duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

I really can't see some family members selling and others not.

It also seems unlikely that any of those 15% owners would want to stay in a minority ownership role if somebody outside the family picks up the 51% and starts calling the shots.

They'll each get hit with a combined (federal/state/local) Capital Gains tax rate of up to 33.3% if they sell.

The parents are 92 and 89... they'll still be able to have one hell of a spending spree with their $700M or so that they would net from a sale.
Popa and Moma Spanos need to place their shares into an irrevocable family trusts as it drastically reduces future tax liability and family maintains control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see some family members selling and others not.

It also seems unlikely that any of those 15% owners would want to stay in a minority ownership role if somebody outside the family picks up the 51% and starts calling the shots.

They'll each get hit with a combined (federal/state/local) Capital Gains tax rate of up to 33.3% if they sell.

The parents are 92 and 89... they'll still be able to have one hell of a spending spree with their $700M or so that they would net from a sale.
Popa and Moma Spanos need to place their shares into an irrevocable family trusts as it drastically reduces future tax liability and family maintains control.

Considering the value of what they own and their age, I'm assuming they've probably looked into that a bit already.

I'd guess that they either:

1.) Can't

2.) Don't trust each other enough to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see some family members selling and others not.

It also seems unlikely that any of those 15% owners would want to stay in a minority ownership role if somebody outside the family picks up the 51% and starts calling the shots.

They'll each get hit with a combined (federal/state/local) Capital Gains tax rate of up to 33.3% if they sell.

The parents are 92 and 89... they'll still be able to have one hell of a spending spree with their $700M or so that they would net from a sale.
Popa and Moma Spanos need to place their shares into an irrevocable family trusts as it drastically reduces future tax liability and family maintains control.

Considering the value of what they own and their age, I'm assuming they've probably looked into that a bit already.

I'd guess that they either:

1.) Can't

2.) Don't trust each other enough to do so.

Then the Spanos family will have the same issues that the NFL has with the Tennessee Titans.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nfl/titans/2016/01/05/titans-working-nfl-resolve-ownership-questions/78278712/

As I have posted this link before, the NFL has already addressed this issue for families.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-trust.aspx?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, unless you can find a new definition of "viable," St. Louis presented a very, very viable plan to the NFL.

"Viable" here means "paid for". Even if you want to forget that the state legislature was making noise about halting state payments, even after all the shady dealings, the stadium was still $100M short.

Nice try. But not actually viable. Maybe with a little more time they could have made it so, but they didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, unless you can find a new definition of "viable," St. Louis presented a very, very viable plan to the NFL.

126526.gif

sure, when-a you do someting at work youse-a not supposed to do, it's a viable offense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really can't see some family members selling and others not.

It also seems unlikely that any of those 15% owners would want to stay in a minority ownership role if somebody outside the family picks up the 51% and starts calling the shots.

They'll each get hit with a combined (federal/state/local) Capital Gains tax rate of up to 33.3% if they sell.

The parents are 92 and 89... they'll still be able to have one hell of a spending spree with their $700M or so that they would net from a sale.
Popa and Moma Spanos need to place their shares into an irrevocable family trusts as it drastically reduces future tax liability and family maintains control.

Considering the value of what they own and their age, I'm assuming they've probably looked into that a bit already.

I'd guess that they either:

1.) Can't

2.) Don't trust each other enough to do so.

Then the Spanos family will have the same issues that the NFL has with the Tennessee Titans.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/sports/nfl/titans/2016/01/05/titans-working-nfl-resolve-ownership-questions/78278712/

As I have posted this link before, the NFL has already addressed this issue for families.

http://m.sportsbusinessdaily.com/Journal/Issues/2015/05/25/Leagues-and-Governing-Bodies/NFL-trust.aspx?

Here's the part of the article that points out the problem, though:

There are drawbacks beside the trustee issues. Irrevocable trusts are difficult, if not impossible, to unwind (there are revocable trusts, but those are not allowed by the NFL). That scenario is playing out in New Orleans where Saints owner Tom Benson is trying to take the team stakes of his daughter and granddaughter out of the irrevocable trusts he established for them, and is suing the trustee who so far has blocked the effort.

Irrevocable trusts are often times an absolute b***h to set up, there's literally ZERO flexibility to change it without the consent of the original beneficiary, and they come with their own set of other potential problems. Trying to fairly and legally split an irrevocable trust between beneficiaries when there's an NFL team on the line sounds like about as touchy a subject as you can get.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, unless you can find a new definition of "viable," St. Louis presented a very, very viable plan to the NFL.

"Viable" here means "paid for". Even if you want to forget that the state legislature was making noise about halting state payments, even after all the shady dealings, the stadium was still $100M short.

Nice try. But not actually viable. Maybe with a little more time they could have made it so, but they didn't.

Again, you and the NFL is simply ignoring the meaning of viable. It was viable from everyone's perspective. (Actually, if it wasn't viable for anyone, it was the city of St. Louis.)

What it was not was acceptable or satisfactory or words of that nature. It wasn't what the NFL wanted. They wanted more money from the public and to spend less of their own money.

But it was very much viable in nearly every sense of that word.

The fact that the NFL turned around and offered the $100 million to either of the other two cities only proves that point.

Nobody did anything they didn't have the right to do, but the NFL made their decision based on how they could make more money. Not based on not being able to make money in St. Louis. And certainly not based on any level of commitment to their fans.

But it's alright, Goth. We can finally, agree to disagree on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Edward Jones Dome is only 20 years old, did the Rams really NEED a new stadium? Plenty of teams play in stadiums that old.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Edward Jones Dome is only 20 years old, did the Rams really NEED a new stadium? Plenty of teams play in stadiums that old.

Those teams don't have leases demanding the stadium stay in the top tier.

/Edward Jones Dome was built to a comparatively bargain basement design anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would St. Louis have been able to sell 62,110 PSLs, at an average rate of $2,100? That sounded far-fetched to me, but the idea of PSLs in general sounds crazy to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple - the city leaders of St. Louis wanted theirs to be an "NFL city" so badly that they were willing to make a total :censored: deal with the Rams, not having a clue as to what would happen at the opposing end of the 20-year period. No one with any brains would at that time have presumed that the Los Angeles market would remain unoccupied the entire time, making any kind of renewal/replacement stadium effort pointless. The "first tier" provision was a de facto guarantee of a new stadium, without anyone really realizing it, because upgrading the Dome would've been akin to trying to rework a 1976 Chevy Caprice Classic into a 1993 Cadillac El Dorado. In short, they rolled the dice once and won, then rolled again and lost.

Had Shalid Khan bought the Rams the likelihood of staying in St. Louis goes up, and frankly I'd be surprised if ultimately the Jaguars don't relocate there now. But there was no way, with the Los Angeles market open, that the Rams weren't going to return under these circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's simple - the city leaders of St. Louis wanted theirs to be an "NFL city" so badly that they were willing to make a total :censored: deal with the Rams, not having a clue as to what would happen at the opposing end of the 20-year period. No one with any brains would at that time have presumed that the Los Angeles market would remain unoccupied the entire time, making any kind of renewal/replacement stadium effort pointless. The "first tier" provision was a de facto guarantee of a new stadium, without anyone really realizing it, because upgrading the Dome would've been akin to trying to rework a 1976 Chevy Caprice Classic into a 1993 Cadillac El Dorado. In short, they rolled the dice once and won, then rolled again and lost.

Had Shalid Khan bought the Rams the likelihood of staying in St. Louis goes up, and frankly I'd be surprised if ultimately the Jaguars don't relocate there now. But there was no way, with the Los Angeles market open, that the Rams weren't going to return under these circumstances.

FWIW, Khan said he has no interest in moving the Jags to StL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting excerpt from that jacksonville.com article, from a guy who was actually speaking with NFL representatives through this process.

Dave Peacock, co-chairman of the St. Louis stadium task force, seemed resigned to life without the NFL. ... Peacock called the interactions with NFL leadership "a head-scratcher." He said NFL executives initially expressed support and optimism about the stadium project. In the end, he said, he realized the deck was stacked against St. Louis, perhaps the whole time.

"Having been through this process I'd say there was probably more of this that was contemplated and contrived than I realized," said Peacock, a former Anheuser-Busch executive.

The change to a silent vote betrayed him as well, because it was 5-1 for Carson on the committee that he clearly seemed to be working with... amid reports of collusion FOR Carson, if you recall. And then 30-2 for Inglewood. Someone is probably lying to him now, as no one admits to him they switched their vote.

The classic, "If no one ever found out, would you?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on, man. First you called out the $100 million that clearly was on the table. (See: Oakland, San Diego.) Now you think Peacock was doing this all on his own with no guidance from the NFL?

Blackmail? Really?

And that didn't come off as griping from Peacock as much as blindsided confusion. He had people he trusted for months turn on him within one day. Which is fine, it happens, but...

Blackmail?!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not seeing exactly what Peacock had on the NFL to blackmail them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only explanation for him keeping the extra $100M league contribution in the bill after being told twice to take it out is that he was playing chicken with the NFL.

People would see that a bill passed, presume that it was "viable" and get angry when the NFL turned it down. Perhaps he thought he could get the senators involved or otherwise force the league to take his deal.

Pressuring the NFL didn't work, although many people bought his narrative. It's rather ingenious, even though it ultimately didn't work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But if, say, Jerry Richardson told him to put it in, the same guy who got Iger involved and said, "Trust me, we're recommending Carson. The $100 million is there for St. Louis, San Diego or Oakland."

I mean, Jerry Jones took the L.A. committee's borderline suspicious meddling and wiped his Cowboys Stadium art collection with it, but Peacock wasn't blackmailing anyone.

He just sided with a group of NFL owners that had common interests but found out weren't anywhere near as powerful as they thought they were.

(Or only wanted to help their friend Spanos publicly and took the more lucrative deal -- a.k.a. $ -- the moment the votes became secret.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't doubt that some owners told Peacock about the $100M, but I absolutely doubt that they told him to put it into the public spending bill. And once the NFL told him twice to take it out, he should have.

The only reasonable explanations for his failure to do so are an inability to come up with the money any other way, or he actually thought he could publicly shame the NFL by putting it in. Instead, he gave them an out by failing to come up with a complete funding plan.

It's just maddening. I didn't want the Rams to move out of St. Louis. But can't argue with the process, which was more than fair to them. Peacock is somehow getting a free pass for his fumbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.