I read between studies on cultural impact , lawyers and whatever, St. Louis politicians spent $16 million to keep the Rams. Too bad that money couldn't have gone towards an MLS expansion fee.
I don't think Municipalities typical front the cash for MLS expansion though I could be wrong. Also - I doubt very much that people in St. Luis (who are already upset on the public funds spent for the Rams) would like that money to go to MLS (or other private enterprise). What's odd to me is that Kroenke wanted SL to pay for the stadium but in LA he is essentially building it himself (with investors). I know the development would be much more than a stadium but that shows me he had no intention of sticking around St. Louis regardless of what the city did or did not do. James
You are right. They probably don't care as much about gaining an MLS team as opposed to losing and/or keeping an NFL one. It still seems like such a waste though to pay $16 million to lawyers and for cultural impact studies which resulted in nothing. I am sure however, a potential MLS owner will have loved to use that money towards a new team. Kroenke probably believes he will get a faster and more profitable return on his investment in LA than he ever would remaining in St. Louis. He will be 70 by the next NFL season and he probably wants to make and spend as much money as he can while he is still alive to enjoy it.
An NFL team in LA is much more valuable than one in St Louis. The estimate is that it will be worth roughly $500 million to move to LA (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/13/the-winners-of-the-nfls-move-back-to-la.html). NFL is a bit unusual in that I don't think they have local TV contracts, so the TV benefit of being in LA versus St. Louis not really a benefit of moving there (whereas the Dodgers make huge amounts on local contracts). The LA market is very large so the NFL wants to be there, but the NFL also loves those half billion dollar stadium taxpayer funded subsidies. The city of LA figured they could just wait the NFL out and not offer one, and it obviously worked. The math for MLS and NFL is a bit different, as they are operating on significantly different budgets. NFL probably cares little for how many people would shell out $30 bucks for a ticket, and cares much more about the ability of a city to support high end luxury suites. The cheapest average NFL ticket price is $57 (http://www.statista.com/statistics/193595/average-ticket-price-in-the-nfl-by-team/) and last year the Rams had an average attendance of 57k. If the new LA team fills it 70k seat stadium with the average price of the 49ers, the would make $40 million a year more on ticket sales alone. Count increased advertizing revenue and other streams, and this is lots of money. The stadium will apparently have 15-20k clubseats/boxes (http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl-new...os-inglewood-dallas-cowboys-minnesota-vikings), which is really quite incredible and will surely make them ungodly piles of money. MLS sells the live experience and tries to get fans out, and I think at this point the NFL really is mostly a televised phenomenon and in cities like LA they really are just trying to sell luxury boxes and, to a lesser extent, to fans who can pony up serious money. Most fans will never (or rarely) go to a game, and in most stadiums they are clearly designed with luxury seats in mind and not the typical fan (MLS is an exception).
CA cities and their taxpayers are more ahead of curve in recognizing fields of scheme than most other areas of the country. There are exceptions of course. The last Oakland Raiders taxpayer fiasco was the last nail .... In 30 years billionaires will have to use their own money. Kroenke simply accepted reality in CA. And all the money he spends will still turn a nice profit in LA
I'm not sure this is true. Just a wee bit south of LA there is a CA city, San Diego, which was trying to keep the Chargers and threw $350 million in public money into the pot last year. http://espn.go.com/blog/san-diego-c...nal-stadium-proposal-to-keep-chargers-in-town The people are almost never for stadium subsidies, and any time the use of public funds comes up for a vote it always gets voted down (so far as I can tell). But elected officials don't want to lose the team and open up the bank for owners (regardless of political affiliation, see Scott Walker and the new Bucks arena). LA is unique in that it is the second largest market in the US and knows that it is a greatly desired market for all sports leagues. St Louis is well aware that if they decide not to use public money to build an NFL stadium (or NBA Arena), they will never get an NBA or NFL team. This is the right choice, as public money shouldn't be used for private sports teams, but letting a beloved sports franchise skip town is probably not an easy political sale. Also, leagues are very, very invested in keeping the tax dollars flowing and will go to great lengths to ensure this happens (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...ento_to_wring_out_more_stadium_subsidies.html). For cities who aren't in the top 10 MSA (and really things drop off quickly from NYC->LA->Chicago->Dallas), no sports league really needs your market if you don't already have a team. So if you don't have a team and don't want to pony up the cash, you aren't getting a team, even if some ownership group wants to move you there and pay for the stadium yourself. The league would block it (except LA). If you do have a team and it isn't a particularly strong franchise, the owners will threaten to move unless public funds are you used for a new stadium, and this threat is real. For teams that don't want to change markets, you can always play different suburbs off of each other until one gives you bags of money. I hope in 30 years this isn't the case, but I would be surprised.
You're not the majority of the country. It's not odd. He was moving the team. There was no other real consideration. The relocation fee alone is $500 million before they put a dollar into actually building a privately financed stadium. That says something about the LA market.
Guy could spend a million bucks a week for the remainder of his life and still end up ahead. What does he need more money for, again?
And this is why "soccerfan" should be taken out and shot, so that those of us who's minds and hearts aren't so closed to everything but a single sport can get on about our lives
I'm I straight donw the middle, everybody sucks gun owner in Massachusetts. Who do you think is frowned on more....you for being a bleeding heart gun owner in Oklahoma, or me in super-edumacted I'm so enlightened Massachusetts....tough call.
NFL needed LA more than LA need the NFL. I know Kroenke bought the land and will build the stadium. My question is, has anyone read anything about what Inglewood may contribute? They are fortunate that MSG came in and rebuild the Forum (which will be next to Taj Kroenke). Inglewood is a somewhat struggling area still. They have a new light rail line passing through town towards LAX, but it a good 1.5 miles from the stadium. I would imagine game days will require police overtime and traffic plans. Has Inglewood agreed to anything else like road, utility improvements? I can't see them coming up with too much. Also, has the FAA sorted out the issues with the flight path issue, even though plans have flown over the Forum for decades? Also, i sure hope its a grass field. I can see no reason for a plastic pitch in Southern California. Soccer needs to start passing on stadiums with plastic fields.
What you mentioned was what blew my mind about the NFL. The fact that you have three billionaires saying "Oh, the $300 million+ you in St. Louis and San Diego are offering is not enough for us to build our palace. We can't afford it. But we can afford building a $1.5 billion stadium without needing any public money from Inglewood". And then those same cities who are like "We have $300 million+ to offer for a new stadium" that get turned down by the NFL might end up being the same places that are like "We don't have the appetite to fund stadiums" when less than 1/3 of that is asked for to build an MLS stadium that isn't even a quarter-billion to build.
Stan could hire one hundred high-class hookers a month for the rest of his life, no problem. So could Josh and Whitney Ann - who are also Walton heirs, if I'm not wrong. I mean, it makes sense that a man who's spent his entire life as a businessman continues to make businessman-type decisions...but really, it's kinda just autopilot after a while. He and his family could do literally ANYTHING at this point and never not be insanely rich.
Evaluating St. Louis based solely on the city's population, as opposed to that of the entire metropolitan area, is especially misleading because the city's borders have been fixed since the late 19th century. Much of the region's growth has taken place outside the city itself. Despite dramatic inner-city population decline since the Second World War, St. Louis remains among the top 20 metro regions in the country. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_St._Louis
When these professional teams ask for public funding for stadiums, do they use mostly television ratings as the reason why they should get the funding, or do you hear them talk more about the attendance and how that pedestrian traffic will help boost local businesses around the area? Sure, MLS is not getting NFL attendance, but MLS stadiums have done pretty decent for themselves in both soccer attendance and other events in those venues.
USC who now runs the LA Coliseum has retrofitted/moved the field in closer to the seats plus they're refurbishing the entire stadium. Its still an old building but much better than back in the days when the field/turf was placed right smack dab in the middle of the stadium with the Olympic track surrounding it- the action on the field was far away and hard to see