The reasons you mentioned is why I don't want the Raiders here. They're a much more storied franchise than the Rams even after ten years of losing. Destroying their fan base would be just as bad Art Modell moving the Browns cause he was broke.
1. They are idiots.gary kreie wrote:You declare that this is a fantasy because MOLEG is going to eliminate income tax. But MOLEG will replace it with something -- and if they don't replace it with something that still gets that $12M out of the football operations one way or another -- higher ticket tax, entertainment tax, player tax, whatever -- they are idiots and intentionally damaging our state.
2. If they don't approve the bond extensions as a source of debt, then they no longer need the source of revenue that the NFL team would be. They're still stupid, but that wouldn't be.
But back to the financials in general. Even if the state breaks even on the deal, we still haven't figured out how the city/region comes out positive out of the deal in any tangible manner.
So do all other 31 NFL cities come away with "tangible" gains from their teams?
- 9,570
not everything has to make money to make sense...transit loses boat load of money but it makes sense...bike trails are a horrible economic investment, they dont make money but ive put on 20,000 miles on them since 2009.......its an amenity for people, remember how much good the Cardinals do for the imagine of the city, how much good the Rams did when they won the superbowl in 2000.
- 3,767
- 8,155
I think this is the most honest way for stadium supporters to look at things rather than trying to wrap their support up in questionable economic benefit arguments... and I have no problem if the City and County voters support subsidies through public votes like they have done for transit and trails (which do have direct and tremendous positive benefits beyond mere psychic feelings such as improved property values, greater accessibility to jobs, and better health outcomes). But we do need a vote.dbInSouthCity wrote:not everything has to make money to make sense...transit loses boat load of money but it makes sense...bike trails are a horrible economic investment, they dont make money but ive put on 20,000 miles on them since 2009.......its an amenity for people, remember how much good the Cardinals do for the imagine of the city, how much good the Rams did when they won the superbowl in 2000.
And I do have a problem with supporters who argue that this is indeed economic development. It can be harmful if it leads people to think that something is being done to address Saint Louis's needs when in fact it does no such thing.
- 9,570
I think what the Peacock Task Force has going for it is time line, they are way ahead of SD and Oakland and both of those would require some sort of public vote and in SD it needs 66% to pass...
and the NFL is not a fan of what Oakland is trying to do
Grubman said Oakland and Alameda County officials disregarded his advice during a recent meeting.
“What I was clear with the mayor and the county (was) ... if you’re trying to do something with a team or teams and that’s the most important feature of the project, then my advice to you is to place the team or teams at the center of your negotiations table,” Grubman said. “If you’re trying to do a real estate development and that’s your most important thing, then put a real estate developer at the center of your negotiating table.”
Instead, while emphasizing their desire to keep the Raiders and A’s, city and county officials put the immediate future of Coliseum City project exclusively in the hands of Kephart, the real estate advisor.
“Their answer was no, the teams are most important, but we think the mechanism is real estate development, and I said from my perspective that’s not the way the world works,” Grubman said. “It’s no criticism against real estate developers. They’re there to develop real estate and make a profit, not to develop a team that makes the team profit. So it’s sort of circular logic, and if I were you I wouldn’t do it that way. But they have.”
From what Eric Grubman said yesterday, this thing will be decided at the October owners meeting
The Cowboys HQ. . . http://www.5pointsblue.com/a-sneak-peek ... 9559607813
Something like this on the Bottle District site, combined with a Disney Wide World of Sports (in Orlando) type amateur sports facility, would do wonders for tourism in STL.
Think about it, national cheerleading competitions can have as many as 20,000 competitors.
Something like this on the Bottle District site, combined with a Disney Wide World of Sports (in Orlando) type amateur sports facility, would do wonders for tourism in STL.
Think about it, national cheerleading competitions can have as many as 20,000 competitors.
- 9,570
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/nf ... /70404784/
Ganis, who speaks regularly to NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell and is friendly with many owners, agrees that keeping teams in their current cities is the priority. So Tuesday, when owners and league executives said one or two teams could relocate before the 2016 season, Ganis said it was not an idle threat.
"Putting communities on notice publicly and privately is spelled out in the (NFL) relocation rules and the right thing to do," Ganis said. "This is offering a road map as to how to retain the teams on a long-term basis. Knowing that this is what they need to do, generally by when they need to do it and that there are credible and viable options for the team if it doesn't happen is the responsible way to inform and assist the existing home territories to retain their teams."
The memory of Al Davis defying the NFL in the early 1980s when he moved the Raiders to Los Angeles from Oakland has stoked fears of Kroenke doing the same with the Rams. After all, it's hard to believe Kroenke is planning a $2 billion stadium in Inglewood without an expectation that his Rams will play in it.
Never miss a moment! Download the new USA TODAY Sports app
But Ganis said if a proposed $985 million stadium in St. Louis secures funding, "It'd be very hard, if not impossible, following the league's relocation rules, for that not to be approved by the NFL. And I have absolutely no doubt the NFL will enforce its rules regarding relocation."
Though a governor-appointed task force in Missouri presented a stadium project, the funding — about $350 million to come from the extension of bonds that would need approval from the state legislature and/or voters — remains uncertain. A spokesman for Gov. Jay Nixon said the task force was waiting on the NFL and Kroenke to make a financial commitment, and the group's recommendation calls on the NFL and team to contribute $450 million.
"The governor has been clear that for any stadium proposal to move forward it must involve a significant financial commitment from the NFL and its local franchise," spokesman Channing Ansley said via e-mail. "Once this and other criteria are met, a determination about the financing mechanism can be made."
NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy said in an e-mail the league was working with the task force "to assemble a project that works for all sides, including a financing plan that will draw NFL support."
- 8,155
definitely.... a big problem with our proposed site plan is that it delivers so little on such a huge footprint.realclear wrote:The Cowboys HQ. . . http://www.5pointsblue.com/a-sneak-peek ... 9559607813
Something like this on the Bottle District site, combined with a Disney Wide World of Sports (in Orlando) type amateur sports facility, would do wonders for tourism in STL.
Think about it, national cheerleading competitions can have as many as 20,000 competitors.
- 109
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 30bb0.html
"Wait, there’s more. Grubman said the NFL has discussed the possibility of conducting some sort of PSL (personal seat license)/luxury seating campaign as was conducted during the expansion process."
"Wait, there’s more. Grubman said the NFL has discussed the possibility of conducting some sort of PSL (personal seat license)/luxury seating campaign as was conducted during the expansion process."
Wait. Is Nixon saying they're not going to proceed with trying to secure funding until the NFL and/or Kroenke commits to their portion of the deal?
If so, this is never happening. The NFL isn't going to commit until the money is definitively there. If Nixon is waiting on them, then there's nothing to this and the Rams will walk away without trouble.
If so, this is never happening. The NFL isn't going to commit until the money is definitively there. If Nixon is waiting on them, then there's nothing to this and the Rams will walk away without trouble.
- 9,570
He isnt asking the Rams/NFL(g4funds) to put $450M in a joint checking account, all he is saying is if we are going to get you $350M and go fight for it, we want a commitment from you for your $450M will be there after we come out of the battle and that we can use it in our talks with the legislature ...really not a big deal .
I disagree. It's a huge deal because Kroenke isn't going to commit to anything other than LA. And you're probably not going to see the league promise it either.
It's a bit silly because I'm sure that money will be there, but they're just not going to commit it in advance. The NFL has been very upfront about saying that the St. Louis plan is progressing but it must assemble the land and get funding in place before it can really move forward.
The NFL isn't going to commit to funding until St. Louis does.
That's a recipe for disaster.
It's a bit silly because I'm sure that money will be there, but they're just not going to commit it in advance. The NFL has been very upfront about saying that the St. Louis plan is progressing but it must assemble the land and get funding in place before it can really move forward.
The NFL isn't going to commit to funding until St. Louis does.
That's a recipe for disaster.
- 3,433
Grubmann would have stopped Peacock by now if the $450M expected from the NFL and an owner wasn't every going to be there. It will be if the rest of the funding gets put in place. Then construction can begin. There have been hints that the NFL may put up the owner portion -- then they could tack it onto the relocation fee, or whatever, that they get from Kroenke. $450M or more is the standard from the NFL to existing cities that agree to use public money on a new stadium. That is the nearly-certain part of the funding.jstriebel wrote:I disagree. It's a huge deal because Kroenke isn't going to commit to anything other than LA. And you're probably not going to see the league promise it either.
It's a bit silly because I'm sure that money will be there, but they're just not going to commit it in advance. The NFL has been very upfront about saying that the St. Louis plan is progressing but it must assemble the land and get funding in place before it can really move forward.
The NFL isn't going to commit to funding until St. Louis does.
That's a recipe for disaster.
- 8,155
^ What would be really cool is if the NFL split a hefty Kroenke relocation fee halfsies with the new Saint Louis franchise owner and the city/county/state. We essentially provide the land assemblage and the NFL interests, with help from beloved Missouri son Stan Kroenke's exit fee, pays for the stadium.
Hopefully the back and forth will yield some more good news from Peacock and company in the coming days or weeks, but I don't really like the general tone coming from the powers that be. There is a lot of language that could be interpreted as positive if you really squint, but sounds more like they are laying the ground work for STL to be labeled a failure by their "criteria."
I hope Peacock has gotten in the ear of our major corporations before the NFL did/does. I think someone on this forum pages back said they heard that he had gotten commitments from local Fortune 1000 companies for luxury boxes in the new stadium. That is the kind of smart work that it seems like would really help this thing. It would be nice if DP can get involved in the actual presentations in May as he just seems like a hard guy to deny anything.
I hope Peacock has gotten in the ear of our major corporations before the NFL did/does. I think someone on this forum pages back said they heard that he had gotten commitments from local Fortune 1000 companies for luxury boxes in the new stadium. That is the kind of smart work that it seems like would really help this thing. It would be nice if DP can get involved in the actual presentations in May as he just seems like a hard guy to deny anything.
- 3,767
I know this is wishful thinking, but I REALLY hope that some, if not most of this, is resolved before the start of the regular season. I truly believe this new 'prove your an NFL market' thing, will be pushed not only by the NFL, but Kroenke. He will use poor attendance against us, fair or not. I expect, if things are pretty much like they are (many unknowns), that Rams attendance in 2015 will be horrible. It wasn't great last year. Throw in the facts that have come out since the last home game and you have a recipe for disaster. Not to mention, the Rams have not done much, if anything, to get much better. While Foles is an upgrade, they have not done much in free agency. The draft will be big, but to see a bump in wins, based solely on draft pick contributions, in the NFC West, is again, wishful thinking. This season is already being labeled a 'lame duck season". I do not see fans coming out in force, to support an ass like Kroenke. Most are too smart to buy the 'support your team/city, not the owner' jazz. I am well aware of the fact that we should not be judged on attendance during a perceived lame duck season, but I feel like the NFL will be looking at any reason to nail a city for it's lack of support. After all, there are 3 franchises and basically 5 spots (2 in LA) that they could land. The NFL has options.
See, I'm not doubting the money will be there from Kroenke or the league when the time comes. I know it will.gary kreie wrote:Grubmann would have stopped Peacock by now if the $450M expected from the NFL and an owner wasn't every going to be there. It will be if the rest of the funding gets put in place. Then construction can begin. There have been hints that the NFL may put up the owner portion -- then they could tack it onto the relocation fee, or whatever, that they get from Kroenke. $450M or more is the standard from the NFL to existing cities that agree to use public money on a new stadium. That is the nearly-certain part of the funding.
But right now they appear to be playing a game of chicken. The Governor's office appears to be saying that they won't seek to get bonds approved until they have an official commitment (which they must not or he wouldn't have to say it), and the NFL isn't going to give an official commitment until STL/MO has the financing officially lined up.
Both hypothetical seem relatively likely, but neither side seems willing to work on the other's hypothetical. And if that's the case, the funding may never move forward.
- 9,570
attendance has been down NFL wide...market thing is less about ticket sales as more about corporate support and suite sales...and thats where Peacock comes in....now that they are getting in the nuts and bolts of stadium design the pros will take over that part and Peacock will work on securing long term suite sales and corporate support.DogtownBnR wrote: I truly believe this new 'prove your an NFL market' thing, will be pushed not only by the NFL, but Kroenke. He will use poor attendance against us, fair or not. I expect, if things are pretty much like they are (many unknowns), that Rams attendance in 2015 will be horrible. It wasn't great last year. Throw in the facts that have come out since the last home game and you have a recipe for disaster..
also ticket sales for 2015 are WAY ahead of ticket sales for 2014 at this point of the year.
- 3,767
I guess I just do not trust the NFL. If they want to find fault with the fanbase, they will. If they want Stan in LA, he will be there. I would have to think that they love his plan, but also do not want to set a precedent with relocation, basically ignoring THEIR bylaws.
I understand reality and the facts. I just hope that we are not unfairly criticized as a fanbase. Those MNF games last year reflected poorly on the fanbase.
I understand reality and the facts. I just hope that we are not unfairly criticized as a fanbase. Those MNF games last year reflected poorly on the fanbase.
Interesting take from JAX. Kahn is committed to Jacksonville. He is investing in the team, the stadium and the city. While it has not translated to wins, he is the owner we could have only dreamed of. . . . .
http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-Jag ... 056fa987f0
http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-Jag ... 056fa987f0
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/C ... n-MLB.aspx
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 407ca.html
I know the Cardinals have history in STL and a great winning tradition. HOWEVER, they are also based in a "mid-market" or smaller city, all things considered. The fact that the Cards are one of the most profitable and valuable franchises, proves that you can have a top 5 most valuable franchise, in a "small market".
The Cardinals are run from top to bottom, masterfully. The Rams are the polar opposite. This is more proof, that the value of the Rams, the market size and corporate support are a bogus argument, with regards to the Rams in LA versus St. Louis. If the Greatest Show had continued and the Rams had even half the run the Patriots went on, they be worth WAY more and get way more support for a new stadium here. The proof is right there, in the Cardinals vs. Rams example. Proves that a well-oiled machine of a franchise, can do great in any market.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 407ca.html
I know the Cardinals have history in STL and a great winning tradition. HOWEVER, they are also based in a "mid-market" or smaller city, all things considered. The fact that the Cards are one of the most profitable and valuable franchises, proves that you can have a top 5 most valuable franchise, in a "small market".
The Cardinals are run from top to bottom, masterfully. The Rams are the polar opposite. This is more proof, that the value of the Rams, the market size and corporate support are a bogus argument, with regards to the Rams in LA versus St. Louis. If the Greatest Show had continued and the Rams had even half the run the Patriots went on, they be worth WAY more and get way more support for a new stadium here. The proof is right there, in the Cardinals vs. Rams example. Proves that a well-oiled machine of a franchise, can do great in any market.