City vs Rams Lawsuit

gary kreie · PostApr 13, 2015#16012015-04-13T16:35+00:00

Since they have not been offered anything, I'm obviously making some assumptions. But if the NFL chose to expand by 10 teams in the next few years, and especially if they gave these cities $450M toward a new or improved venue instead of charging a expansion/relocation fee, I believe these cities would jump at the choice we have in front of us now, assuming it comes with the guarantee of a team -- just like what we require.

Here are 13 that I believe would happily take up the NFL on our options. All are bigger than the Buffalo MSA except Honolulu.:
Las Vegas
San Antonio
Inglewood
Orlando
Toronto
London
Mexico City
Oklahoma City
Portland
Salt Lake City
Sacramento
Columbus
Honolulu

If San Diego, St. Louis, and Oakland all fail to provide a new venue, one of these 13 cities will go after the odd man out NFL team. And I suspect they will offer to build the NFL a new $1B stadium even without $450M of free money from the NFL.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 13, 2015#16022015-04-13T16:58+00:00

^ I'm not sure I follow this. Inglewood apparently only would be on the hook for a TIF-type performance subsidy and has already had public hearings. All of the others are larger than Saint Louis City presumably with more fiscal capacity but I would assume all would have significant public debate, if not a public vote, if substantial budget revenue would be diverted to a proposed stadium as here.

gary kreie · PostApr 13, 2015#16032015-04-13T18:21+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm not sure I follow this. Inglewood apparently only would be on the hook for a TIF-type performance subsidy and has already had public hearings. All of the others are larger than Saint Louis City presumably with more fiscal capacity but I would assume all would have significant public debate, if not a public vote, if substantial budget revenue would be diverted to a proposed stadium as here.

Oh, I see. You are saying St. Louis City has no business trying to compete for a team with, say, Oklahoma City, since it is smaller in population.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 13, 2015#16042015-04-13T18:35+00:00

^ Say what now? All I said is that even in larger cities with greater fiscal capacity, there is going to be significant debate about building a stadium if significant public subsidies are involved.

stlien · PostApr 13, 2015#16052015-04-13T19:29+00:00

Las Vegas - Doubt this will ever happen.
San Antonio - This will work.
Inglewood - This is in the works.
Orlando - A team would probably play in the Citrus bowl instead of getting a new venue.
Toronto - Nope.
London - Nope.
Mexico City - Nope.
Oklahoma City - Would OKC have the corporate support? Would Jerry Jones allow this?
Portland - The money is there, but residents probably think they're too cool for the NFL.
Salt Lake City - Possible.
Sacramento - Don't they (city and state) seem over extended?
Columbus - You're kidding right?
Honolulu - You're definitely kidding right?

roger wyoming II · PostApr 13, 2015#16062015-04-13T20:02+00:00

Kroenke will present his plan next week as will the Charers/Raiders...

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt

Meanwhile, Atlanta's estimated stadium cost has risen $100 million more and is now at $1.5 billion...

http://www.bizjournals.com/atlanta/news ... l?page=all

For those keeping score at home, the cost of the new stadium has now spiked 50 percent since it was first announced.

“We have an owner who has a great deal of difficulty saying no,” Blank said, referring to himself. “But we are at a point where we have developed and put in place all the great ideas that we can.”

DogtownBnR · PostApr 13, 2015#16072015-04-13T20:26+00:00

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... 1428956603

NFL teams to present LA plans to owners LA committee. Grubman is also going to update the committee on existing market's efforts... ie.. STL and Peacock's group.

urban_dilettante · PostApr 13, 2015#16082015-04-13T21:49+00:00

gary kreie wrote:Maybe its just my system, but I tried the links from my iPhone and my PC, and every single one of them says the articles don't exist.

it's my fault. i pasted the links incorrectly. i've fixed them in the original post above.

gary kreie wrote:It was pretty easy to find counter pieces that said it might pay to subsidize stadiums, just for the increase in metro property values alone.

would you mind providing links to those "pieces" (plural). i've only seen one such piece (singular).

blzhrpmd2 · PostApr 13, 2015#16092015-04-13T22:50+00:00

The point about Inglewood and LA not wanting to put up public money is a good one which I neglected to include above.

I think it would be just as embarrassing to sit back and let the franchise walk away. We are 1 of 32 cities who have something that our country enjoys and patronizes. An asset is anything of value and I think your definition is too custom tailored to the context of this website. Would the Arch fit your definition? Give me some examples of things that fulfill all your criteria. Not one article published on this matter in the future will be positively spun to a national audience if the Rams leave. It will sing the same song about STL's loss and point out faults with the fans, the city, the leadership, etc. No level of improved financial ledgers will make up for that loss in my opinion because the negative national press will overpower it. Leaders will continue to make questionable urban decisions.

But let's say STL escapes the trap and doesn't cut the mustard with the stadium proposal. What does the research say about what will sprout out of the north riverfront if no stadium happens? Are there projections for what will go there and over what sort of time line? If we are going to malign the proposition for its economic foibles, then help me better grasp the alternative with the same measuring stick.

gary kreie · PostApr 14, 2015#16102015-04-14T02:57+00:00

urban_dilettante wrote:
gary kreie wrote:Maybe its just my system, but I tried the links from my iPhone and my PC, and every single one of them says the articles don't exist.
it's my fault. i pasted the links incorrectly. i've fixed them in the original post above.

gary kreie wrote:It was pretty easy to find counter pieces that said it might pay to subsidize stadiums, just for the increase in metro property values alone.
would you mind providing links to those "pieces" (plural). i've only seen one such piece (singular).

OK. Here's another one to go with the two I posted a couple of days ago. That's three.
http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_centers-a ... f?sfvrsn=2

Since you believe a major sports franchise is not worth retaining, what would you think about the Cardinals Baseball Team leaving? They are about the only positive press our city ever gets. So did today's opening day activities generate useful economics, or should our baseball team move to Indianapolis? After all, your studies assume we'll all just spend our entertainment dollars on movies or opera anyway. If the Rams could ever win a few games and build a tradition, we could build a football following as rich as our baseball economy, as Pittsburgh, Philly, Green Bay/Milwaukee, Denver, and others have done. Like someone said, sports is our thing -- we don't have mountains, beaches, or even lakes very close nearby. I don't know if only a zoo is enough to make a millennial want to pick our city over Indy for a startup.

urban_dilettante · PostApr 14, 2015#16112015-04-14T03:28+00:00

gary kreie wrote:OK. Here's another one to go with the two I posted a couple of days ago. That's three.
http://www.colgate.edu/docs/d_centers-a ... f?sfvrsn=2

not saying it's junk—haven't read it yet—but i just want to point out that the article you linked does not appear to be a peer-reviewed journal article. it looks to be an undergraduate summer research paper or something. and i'd also like to point out that the very first line of the abstract states:

...only 8 of 55 stadiums that are currently in-use and were constructed with at least 25% public funding have succeeded in spurring economic development in their surrounding area.

not sure that's the message you're hoping to convey—that the probability of this proposed stadium spurring economic development is 15%.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 14, 2015#16122015-04-14T03:31+00:00

^ the Colgate piece doesn't appear to support the argument that the proposed stadium would help downtown.... its location seems to not fit the criteria for what it says could be a successful stadium as it would be too far from public transit and not very walkable.

stlien · PostApr 14, 2015#16132015-04-14T05:37+00:00

gary kreie wrote: Since you believe a major sports franchise is not worth retaining, what would you think about the Cardinals Baseball Team leaving? They are about the only positive press our city ever gets. So did today's opening day activities generate useful economics, or should our baseball team move to Indianapolis? After all, your studies assume we'll all just spend our entertainment dollars on movies or opera anyway. If the Rams could ever win a few games and build a tradition, we could build a football following as rich as our baseball economy, as Pittsburgh, Philly, Green Bay/Milwaukee, Denver, and others have done. Like someone said, sports is our thing -- we don't have mountains, beaches, or even lakes very close nearby. I don't know if only a zoo is enough to make a millennial want to pick our city over Indy for a startup.

It's not "a" major sports franchise, it's specifically, the Rams. The Cardinals are a legacy team with a storied history. The Rams, not so much.

STL is looking to (partially) finance a stadium - not a team - big difference. The owner of the team has to invest (in the team) and want to "win a few games and build a tradition." It's not the city's/state's job to build that tradition. What if Kroenke doesn't invest in building an on-field contender, what can we do? There's no recourse for that - we're stuck. The Rams can lose every game of every season and guess what, Kroenke will still make hundreds of millions of dollars and fans will be getting screwed out of quality entertainment. What happens if the game day revenue isn't enough to cover the bond payments, does the City have to come out of pocket? This a big bet to make.

You're making it seem as if STL needs a NFL team to be relevant or that sports in general makes STL what it is. What about all the Fortune companies? What about our great neighborhoods and commercial districts? What about all the cultural attractions that consistently get praise from national media? The last time the Rams got praise was when they won the Super Bowl. You're right about one thing, the zoo is not enough for a millennial to choose STL for a startup, but neither is the NFL.

Look, I love sports like a lot of people here, but to think the Rams are anything but a liability masked as an asset is completely biased and misinformed. Building and owning a stadium sounds cool and all until the taxpayers have to chip in again to update it. And if the taxpayers don't chip in for updates, then the politicians will say "we can't attract this event or that event unless our venue is updated." I don't think I've ever heard anyone from City Hall say "we can't attract new businesses here until we get a handle on crime (or anything of the sort)." Shouldn't that be bothersome?

If the owner wants a new stadium, let him build it. Why hasn't Kroenke come out and said "Hey STL, this is what I want..."? Instead, he'd rather start the process in Inglewood. Why? BECAUSE HE DOESN'T WANT TO BE HERE. It seems some people need to understand, the Rams are HIS team, not STL's. And please don't mention anything about the NFL bylaws. The NFL is a billionaires boys club where rules change whenever they see fit. They don't have to abide by their bylaws - they do want they want and fans can do nothing about it.

gary kreie · PostApr 14, 2015#16142015-04-14T13:37+00:00

But the NFL probably does want to have a team here according to their own guidelines, and Kroenke needs at least one other NFL team to play against. Unlike Walmart, he can't defy and wipe out all the competition. So he will do what the NFL requires or sell the team.

The Post ran an editorial today where it looked at the numbers. They grudgingly admit that the Rama more than pay their way, but they want another vote.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/co ... d109f.html

Prediction: A vote will fail, just as it would have in the late 1980s when folks would have assumed they were voting against Bidwill, not St Louis. But 10 years later it passed. A vote this year will fail because folks like you assume a no vote is a vote against Kroenke rather than a vote to stop NFL generated tax dollars coming to the city. Kroenke is counting on you to vote no. We aren't smart enough to vote money for ourselves, Kroenke knows, and he will be right and will look like a genius. Then in about 10 years, a new generation of people will lament one more metro failure, and will move away or may try to acquire a team. But of course then there will be no $450M NFL gift. The public will again need to fund the entire cost plus relocation or expansion fee. We've seen this movie.

Read the Post editorial and tell me how you plan to vote?

roger wyoming II · PostApr 14, 2015#16152015-04-14T14:50+00:00

^ There's nothing to vote on yet... but if a good plan were presented and up for a vote I think it would pass.

Mound City · PostApr 14, 2015#16162015-04-14T16:05+00:00

gary kreie wrote: Prediction: A vote will fail, just as it would have in the late 1980s when folks would have assumed they were voting against Bidwill, not St Louis. But 10 years later it passed. A vote this year will fail because folks like you assume a no vote is a vote against Kroenke rather than a vote to stop NFL generated tax dollars coming to the city. Kroenke is counting on you to vote no. We aren't smart enough to vote money for ourselves, Kroenke knows, and he will be right and will look like a genius. Then in about 10 years, a new generation of people will lament one more metro failure, and will move away or may try to acquire a team. But of course then there will be no $450M NFL gift. The public will again need to fund the entire cost plus relocation or expansion fee. We've seen this movie.

Tend to agree.

Hope it doesn't come to a public vote. The Guvnah and his Elite Task Force probably aren't moving heaven and earth to avoid a public vote for no reason.

(I would vote yes, based on what we know)

jstriebel · PostApr 14, 2015#16172015-04-14T16:14+00:00

We've also seen the movie about what happens when we build new sports stadiums to renovate downtown. That goes both ways.

I'm pretty much on the fence about this current plan. If it happens, so be it. But if it doesn't happen, then I hope we never try for an NFL team again because it is absolutely not worth it at that point.

Mound City · PostApr 14, 2015#16182015-04-14T16:17+00:00

jstriebel wrote:We've also seen the movie about what happens when we build new sports stadiums to renovate downtown. That goes both ways.

I'm pretty much on the fence about this current plan. If it happens, so be it. But if it doesn't happen, then I hope we never try for an NFL team again because it is absolutely not worth it at that point.

What movie is that? At worst, it's the one where we get, all other things remaining the same, a new stadium and an NFL team. I like that one more. If it pays for itself like the Post-Dispatch's Editorial Board's envelope math seems to suggest, then I think it should be considered a "no-brainer."

blzhrpmd2 · PostApr 14, 2015#16192015-04-14T16:52+00:00

How do you think teams get to "legacy" status? Certainly not by letting them walk away when the dollars don't add up. I would agree that Rams' ownership is not helping our cause (even though Stan could just as easily say, "Hey STL, don't waste your time, I'm out" or "Hey LA, I'm in with my Rams." His actions are speaking volumes, but he has not said anything to either side. Also, Demoff is involved in stadium planning which may not mean much, but it is more than SD and Oakland can say about their home markets currently) however, part of the rhetoric is about keeping the NFL by organizing the stadium efforts. We don't need the NFL around, but we don't "need" any of the other things you mentioned either. We don't need museums, historic buildings, or specific neighborhood vibes. It's just better with them around. All of them added up, however, including the NFL make for a more diverse city with more offerings for visitors and citizens.

The errors in our leaders' ability to not address crime and other issues as factors in not attracting people and business to the city are not going to go away just because the NFL does. Sure, that is concerning, but that doesn't eliminate the timetable and challenge placed before them from the NFL: get a stadium plan together or you lose out. There is no such timetable placed before the city: reduce crime or ___________business will leave.

To me if you are okay with the Rams/NFL leaving, then you don't get much pleasure from following the team-which is cool- not everyone cares about football. But as a fan, if scrutinizing how your tax dollars will be spent outweighs the pleasure of rooting for and following your local team, then there can't be much joy gleaned from the experience. Taxes and questionable ways in which they are utilized will similarly not be gone with an exit of the Rams and this stadium. To say you like sports but then label the Rams a liability is a tough one to buy. Just say you don't care that much about them. That's like describing your adopted son like this after his wealthy biological parents show interest in him 20 years later: I'm a big fan of my child and I love him as much as any parent, but it turns out all he really does is drain my pocketbook. I'd save a lot of money if he weren't around so I guess I'll destroy the 20 years of parenting and the relationship I built with him and it's ok if his real parents take him back. If you love the kid, you'll fight to keep him even if it hurts your wallet.

dbInSouthCity · PostApr 14, 2015#16202015-04-14T17:07+00:00

Here is how we got to where we are today

Stan bought the team- had all the intentions of staying and working on a new stadium here

As reported by numerous people....STL Leaderships strategy (room 200) was to ignore Stan and if he wanted a new stadium or improvement Dome he can pay for it...they didnt think LA was an option for a long time

Stan got tired of waiting and knew that other teams were looking at LA, he didnt want to lose twice...get nothing done here and lose a chance at LA.

As we stand today, Stan is going down two paths not because he wants to but because he needs to...he needs to be ready for LA if things dont work out here because the Chargers and Raiders are looking at LA....If NFL believes that Stan is the best plan for LA, he will take it ...if the NFL believes the new STL Stadium is a solid plan and want Stan to work with the Task Force to make it happen, Stan will do that...he knows at this point he cant lose.

Mound City · PostApr 14, 2015#16212015-04-14T17:11+00:00

How amusing would it be, when all's said-and-done, if San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis each came through with new stadiums?

jstriebel · PostApr 14, 2015#16222015-04-14T18:34+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote:To me if you are okay with the Rams/NFL leaving, then you don't get much pleasure from following the team-which is cool- not everyone cares about football. But as a fan, if scrutinizing how your tax dollars will be spent outweighs the pleasure of rooting for and following your local team, then there can't be much joy gleaned from the experience. Taxes and questionable ways in which they are utilized will similarly not be gone with an exit of the Rams and this stadium. To say you like sports but then label the Rams a liability is a tough one to buy. Just say you don't care that much about them. That's like describing your adopted son like this after his wealthy biological parents show interest in him 20 years later: I'm a big fan of my child and I love him as much as any parent, but it turns out all he really does is drain my pocketbook. I'd save a lot of money if he weren't around so I guess I'll destroy the 20 years of parenting and the relationship I built with him and it's ok if his real parents take him back. If you love the kid, you'll fight to keep him even if it hurts your wallet.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it not so. I love the Rams. But I also love my city. And sometimes you have to make painful decisions when you're prioritizing things.

I'm not sure how I can convince you I'm as big of a fan as they come. You'll just have to trust me. Or not. But I am.

(As an aside, I'm not sure anyone has really gleaned much joy watching the Rams in years. But fandom goes beyond joy. You watch even when they repeatedly break your heart. Doesn't make any sense, but that's what we do.)

WendellOPruitt · PostApr 14, 2015#16232015-04-14T18:54+00:00

Mound City wrote:How amusing would it be, when all's said-and-done, if San Diego, Oakland and St. Louis each came through with new stadiums?

This is what the NFL probably wants. The Inglewood and Carson Stadiums both need NFL money, so this could probably go to 2017.

That will allow Oakland and San Diego at least a chance to come up with serious proposals.

roger wyoming II · PostApr 14, 2015#16242015-04-14T19:32+00:00

Here's my back-of-the-envelope calculations for 500,000 attendance (8 reg season + 2 pre-season) with average ticket price of $80:

4.5% sales tax + 5% amusement tax: $3.800 million
4.5% sales tax on concessions/merch, etc.: $0.675 million (avg. $30 per visitor)
City Earnings tax: $0.450 million (this is what Anders rep came up with)

So I would say direct taxes generated would be around $5-$6 million if you add in a bit of hotel tax and misc. sales. From this you'd have to deduct lost property taxes, police overtime, etc.. Depending upon the deal, parking revenue. etc. could be an additional source of revenue for the City that it currently doesn't get. As the years go by, tax collections would be expected to increase, but also the potential for additional multi-million investment obligations to keep up the stadium.

Of course we'd have to see how the actual lease deal and financing details, but I think in general it is fair to say that the stadium wouldn't be a major drain on revenues but also not a major windfall.

gary kreie · PostApr 14, 2015#16252015-04-14T20:58+00:00

I think that's fair. Quality of life is hard to quantify, but in an earlier post I cited a study that showed sports can have some positive effect on property values in a metro area. So there's that.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode