Posted on 10/31/2021 5:14:57 AM PDT by MarvinStinson
Was that stadium “way out” of the top 25% ranking, or just a little bit out?
Seems really convenient that it happened just as the second-largest city in the country had no NFL team, so any team going there would be almost guaranteed a big TV deal ... and the Rams staying in StL was contingent only on ONE guy’s subjective opinion
really convenient
It was in the bottom. One of the oldest stadiums in the league and hadn’t had a major renovation. The Rams actually stayed for one lease cycle beyond the rating dropping.
It was very convenient to the NFL for a long time that LA didn’t have a team. It was a great threat that lead to a whole bunch new and renovated stadiums.
Actually NFL teams don’t get local TV deals. Radio yes, but TV broadcasting is run entirely by the incredibly lucrative national deals.
You’re a stubborn one, aren’t you? The Rams leaving may have added to the cities financial problems, but having the team there was a money loser regardless.
To begin with, the stadium costs the taxpayers $280 million dollars. Plus interest.
“To cover costs, the city paid about $6 million for annual debt service and maintenance for the stadium but collected only about $4.2 million in direct revenues from Rams games, according to the Mayor’s office.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN0VC0EP
There were guaranteed sellouts, plus other financial benefits thrown at Madame Ram. Almost nothing was given Kronke to move the team back.
I’m just telling the facts. The facts are that the deal to get the Rams there included a guarantee that the stadium would stay in the top 25%. The city did not do what was necessary to maintain that. That’s what it all boils down to. $280 million 20 years earlier means NOTHING. The city failed to upgrade the stadium to keep it in the top 25%. PERIOD. If they city had kept their half the bargain the Rams would still be in St Louis.
Your problem is you’re obsessing on picayune details that MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. A lot happened to get the Rams deal together, including some very cheap land and the freedom for Kronke to do basically whatever he wanted with it. While from the angle you’re coming at that doesn’t seem like much. It is. You can tell because the Rams moved. Inglewood gave Kronke what he wanted. While that might not have been stuff in my original list it still matters, because my list was just examples of what often is included in these kind of deals. Wasn’t doctrine. Wasn’t saying those were in every deal. Simply that those were thing that often made these moves good business deals.
The Rams move was a good business deal. The details of which mean NOTHING. Stop obsessing on what doesn’t matter.
I’m not obsessing about anything. We are talking at cross purposes here. I suppose it’s true, the deals the pro teams make are good fir their businesses. But it’s crony capitalism. The taxpayer gets hosed every time. The city of St Louis threw A LOT more money at Georgia Frontiere than they did at Stan Kronke. It’s a myth that cities benefit from having an NFL team.
“If they city had kept their half the bargain the Rams would still be in St Louis.”
Maybe, maybe not. They may have found another way to wiggle out. He wanted OUT of St Louis. He had no desire to stay. Kronke is a developer and he’s developing the land in Inglewood in ways he NEVER would have be able to in St Louis.
Sure it’s crony capitalism. That’s life in the big leagues. Happens with all the big businesses. I never said cities benefit from NFL teams. Or most of these deals. If you look at what happens down stream on these things the city almost always comes out behind. But the elected officials get the bragging rights which gets them re-elected.
I remember when the Tucson city council threw all kinds of benefits at MS to put a support center here. They wanted the “prestige” of a “major” MS business in the area, with all kinds of “once they’re here maybe this that or the other thing will happen”. Well what happened was 6 months later MS sold their entire support business to another company. And none of the pipe dreams of the city council came to pass.
He didn’t want to stay but they opened the door for him. Gave him the easy excuse. And showed they weren’t willing to work with him. Maybe if they’d have started working on a refurbishing deal they’d have showed a willingness to develop that would have been a good deal to him. Maybe he would have been able to do in St Louis what he’s done in Inglewood. But I don’t think they understood it’s business. So they lost.
Again, he got very few incentives to move back to LA. That’s a fact.
Except the freedom of working with people who understood it was a business. As opposed to people who expected him to stay just because. And I’m sure there was a lot of lubricant helping him get all that land.
So what is a team’s salary cap this year?
If they want a new stadium let them pool their money and build them. Set-up a schedule to replace stadiums and they can pay for them and build them to their own standards.
“To cover costs, the city paid about $6 million for annual debt service and maintenance for the stadium but collected only about $4.2 million in direct revenues from Rams games, according to the Mayor’s office.”
And if that were the math, then what the city would be complaining about was that ticket prices weren’t 50% higher...and always sold out.
American “football” = zzzzzzzzzzzz
Sellouts weren’t an issue. The city of St Louis guaranteed sellouts even the Rams moved out if LA. They were obligated to buy any unsold tickets.
St. Louis would certainly have more net revenue if someone else was buying those tickets instead of the city, and thus part of the city’s complaint would be from a lack of sellouts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.