome, plus about $40 million in needed maintenance. (Under Nixon’s plan, St. Louis would keep the Jones Dome intact, apparently in order to keep hosting conventions, which is a terrible, terrible idea.) Then, earlier this year, Nixon decided to jettison from the new stadium plan $6 million a year in funding from the county, because it still has that referendum requirement and, unlike Mayor Slay, county leaders are actually attached to it.
“So that leaves us with … hang on, let me call up a calculator. There would be $540 million in costs with $18 million a year to pay it off over 30 years, which would work if St. Louis could just get an interest rate of … zero percent. Hm.”
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/st-louis-stiff-arms-local-voters-to-keep-wooing-the-rams
“David, source on your statement that “Metlife stadium is also built on a toxic waste dump”? So far as I know, it was originally a wetland, then a parking lot”
I was living in NY when Karl Nelson was diagnosed with cancer in 1987, that was the 4th Giants player to be diagnosed in the decade prior. I vaguely recalled people mentioning the site history as a cause.
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/07/15/nyregion/athletes-cancers-a-coincidence-study-of-meadowlands-site-finds.html
There are plenty of toxic waste sites around the Meadowlands, but I don’t believe any actually required remediation for the stadium itself.
The Meadowlands are in New Jersey. Does that not, by definition, qualify The Meadowlands as a toxic waste dump?
Anyone calling either Carson or Inglewood the clear leader is doing nothing but representing their own opinions as if they were facts. There is no indication as to which site the other owners are favoring. It’s pure speculation at this point and will remain so until October at the very earliest.
David, you might want to actually read what I wrote before mischaracterising it in an attempted rebuttal. And follow the posting guidelines this site employs.
At no point did I say that the Mara and Rooney families were not respected (quite the opposite in fact), just that that has limits (and money talks more than respect does in the NFL ownership club these days).
The last two (or five) relocation fees are utterly irrelevant to the discussion of new teams in Los Angeles 15-20 years later (think about the expansion fee that Carolina and Jacksonville paid vs Houston’s fee). As you may have noticed, the sports world has changed a great deal since Al Davis moved (either time). No sports league exerted “ownership” over vacant markets prior to 1995, for example. They certainly do now, and their bylaws reflect that.
If any existing owner wants to go to LA, they will have to buy that right from their partners. If you followed the court case commonly referred to as Raiders II, you will recall that a formula for relocation was invoked as part of that – namely the value of the new market obtained less the value of the old market surrendered.
For the NFL to allow an existing team into LA, that’s going to be an awful lot of money.
If there’s a substantial relocation fee, no way on earth do any teams move to L.A. Not unless “value of the new market” takes into account that nearly $2 billion cost of building a new stadium.
I still can’t for the life of me figure out whether the NFL is serious about all this, entirely bluffing, or somewhere in between. Which is I guess exactly the kind of confusion that benefits them, so nice work, NFL!
Aqib: You have accused me of making stuff up.
Then you claim that the Rooney’s and Mara families are on the NHL expansion committee…
For the record, if you read what I wrote I said Jones quickly displaced others on committees as a new owner – not that he currently holds any particular position. Like David, you seem to enjoy misquoting me then arguing with the misquotation. Curious.
I have no interest in any particular team moving to LA (or an team moving there at all). You seem to take any suggestion that it might be the Rams very personally… far too personally in fact.
Kroenke was a wealthy man before he married into the Walton family. He had a successful property business before then too. Why is these such contentious facts for you? Do you have a personal issue with him that we should be aware of?
The disadvantage that the Raiders and Chargers have is financial. That is not in question. Whether it will be the deciding factor (or mean anything at all in the end, as suggested by others) is very much up for debate.
Debate. Not baseless and inaccurate insults.
Neil: I tend to agree that there are too many financial obstacles to an existing team relocating to LA. for it to make sense. I suspect that the current media campaign is all about trying to have taxpayers pay to cover some of those obstacles and nothing else.
I suppose if it was an expansion team, the horse-choking expansion fee could pass for both. But still, at $1.2-$1.5Bn just for the team (which would still be less than the adjusted cost of Bob McNair’s Texans based on the rate at which sports franchises are appreciating), it’s hard to see how it makes economic sense to be the new LA owner.
Then again, no-one thought the Dodgers would go for more than $1Bn. They did. No-one thought the Clippers would go for more than $700m. They did.
All it really takes is a very rich old guy with an ego-rection, I guess….
@Lefty – Even if LA gets its its ducks in a row and submits before the 15 Sept deadline for the 2024 Olympics and then wins (Paris is going to be a crazy strong challenger) the existing planners have said all along that the opening/closing ceremonies will be in the LA Memorial Colleseum, so there will be no new Olympic stadium built. USC, who controls the site, has also said they’ll tolerate a short term NFL tenant but they have no interest in a NFL team, being there long term.
“Aqib: You have accused me of making stuff up.
Then you claim that the Rooney’s and Mara families are on the NHL expansion committee…
For the record, if you read what I wrote I said Jones quickly displaced others on committees as a new owner – not that he currently holds any particular position. Like David, you seem to enjoy misquoting me then arguing with the misquotation. Curious.
I have no interest in any particular team moving to LA (or an team moving there at all). You seem to take any suggestion that it might be the Rams very personally… far too personally in fact.
Kroenke was a wealthy man before he married into the Walton family. He had a successful property business before then too. Why is these such contentious facts for you? Do you have a personal issue with him that we should be aware of?
The disadvantage that the Raiders and Chargers have is financial. That is not in question. Whether it will be the deciding factor (or mean anything at all in the end, as suggested by others) is very much up for debate.
Debate. Not baseless and inaccurate insults.”
No what I take personally is someone making things up and then using stuff they make up to argue with me. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Kroenke was not a wealthy man before marrying his wife. He didn’t start his business until after they were married for 10 years. 30 seconds on google will tell you everything. They met in college so no he was not wealthy. I am not accusing you of making stuff up anymore than I accuse the sun of rising in the east. I am simply stating a fact.
I also did not say that Mara and Rooney were on the expansion committee. There is no expansion committee. I said they are on the committee for LA Opportunities. Which they are. Its right here: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000469646/article/roger-goodell-forms-committee-on-la-opportunities
So if you want to debate don’t say things that can be disproved in 30 seconds.
Knock it off, both of youse.
Debating each other’s arguments is fine, but the next person who starts making accusations about lying or casting aspersions on someone else’s motives gets a seat in the penalty box.
I’m not arguing that the St. Louis plan is financially sound or in anyway a good idea but they do know where the public money is coming from for the new stadium.
At least $201 million (could be more depending on interest rates at the time of offering) is coming from the city’s and state’s share of the bond rollover, paid from a tax on tourists. St. Louis County’s annual cut of the TOT will be dedicated to paying off the dome. They are SOL on the operating losses, they believe they will make up the difference on the 5+ months conventions are blocked from using the dome every year, but again I’m not arguing this is financially sound I’m just telling you where the funding is coming from.
$187 million is coming from multiple tax credit programs.
$60 million from PSLs, the rest would go towards the owner’s contribution.
This is where they get their $448 million amount of public funding. I think it’s a horrible idea and I think Kroenke will want more public funding and to have all PSL revenue considered part of his “contribution”, but that’s $388 mil to $448 million more than San Diego or Oakland are coming up with.
An LA stadium is doable with 2 teams splitting the costs of one stadium. They would need G-4 funding and I know the rule against relocating teams receiving that funding but as Eric Grubman says those are more like subjective guidelines than hard rules. NFL “rules” are whatever the owners agree to.
The Kroenke has “deep pockets” argument is simply ridiculous. No owner is paying for a new stadium from their personal assets.
@ Neil, Here’s the info on the Meadowlands site.
“Since its establishment in 1969, the New Jersey Meadowlands Commission (NJMC) has worked to ensure the proper control, closure and remediation of landfills throughout the Meadowlands District. In 1969, there were nearly 1,900 acres of unregulated landfills in the region…”
njmeadowlands.gov/njmc/about/solid-waste.html
New Meadowlands Stadium Project – Preliminary Environmental Impact Statement
Some of what’s under the Metlife stadium site “PCBs, benzene, chrysene, bis(2ethylhexyl)phthalate, phenol, pesticides (i.e.,dieldrin), antimony, barium, copper, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, lead, and zinc.”
“Prior to the 1970s, unregulated filling of wetlands in the HMD was performed to create sites for commercial and industrial facilities. There is little information available on the origin, ownership, types of material used, or of other details of these filled areas. In addition, municipal sewage and industrial wastes have been discharged to the lower Hackensack River and its tributaries for more than 150 years. A study performed in 1995 by the USEPA and the USACE identified 68 industrial discharges, 3 power generating plants, 7 wastewater treatment plants, 32 combined sewer overflows, 12 emergency overflows, and 16 landfills in the HMD (USACE and USEPA, 1995).”
nj.gov/dep/special/meadowlands/docs/eisvol1sect4.8-4.10.pdf
The Carson stadium site has been going through years of remediation and only needs the final step of installing methane wells and capping the site. Carson city council has already approved the spending of $50+ million to finish the job.
—————- Here’s a snipit of the LA Times report on Carson
“State says Carson site ready for construction of NFL stadium”
“”It is safe,” said Emad Yemut, a supervising engineer for the state Toxic Substances Control Department, which oversees the decontamination effort. “Everything is done.”
Yemut said the site still needs a series of extraction wells to remove methane and other gases from 157 tainted acres, but it could be installed in six months to a year once a final plan for a stadium is approved.”
latimes.com/local/california/la-me-nfl-carson-stadium-20150221-story.html
The construction for the stadium’s foundation can be performed while the extraction wells are installed.
David: Thanks for the Meadowlands info, but I still don’t see anything indicating that the stadium site itself needed remediation. Not a big deal, though.
On the St. Louis stadium plan, they might be able to squeeze $201 million out of the existing Jones Dome taxes. (They have $18m a year to play with, but also have about $100m in dome bonds still to pay off, so if they can get a 4% rate they’ll be okay.) And I see that they’re now (as of today) claiming $187m from tax credits, but it looks like they’ve only actually identified $50m worth of those, which is a rather large gap.