New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
Status
Not open for further replies.
bluecoconuts said:
Probably unlikely any really hard questions were asked, probably just stuff about details of the stadium, what it does for them, etc. Carson is trying to throw a cherry on top with the land for NFL studios, Kroenke probably pointed out he already will have those buildings ready for them, etc.
Click to expand...

In the Carmen Policy interview I posted above, they are offering the NFL 8 acres rent free to do with what they want.
 
Rmfnlt said:
Good theory... but that's all it is. Each and every stadium project, regardless of where it is, will be different.
Click to expand...

But you just said there would always be a split?

NY and Levi are privately funded.

What you're saying in this post is right: It will vary from situation to situation. There won't always be a public/private split. Like in L.A., it will be 100% private...
 
The Ripper said:
It doesn't just go away, it still will be a consideration when it comes to relocation. It was designed to benefit the Rams not the CVC.
Click to expand...
uh yeah it does go away, the purpose of the clause was to make the lease year to year if it wasn't satisfied. It no longer has any baring on anything.
 
tahoe said:
uh yeah it does go away, the purpose of the clause was to make the lease year to year if it wasn't satisfied. It no longer has any baring on anything.
Click to expand...
Year to year only benefits the CVC and the real benefit was for the right to relocate at the end of any year.
 
MrMotes said:
But you just said there would always be a split?

NY and Levi are privately funded.

What you're saying in this post is right: It will vary from situation to situation. There won't always be a public/private split. Like in L.A., it will be 100% private...
Click to expand...
OK... so we're really slicing and dicing words now.

What I said was:
"Seems there would always be a split."

So, I think you agree with me... each is different.

L.A. will be 100% private but that doesn't mean the others will... and it doesn't mean the NFL will look at L.A. any more favorably.

In fact, if it's true that L.A. simply makes Kroenke more money, that flies in the face of the by-laws (an owner cannot up and move simply because it makes him more money... the NFL values the communities each team is already in).

So, yeah, private... public... kinda doesn't matter when it comes to whether the Rams move or stay.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tahoe
Rmfnlt said:
Good theory... but that's all it is. Each and every stadium project, regardless of where it is, will be different.
Click to expand...
Agree. And so are the financing proposals. One person can say that $350 million is public money in SD and another say it is $500 million and both could be correct. Same with St Louis. So much depends on how they regard the different monies and revenue streams. As I said before, even Santa Clara and NY are not as privately funded as some want to insist.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rmfnlt
Rmfnlt said:
I think you agree with me... each is different.

L.A. will be 100% private but that doesn't mean the others will... and it doesn't mean the NFL will look at L.A. any more favorably.

In fact, if it's true that L.A. simply makes Kroenke more money, that flies in the face of the by-laws (an owner cannot up and move simply because it makes him more money... the NFL values the communities each team is already in).

So, yeah, private... public... kinda doesn't matter when it comes to whether the Rams move or stay.
Click to expand...
Exactly the only reason the Rams have to move to LA is to make more money, whereas the Chargers and Raider reason is that they have outdated and deteriorating stadiums, the only way they will get new stadiums is to build one together and that is their reason for wanting to move.
 
tahoe said:
Exactly the only reason the Rams have to move to LA is to make more money, whereas the Chargers and Raider reason is that they have outdated and deteriorating stadiums, the only way they will get new stadiums is to build one together and that is their reason for wanting to move.
Click to expand...

There also near the bottom in revenues that's the main reason they're looking at LA.
 
ChrisW said:
In the Carmen Policy interview I posted above, they are offering the NFL 8 acres rent free to do with what they want.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's what I'm referring to. They're offering land, Kroenke will have space for that as well (documented a long time ago) with the buildings already there. So Policy is trying to even up with Kroenke. They won't have the buildings, but it'll be rent free. Kroenke will have the buildings but they will likely have some rent involved.
 
RamFan503 said:
Agree. And so are the financing proposals. One person can say that $350 million is public money in SD and another say it is $500 million and both could be correct. Same with St Louis. So much depends on how they regard the different monies and revenue streams. As I said before, even Santa Clara and NY are not as privately funded as some want to insist.
Click to expand...

and they are proposals, neither of which have been countered by the owners of either team
 
  • Like
Reactions: RamFan503
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back