Dilip Vishwanat - Getty Images
4 months ago: EARTH CITY, MO - JANUARY 17: St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke addresses the media during a press conference at the Russell Training Center on January 17, 2012 in Earth City, Missouri. (Photo by Dilip Vishwanat/Getty Images)
St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke added a little fuel to fires of speculation about the team's future in St. Louis with the news that he was bidding on the Los Angeles Dodgers. The baseball world now seems to be keying in on Kroenke. Jim Bowden, former Washington Nationals general manager and current Major League Baseball analyst for ESPN, said on Wednesday via Twitter that Kroenke is the "front runner" in the bidding for the Dodgers.
Bowden's reasoning for why Kroenke may be the front runner is just as interesting.
Front runner for new Dodger owner is Stan Kroenke because of opportunity to also move NFL Rams back to LA & McCourt opp to be involved there
And there it is, the possibility of building an NFL stadium in Chavez Ravine. We wondered about that possibility all along, delving into it here.
McCourt, who will be selecting the winning bidder, is hanging onto the land around Dodger Stadium, parking lots and all. A developer/bidder could bring him into a stadium development project, a sure fire way to regain his wealth following a bitter, costly divorce.
Owning a stadium outright is going to make Stan Kroenke far more money than keeping the revenue generated from the additional suites and club seats in the CVC's proposal for the Ed Jones Dome. Especially when you start adding in the revenue from an MLB team playing in the same facility.
0 recs | 45 comments
Godspeed St Louis fans
dbcouver - February 2, 2012
Wonder what WNBA team he wants
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
Well shit bricks
Brick Top - February 2, 2012
Even if he buys the dodgers....it doesn't mean the Rams are leaving.
This is going to go back and forth for a long, LONG, time. Have faith Rams fans
Rcoon1307 - February 2, 2012 via mobile
I still don't think he's planning on moving. Fisher wouldn't have came here if it wasn't the case.
Just a bunch of posturing.
HomerForTheRams - February 2, 2012
I used to think the same thing,
but this makes sense, given Kroenke and the whole venue ownership thing. Much more than the Farmers Field or Ed Roski projects. Too much money to be made by E. Stan in this situation to take it lightly.
Here’s hoping, anyway.
FailureDrill - February 2, 2012 via Android app
How can you be so sure about that?
Evidence is starting to pile up for the move…
m0pi1 - February 2, 2012
I still think they're coming to DC
how is it that the nation’s capital doesn’t have a team? Maryland has 2!
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
Portales, NM is now the front runner for the Rams move.
I got an e-mail from Stan that said: “Don’t contact me ever again!”, which is his way of saying he likes my idea, but he thinks his e-mail account is being monitored by the CIA…
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
you mean
the CVC ?
Le Ram - February 2, 2012
Nope! The CIA... They're everywhere! lol They want Stan to move the Rams to Langley...:-)
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
By the way, I just don't see Kroenke buying the Dodgers
1\ The idea he’d get in financial bed with a shady business guy like McCourt is beyond bizarre.
2\ Even with the Dodger TV money, look at the costs before he sees a dime from the long term contract:
$1.5++ Billion for the Dodgers
$ 500 million MINIMUM for the parking lot at Chavez Ravine
$ 1.5 to $1.7 billion for a new stadium for the Rams if he build it himself
$ 200++ million for player payroll for the Dodgers and Rams
Add in the bad L.A. economy and their 11.9% unemployment rate…
Sorry guys, I just don’t see this as a slam dunk business move by Stan
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
This
81 Witness - February 2, 2012
If those are the prices, then yeah
But if those are the prices, he’s probably not going to pull that trigger.
dbcouver - February 2, 2012
L.A. has the highest building costs in the U.S., so $1.7 billion for a stadium is is a possibility
Plus, the parking lot could cost more than $500 mil. A 2.3 acre lot near the downtown area went for $68.1 million last month. It has an old building on it that the developer plans to tear down
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
The skins are from Maryland?
I did not know that!
dbcouver - February 2, 2012
Yup........Landover
it’s a joke, and people hate it
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
I'm clearly in the minority...
…But I would LOVE my Rams back here in LA. Although, I would feel bad for the St. Louis fans who have grown to love them over the past 16 years. It’s really difficult when your team leaves town (I remember like it was yesterday).
Kevin A. - February 2, 2012
I don't think you are in the minority my friend
Plenty of rams fans here in LA….this blows me away, someone is hearing my prayers
LARams72 - February 2, 2012
I am right with you!
Come back to L.A. were you belong Rams.
Popp24 - February 2, 2012
That last paragraph is flawed thinking
Leasing a stadium for 250K a season generates more “jack” than financing a billion dollar project. The money to be made from the Dodgers comes from owning the Dodgers not from some half baked stadium idea. We do not know the details of the bid proposal that Mr Kronke has submitted and it is quite possible he wouldn’t be the controlling interest… kind of like he isn’t the controlling interest of the Avs or Nuggets. Also currently there is no problem with Stan owning the Dodgers as there is no team in LA. We just don’t know but we are continually fed the notion that this is all some sign that the Rams are moving. Frankly those kind of leaks are more about stirring up interest and generating buzz. Stan wants to own the Dodgers because they are a good buy and a sound investment not because he’s plotting to move the Rams back.
The whole idea of an NFL stadium at Chavez refine is a little far fetched and not something that could happen anytime soon if at all.
At any rate I wouldn’t say the idea that a stadium could generate more revenue in LA than St Louis is necessarily wrong nor is the idea that the current situation in St Louis is more favorable from a short term capitalization standpoint. In any event the team is in sound finical territory regardless of what city they are in due to the NFL’s revenue sharing.
Basically Stan will do whatever the hell he wants to do and I see no reason why he’d want to risk a billion dollars on a stadium that would generate maybe 10 million more in gate receipts a year. Makes no sense unless he just has a vision he wants to achieve with a stadium.
Sggladden - February 2, 2012
Good Post
Seems like most of the posters on here flunked Accounting and Econ 101. A lot more money will need to be sunked into LA to make it viable vs. St. Louis. There is more money to be made (net) in St. Louis vs. California, especially in the short term. Maybe $100 or $200 million in St. Louis vs. a couple of billion in LA and then a very long ROI with a new stadium in LA. Dream on LA Rams fans, they are not coming back.
Mean Machine II - February 2, 2012
Come on back
I was a Rams season ticket holder during their final year in Anaheim. I don’t see why anybody would buy the Dodgers without the parking lot and the surrounding land.
I think that a relocation could be a possibility but it certainly makes it interesting especially with the money that the CVC expects the Rams to kick in on the stadium renovation in St. Louis.
Mister T - February 2, 2012
Def a step in the right diection
Come on home Rams
JordansDad - February 2, 2012 via mobile
We just lost one of the best online viewing sites for Rams games
The U.S. gov just shut First Row down. Have a look at the article here.
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
Damn it
At least the NFL seems to be offering more and more games through network tv. I’m more upset because it was the only way I could watch hockey and WWE.
HomerForTheRams - February 2, 2012
lol @ WWE
Midasknight - February 2, 2012
Wait a second. Tom Brady used one of these sites?
I demand his arrest as well as anyone who might have been an accomplice. I think Belichick may have gave him the address.
HomerForTheRams - February 2, 2012
It really is pretty remarkable.
You literally can’t view this content online legally because of these companies, leaving the less legal option.
There’s no reason this stuff can’t be free, supported by ads.
Danrarbc - February 2, 2012
Shew!
atdhe survived
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
Huh. I thought they were gone a long time ago. Did they change their name?
HomerForTheRams - February 2, 2012
i think so
but I used atdhe.tv several times this year. It’s really the only way I got to see the games
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
atdhe.eu now, brah
Same here, almost every Rams game sitting on my laptop.
Joe Mazzi - February 2, 2012
that is a disappointing chunk of memory
and appreciate the heads up!
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
I wouldn't read very much into this
Bowden does not have any new information or sources; he is simply stating why he thinks Kroenke is or should be the front-runner.
I heard another national reporter type say the other day that Kroenke is the least likely of the bidders to win due to the existing cross-ownership barriers and the fact that that McCourt wants the sale to go through quickly.
Take this types of “reports” with a boulder-sized grain of salt.
ViperLjs - February 2, 2012
Agree and rec'd!
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
Quit thinking logically!
Overreaction and speculation! Huzzah!
FailureDrill - February 2, 2012 via Android app
lol
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
Heh.
I’m just so sick and tired of the chicken-little dance that’s been going on for the past several months on this issue; everyone needs to take a deep breath and let the process play out.
Honestly, I have yet to see a proposal that would make Kroenke want to go back to LA, anyway. Because of the way NFL TV revenues are distributed, the incentive to be in a mega-market is significantly lessened, especially so if the owner is forced to finance their own stadium out of pocket. The debt service on a new stadium would basically make the increased revenues from more luxury box sales, etc. a wash. Given the sweetheart deal the Rams have in STL and the looming renovations, it doesn’t even make sense fiscally for the Rams to move.
There’s a reason LA has been a negotiating tool rather than an NFL city for the past 18 years.
ViperLjs - February 2, 2012
Do what I do
drink….It’s all OK
dbcouver - February 2, 2012
Cheers to that!
I’ll get so drunk I won’t even know where the Rams are………sometimes so drunk that I don’t even know where I am!
DCRamFan - February 2, 2012
Yup! If L.A. is such a great deal, why hasn't any other NFL team pulled the trigger?
The raiders went there, and left too. That has to say something?
People talk about the Dodgers TV contract as if it just appear. Guys, that TV is just a new contract with a different network. If the Dodgers couldn’t make it with the old contract, how in the world can the make it straddled with $1.5++++ billion in new debt to pay?
Douglas M - February 2, 2012
Weren't there reports a while ago that said he as a long shot at best?
Now he’s the front runner. Damn.
RAMpage28 - February 2, 2012
This is just Bowden speculating.
Dont take it seriously.
ViperLjs - February 2, 2012
He is probably gonna overbid so that he can make sure he secures this deal thats why he is The frontrunner he has money coming out of his ass!!
kevio3000 - February 2, 2012 via Android app
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Turf Show Times to post a comment.