urbanSTL

correct and since the City and County have committed to paying those bonds and we all know bond payments change you cant have law that says if the payment goes up the voters have to vote...
and the state would pay $12-15M a year on the extended portion of the bonds for the new stadium.

of course its bit more complex then that but few of my friends that deal with bonds at US Bank say its not that hard of a thing to pull off, sure someone will take a hit politically but thats why Nixon is up front on the stage for this...unlike Slay and Stenger he has no re-election to run.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ Interesting. So what gets cut to pay for the increased annual local payments? And under this scenario the state would pay $24 million or so for 30 years or whatever the term would be. That would seriously erode any economic benefits the state just announced yesterday.

So where did you hear about this scheme and why is this not what Peacock is saying likely would happen?

i assume once the bond are re-financed and extended that the city and county portion would be lower then $12M...and currently the local tax that pays for the $6m apparently generates more and both the city and county have been keeping the extra
this was floated publicly a few months back...either on 920 on espn101

^ I believe this is completely wrong, at least for the City, which, unlike the County, does not have a dedicated tax or fund for the Dome payments. The city's hotel and restaurant taxes can be used for anything, and I'm pretty sure that excess revenue from the taxes are not being sat upon. I'd love to be proved wrong!

And again, the state DED report yesterday assumed that the state would be paying $12 million a year in bond payments. Not $24 million, or perhaps a slightly lower amount assuming a favorable rate. So I think this intriguing scheme is pretty questionable.

On KMOX this afternoon, I heard an interview with Mike Downing, Missouri Economic Development Director, on their study of what it would cost the state government to build a new stadium. He was very direct in saying their study only looked at income taxes from players, staff, and construction workers for the new stadium, and state sales tax on tickets, and was very conservative. His estimate showed extending the current dome payments going forward for the new stadium would cost $12M per year, and the revenue that comes from the Rams to the state, which would be lost if the Rams leave, is $13.5M the first year.

He said they then assumed the revenue from the Rams would go up 3% per year on average, (very conservative for NFL salaries), whereas the $12M payments would be fixed. So if we build the stadium and keep the Rams, the state is in the black nearly $300M over the 30 years. He assumed the stadium had to be built to keep the Rams, and no stadium would be built without the NFL guaranteeing that it would house an NFL team up front.

He made it clear there are likely a lot of other sources of revenue from parking owners and workers, as well as other intangibles, but they did not include any of that in their study. And the study did not include revenue from concerts or other events there, such as MLS.

If the Rams leave, the state would obviously need to make up that money lost in other ways. Raise taxes? Taking more from Medicaid? Schools? Reduce funding to highways and bridges? Historic preservation tax credits? Any suggestions? If the NFL and owner pump in $450M for this project, as assumed, it will be the single biggest investment in downtown from outside the region for a single project.

I don't see a recording of the program on the KMOX web site yet, but here is a story about the report from their website.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/03/09/ ... -st-louis/

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I think it is reasonable to expect the Rams payroll to increase around that amount at least for the foreseeable future, but I also think it is extremely likely the increasingly Republican legislature will either decrease (and possibly eliminate) the income tax once Nixon is gone, so I'd like to see how that would impact projections.

Also, nothing would be cut from existing programs if the stadium does not go through. The state may possibly forego a potential future revenue stream that could boost other programs (the most likely of which would be tax cuts), but that is different than saying other things would need to be cut.

If the stadium does not go through, the Rams will leave and all the state income from players, rams coaches and staff, sales taxes, etc. will be gone immediately. That will be a loss of $13.5M the first year, but the $12M bill for the dome will still be there. So something will have to be cut next year, and every year thru at least 2021 until the dome is paid off, so that is at least $72M.

Then funding for things that could have been paid for with the $300M surplus, such as roads, will have to be paid for some other way. So, let's look at it your way -- we build the stadium and the Rams stay, but all state funding stays flat as you suggest. Then we would all get a tax refund of $300M, or about $50 per man, woman and child in Missouri. If you are a family of 4 and don't need your $200 refund, you could use it to buy 25 bottles of fine Missouri wine. For me. I prefer Augusta Winery Alluvium red blend.

Or, since there are 300 regular and preseason football games in 30 years, the state could have 1 million dollars to hand out for each Rams game. That's about $16 per game for every single seat in the stadium for every single game. Just about enough for a decent meal on Washington street or Laclede's landing before the game. Or spend it on 15,000 free Rams tickets for Veterans or the poor for every game.

Labor Unions in Los Angeles are opposing the Inglewood Stadium.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/c06d80ac ... la-suburbs

^RW2 you posted the wrong link.

Proponents of the new stadium are framing the discussion all wrong. They should portray it as "public/private partnership joining forces to secure a worksite for high-paying professional jobs for largely African-American men in the City".

This way anyone against the new stadium could be portrayed as racist and we could fast track the whole thing Hey, don't laugh- it's proven to work!

Can you hear me Dave? You need me to join Team Peacock as a part-time consultant or what!?!?!?!

Kevin Demoff (Rams COO) has spoken....encouraged by the progress so far...very happy with the Task Forces work so far...

Big deal. He's a talking head. He will say whatever is necessary to sell tickets this year.

moorlander wrote:Big deal. He's a talking head. He will say whatever is necessary to sell tickets this year.

he isnt talking if Stan doesn't want him to talk as evident by the silence from jan to now. and to move, they need to show lack of support, selling tickets is not ideal if you want to show lack of support

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 0199b.html

This article is not encouraging. It is very clear that Stan wants to build his sports empire, by adding LA to his portfolio. (at our expense)

billions in profits

Most any NFL team makes in profits is about $150M a year...and thats the brand name team like the Cowboys, even the historic Packers have never made a profit above 50M a year in the NFL....

anyway, if you read that whole piece, its a lot of speculation on the writers part...he goes say the irony of all of this is that St.Louis could stop Stan if their own plan.

Right now, the biggest obstacle to making that happen isn't Oakland or San Diego but, of all places, St. Louis. Initially, Kroenke and the city had been $575 million apart on the renovation plan for the Edward Jones Dome. Since then, St. Louis has come back with a new proposal for a state-of-the-art, open-air stadium in the city's blighted north riverfront section that includes $400 million in public financing. The plan has a lot of potential pitfalls, the least of which is getting Kroenke to the table now that he has one foot in the California sand. But there is growing sentiment inside the league that after a year of gaffes by the NFL front office, the last thing it can afford to do is alienate more fans while leaving a pile of stadium money on the table. "Goodell won't let Stan move to LA," one NFL owner told ESPN. "Because Goodell would catch holy hell for moving a team from a market willing to spend hundreds of millions to keep a team."

Jim Thomas says that Spanos and other NFL owners have enough votes to block Stan's move...

Possible snag.....?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1426770084