urbanSTL

Not sure if this article has been posted here. But I find it particularly interesting, because it's not from a sports reporter, and it's from a publication that has typically been against subsidizing this stadium.

I'm starting to believe—from the state's perspective—that there is something to the tax revenue the Rams bring in. This might not be quite the boondoggle I originally thought it was.

The debate started with an off-hand comment from Gov. Jay Nixon.

In recent months, he’s held a series of press conferences to promote building a new riverfront football stadium. At one, he detailed plans to relocate utilities, clearing the way for construction. At another, he announced a deal with labor unions to work around the clock on the project, without overtime pay. Somewhere along the line, he said that if the Rams were to leave Missouri, it would cost the state $10 million in income-tax revenue.

That started a discussion in the SLM office about whether Nixon’s number seemed right. Eventually, the conversation expanded to include the city’s earnings tax and led to phone calls with local and state officials. A detailed breakdown is below, but here are three things we learned: 1) Rams players pay the city shockingly little in earnings tax; 2) Nixon wasn’t off by much; and 3) tax rules are complicated.

Well, I suppose we already knew that last part.

Read the full details here: http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earni ... -the-rams/

Does anybody know what the impact of the earnings tax would be if—as someone suggested earlier—the Rams moved their official HQs into the city, but continued to practice and largely operate out of Earth City? Would players pay the earning tax at that point, or would that not be the case since THEIR work would still be done outside the city.

By Vincent Bonsignore

It’s no secret the NFL has used Los Angeles over the last 20 years as leverage to get stadium deals done in current cities.

But has the league overplayed it’s hand this time by creating a situation in which three teams aren’t just using Los Angeles as leverage, they literally might need the City of Angeles as their new home?

Think about it, when training camp opens next summer the St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders could be entering their final seasons in their current homes.

Meanwhile, all three might have approved stadium deals in place in Inglewood and Carson and the ability to file for relocation in early 2016.

Imagine how that might play in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland?

And that, according to a high-level NFL executive, is proof the league not only isn’t on top of the situation, it’s bungled it badly.

“Why would the league want this to happen?” asked the NFL executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “You’ve now created three lame-duck situations. It’s incompetent, to let it get to this point.”

According to the league executive, the NFL is holding out hope that Missouri and St. Louis leaders step up and save the day by approving a stadium plan that will help finance a new home for the Rams.

“I believe they think St. Louis is going to come up with a lot of money,” the source said. “I believe that’s their trump card.”

But that might open another can of worms for the NFL.

What if Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants so badly to be in Los Angeles he goes rogue and moves without approval?

“Stan’s trump card is ‘screw you I’m going to move anyway.’ the NFL executive said. “Meanwhile, the league says you can’t move and we have policy and procedures in place. So we’ll see you in court. And then you have an ugly court battle. So how is that good for anybody?”

With Kroenke on mute these days, it’s impossible to get a handle on what his true end game is – whether he really wants to be in Los Angeles or is simply using L.A. to get a new home in St. Louis.

But with the Raiders and Chargers fighting uphill battles getting new stadiums built locally, they might need Los Angeles more than the Rams.

If the NFL gives the nod to the Chargers and Raiders to build a shared stadium in Carson – what will Kroenke’s response be?

Especially if L.A. is his desired destination.

Would he risk challenging the NFL in court, and abandon any chance of a G-4 loan, the possibility of hosting future Super Bowls and the near certainty the NFL would demand he relinquish ownership of the Denver Nuggets – for which they’ve granted him waivers to skirt the league’s cross-ownership rules?

“Here is the big question for me,” the NFL executive said. “If the league approves the Chargers and Raiders and the league loans them $400 million for Carson, would Stan feel his project is viable anymore?

“If he’s now dividing up his revenues that he once thought was, maybe not 100 percent of but definitely 50 percent, and now he’s dividing it up three separate ways. He’s not getting any loans from the NFL, he’s not getting any Super Bowls forever because he’ll be a pariah, does that make sense for him anymore? Or does the project now become no longer feasible for him? That’s a real question.

“Because your revenue estimates get slashed, you have no Super Bowls and you’ve also be in violation of the league’s cross-ownership rules for years, for which he’s been getting waivers on all these years. Presumably if they got in a court battle the league would say ‘OK, you must divest yourself of the Nuggets immediately, no more waivers.’ So it’s not so easy as Stan saying I’m going to move no matter what.”

One other angle to consider: With NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell still wobbly after some high-profile mishaps last year, can he afford the bad press of letting the Rams leave St. Louis despite Missouri offering a sizable chunk of money to build them new stadium?

“I can’t see (Goodell) turning down $500 million dollars of public money and have those senators and the governor and the mayor come after him,” the NFL executive said. “That’s the last thing he needs.”

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015/03/ ... e-the-day/

jstriebel wrote:Not sure if this article has been posted here. But I find it particularly interesting, because it's not from a sports reporter, and it's from a publication that has typically been against subsidizing this stadium.

I'm starting to believe—from the state's perspective—that there is something to the tax revenue the Rams bring in. This might not be quite the boondoggle I originally thought it was.

And that is just the players. The Rams directly employs coaches, training staff, sales, and administration.

Jim Thomas wrote a story in today's Post Dispatch about all the Rams fans who did not get the survey, and all the dubious fans who did. See story at the link below along with an email address to write to in order to get the survey. It looks like the Rams may have left out a lot of Charter PSL buyers, their best customers.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... bad4e.html

New website put out by the task force:

http://stlstadium.com/

Study: State would see payoff from building stadium for Rams -- Missouri Department of Economic Development

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 54da1.html

"A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly, even if taxpayers took on debt to help build the project, a state analysis projects. The study, by the Missouri Department of Economic Development, predicts a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years."

gary kreie wrote:"A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly, even if taxpayers took on debt to help build the project, a state analysis projects. The study, by the Missouri Department of Economic Development, predicts a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years."

I wonder how much "net benefit" the Edward Jones dome generated over the 20+ years.

A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly...

oh, well that's sufficiently vague so as to mean absolutely nothing.

...a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.

$295 million over 30 years is pathetic, and based on all precedent it wouldn't even be around that long.

i'm sure this was a thorough and unbiased analysis. weird how it contradicts all the academic literature on the nonexistent regional economic benefits of pro sports.

urban_dilettante wrote:

A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly...

oh, well that's sufficiently vague so as to mean absolutely nothing.

...a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.

$295 million over 30 years is pathetic, and based on all precedent it wouldn't even be around that long.

i'm sure this was a thorough and unbiased analysis. weird how it contradicts all the academic literature on the nonexistent regional economic benefits of pro sports.

Do the studies account for 450M in free private money from the NFL from outside the region? I don't think so. If 295M isn't enough for you, what is? Folks here will make up their minds to root for failure in spite of data.

Its $295M net positive, meaning its $645M over 30 years (minus $350 the state would put in)

Not sure if this has been posted here, but it is nice to see Jason La Confora say something in our favor for once. I know this is a few weeks old, but there is some talk that Kroenke could be forced to stay in STL. The NFL would sweeten the pot to keep him happy. Only problem, not sure if could ever repair his reputation here in STL. PR nightmare!

roger wyoming II wrote:^ As long as the state income tax stays the same -- which is a huge assumption with a growing and extremely well-funded effort in Jefferson City to either eliminate or lower the tax -- I think the state can make a reasonable case that the state subsidy would begin to see some returns before too long as the NFL payroll continues to climb.

But, honestly, what would an analysis show for Saint Louis County? The County will be the toughest nut to crack at the ballot box. Maybe the State will pick up a good portion of the County's share since its so critical!

you still believe that this will see a public vote?

This will fail in any vote of St. Louis City and County, since the public won't know that their portion is paid for by visitors through rental car and hotel taxes -- the same taxes I pay when I help Atlanta, Indy, Minneapolis build their new stadiums. Obviously most of the 1.3 million residents don't go to games so will vote no on anything with the word tax in it. In Seattle it passed due to the MLS vote, and they had a filthy rich guy who folks liked putting in his own money.

Roger, there is not going to be a vote in the City or county. these are state bonds and of course there is no statewide votes to extend state bonds.

Didnt i go over this song and dance with you a few pages back....State will shift the current Dome bonds to the City and County (already approved and have a funding source (hotel and car rental tax) and the state will assume the payment of bonds for the new stadium.