Big fat no.
- 3,433
Will you agree to make up missing revenue if the Rams leave? Per the financing plan, State continues $12M per year, ($2 per MO resident per year.) But Rams Players pay $10M per year in income tax according to Gov. Nixon. The rest of the stadium cost is to be paid by NFL ($200M), Team Owner ($250M), PSLs, ($130M), Visitors through county and city taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms ($12M per year), and state tax credits ($55M). Construction workers would probably pay at least $2M per year in income taxes, along with coaches, assistants, parking owners, broadcasters, etc. They could just earmark those guys income tax to go straight to paying off the stadium, assuming we have a team, and public contribution would be zero, even free money. So if we don't build the stadium and the Rams leave, how do we make up any shortfall? Tax cigarettes? Take it from schools? Medicaid? or Will you just write us a check?onecity wrote:I'll gladly subsidize it if I get a share of profits. Otherwise, no way in hell.
If the stadium is free to you, as it appears to be, are you still voting no?
I know folks have done studies saying public stadiums don't generate new business so they don't pay. But neither does blight. And those studies don't assume $755M in outside free money coming from the private league, owners, PSLs, and visitors. We already pay the visitor tax in other cities when we visit them to build their stadiums.
Will you agree to make up missing revenue if the Rams leave? Per the financing plan, State continues $12M per year, ($2 per MO resident per year.) But Rams Players pay $10M per year now in income tax according to Gov. Nixon. The rest of the stadium cost is to be paid by NFL ($200M), Team Owner ($250M), PSLs, ($130M), Visitors through county and city taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms ($12M per year), and state tax credits ($55M). Construction workers would probably pay at least $2M per year in income taxes, along with coaches, assistants, parking owners, broadcasters, etc. They could just earmark those guys income tax to go straight to paying off the stadium, assuming we have a team, and public contribution would be zero, even free money. So if we don't build the stadium and the Rams leave, how do we make up any shortfall? Tax cigarettes? Take it from schools? Medicaid? or Will you just write us a check?onecity wrote:I'll gladly subsidize it if I get a share of profits. Otherwise, no way in hell.
If the stadium is free to you, as it appears to be, are you still voting no?
I know folks have done studies saying public stadiums don't generate new business so they don't pay. But neither does blight. And those studies don't assume $755M in outside free money coming from the private league, owners, PSLs, and visitors. We already pay the visitor tax in other cities when we visit them to build their stadiums.
I thought it was only hotel rooms and there was no rental car tax?gary kreie wrote:Will you agree to make up missing revenue if the Rams leave? Per the financing plan, State continues $12M per year, ($2 per MO resident per year.) But Rams Players pay $10M per year now in income tax according to Gov. Nixon. The rest of the stadium cost is to be paid by NFL ($200M), Team Owner ($250M), PSLs, ($130M), Visitors through county and city taxes on rental cars and hotel rooms ($12M per year), and state tax credits ($55M). Construction workers would probably pay at least $2M per year in income taxes, along with coaches, assistants, parking owners, broadcasters, etc. They could just earmark those guys income tax to go straight to paying off the stadium, assuming we have a team, and public contribution would be zero, even free money. So if we don't build the stadium and the Rams leave, how do we make up any shortfall? Tax cigarettes? Take it from schools? Medicaid? or Will you just write us a check?onecity wrote:I'll gladly subsidize it if I get a share of profits. Otherwise, no way in hell.
If the stadium is free to you, as it appears to be, are you still voting no?
I know folks have done studies saying public stadiums don't generate new business so they don't pay. But neither does blight. And those studies don't assume $755M in outside free money coming from the private league, owners, PSLs, and visitors. We already pay the visitor tax in other cities when we visit them to build their stadiums.
I am a one dimensional single issue voter -
With the granting of a MLS franchise - yes -
Without MLS franchise - no -
With the granting of a MLS franchise - yes -
Without MLS franchise - no -
I would vote yes if we secured an MLS franchise and we reduced the freaking surface parking.
The people should have a vote on it 500 million in tax payer subsidies is a lot of money. I don't get why Nixon dose not what a vote on it makes me wonder how serious is the preposeal
I would NOT vote for the stadium plan as it currently exists (the demolition of buildings, the large amount of surface parking, the lack of any real MLS guarantee).
I could be convinced, but the current set of circumstances doesn't do it for me.
I could be convinced, but the current set of circumstances doesn't do it for me.
I'm under the impression that the Farmer's Field project is straight-up shovel ready and they simply needed a team to commit. That could be incorrect, though. Maybe that was strictly the City of Industry plan (which is essentially dead because it's not preferred by the league), though I really thought it was both of them.DogtownBnR wrote:The Downtown LA 'Farmers Field' project may face more hurdles. I think it would pass a vote if privately funded by AEG, but it's hard to say whether or not they'd pass the environmental regulations and hurdles. It is a crazy busy area and the footprint is small. We as STL Rams fans have to root for Farmers Field, even though it is still a threat to our NFL future. It is clearly not as big a threat as Stan's Inglewood deal.
- 3,767
Could Stan sell the Rams? Could Dave be secretly assembling an ownership group?
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-raiders/
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... e-raiders/
Interesting conflict of interest.......
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/butt ... -hplc.html
Even more interesting, the fact that Stan has had this plan for most of the time he has owned the Rams 100%. Why else would he be donating to Butts for the last 4 years. This further fortifies my theory that Stan planned on moving the Rams (or building a stadium in LA for some team*refer to last post) since he bought the Rams.
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/butt ... -hplc.html
Even more interesting, the fact that Stan has had this plan for most of the time he has owned the Rams 100%. Why else would he be donating to Butts for the last 4 years. This further fortifies my theory that Stan planned on moving the Rams (or building a stadium in LA for some team*refer to last post) since he bought the Rams.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke, has donated $75,000 to Butts’ campaign committee over the past four years
Jstreibel, you are correct. The City of Industry plan is shovel - ready, not Farmers Field. FF has many obstacles, including, political, environmental, small footprint, traffic issues and issues with AEG and the NFL. That is by far the best option, being in the heart of Downtown LA, versus Inglewood or Industry, but it also has the most issues. Stan's deal is second and the least preferred is obviously Ed Roski's industry deal. If that deal was even sort of favorable, the NFL would have jumped on that deal. I think they want to be Downtown, but Inglewood is close enough. If AEG can get it together, there could be a team there and one in Inglewood or Farmers could nix the stadium deal in Inglewood. The public is not privy to Stan's grand plan, plan B or even his intentions in STL. All I can say, is that Farmers is the most desirable option. Hopefully, it gets done, nixes Stan's deal and forces the Rams to stay in STL.
- 109
The Chargers released a statement today basically telling the San Diego task force not to waste its time. Also that a team or two in LA would harm their revenue.
"If another team – or two other teams – enters the LA/Orange County markets, most of that Chargers’ business there will disappear.
This will put the Chargers at a significant competitive economic disadvantage.
Simply put, it would not be fair to the Chargers – a team that has worked for 14 years to find a stadium solution in San Diego County – to allow other teams that themselves abandoned the LA market to now return and gut the Chargers’ local revenue stream."
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... -krasovic/
Interesting in that several reporters had written articles claiming that the owners had seen Kroenke's project before Jan. 5, with the statement the Chargers released today makes that unlikely.
There are three teams wanting to move to a market all three of them relocated from.
"If another team – or two other teams – enters the LA/Orange County markets, most of that Chargers’ business there will disappear.
This will put the Chargers at a significant competitive economic disadvantage.
Simply put, it would not be fair to the Chargers – a team that has worked for 14 years to find a stadium solution in San Diego County – to allow other teams that themselves abandoned the LA market to now return and gut the Chargers’ local revenue stream."
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... -krasovic/
Interesting in that several reporters had written articles claiming that the owners had seen Kroenke's project before Jan. 5, with the statement the Chargers released today makes that unlikely.
There are three teams wanting to move to a market all three of them relocated from.
I can see Chargers positioning themselves to being the second team in a two team LA stadium deal. Seems to make sense. The family would still own the team and recipient of the NFL TV payouts, the lease might be more in a new stadium but a lease is a lease, they would only move two hours north and still have their supposed market as per their statement while fans down south will have to make the drive this time around, and talk about the heat on San Diego for a new stadium. I don't see how they could lose in the deal.
- 3,433
- 1,792
^if they cared that much they would be offering incentives.
For the record I would vote YES on the stadium.
The more I listen to the radio and read these reports about franchise swaps and such, I don't see it with the Raiders. I don't see Davis selling his father's life's work to someone else or moving it to the midwest. I'm sure stranger things have happened but it just doesn't seem to fit. I'd support them if they came here, but I'm skeptical at best. I'm more inclined to believe the Panthers or Jags would come here in 2020 which is something I can't believe I just typed it sounds so insane.
I also read an interesting question on another site that I've never heard raised. Since Georgia was so fanatical about getting the team to move here, is there any chance that she instructed her kids to include a clause in any new ownership agreement that the team cannot be moved away once it comes to STL? Doubtful given Stan and the teams' not-so-subtle moves of late, but an interesting thought nonetheless.
The more I listen to the radio and read these reports about franchise swaps and such, I don't see it with the Raiders. I don't see Davis selling his father's life's work to someone else or moving it to the midwest. I'm sure stranger things have happened but it just doesn't seem to fit. I'd support them if they came here, but I'm skeptical at best. I'm more inclined to believe the Panthers or Jags would come here in 2020 which is something I can't believe I just typed it sounds so insane.
I also read an interesting question on another site that I've never heard raised. Since Georgia was so fanatical about getting the team to move here, is there any chance that she instructed her kids to include a clause in any new ownership agreement that the team cannot be moved away once it comes to STL? Doubtful given Stan and the teams' not-so-subtle moves of late, but an interesting thought nonetheless.
I doubt there was any clause. I believe his kids knew her wish, and I believe they genuinely thought Kroenke would live up to that wish. But I doubt there was any sort of binding clause.
- 9,568
Yet another example of invested ownership that makes our current situation all the more tragic. Between Lamping, Kroenke, Lieweke, Khan, and Peacock, the story of retaining NFL in STL reads like a local yearbook.
I guess this kind of ties in to our juxtaposition with Minneapolis on my mind today, but it is sad that we breed so many smart, powerful, and ambitious people and lose them or their talented exploits, Peacock not withstanding for the moment.
I guess this kind of ties in to our juxtaposition with Minneapolis on my mind today, but it is sad that we breed so many smart, powerful, and ambitious people and lose them or their talented exploits, Peacock not withstanding for the moment.
Will probably be completed from BPV Phase 2 breaks ground.dbInSouthCity wrote:http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/17/jackso ... bank-field
- 8,912
dbInSouthCity wrote:http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/02/17/jackso ... bank-field
Uhhhhhhhh. That's pretty impressive! WOW
Unreal. We could have had Khan here, but he got the rug pulled out from under him by Douche-y McToupee.
This honestly sucks. When I was working on my MBA at U of I, I had the pleasure of touring his Flex-N-Gate operation. I also sat in on several presentations he gave about leadership/management/operations. He's a really impressive guy with an equally impressive background.
This honestly sucks. When I was working on my MBA at U of I, I had the pleasure of touring his Flex-N-Gate operation. I also sat in on several presentations he gave about leadership/management/operations. He's a really impressive guy with an equally impressive background.