Browns, Colts, Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders, Titans......plenty of gypsies out there.
Aesir, so mad- 3,433
I see three possible outcomes.
1) The public locks in the source of its portion of the money, which even the Post Dispatch reluctantly agreed is more than paid back to taxpayers by taxes on the team and team activities if the team stays. We are willing to give big subsidies to Boeing and other businesses, since it pays off for the state, without a public vote. This is no different, except that here the business here doesn't get a dime of the money. The government, rather, will own the stadium asset, even though the NFL, Owner, and PSL will pay for 60% with private money. The NFL and RAMs follow their rules and the team stays and the stadium is built. $450 million in outside money plus $150 million in PSL money is injected into downtown.
Public doesn't pay a dime since all tax money spent is reimbursed by taxes on team and things that only happen if the team stays.
2) The public locks in its portion of the money, but the owner or NFL backs out on their portion. Then the NFL will have to decided if this shows the owner was never serious about staying, no matter how lavish the stadium upgrades, and 6 owners (along with Chargers, Raiders, and Jags owners) vote no on the Rams move to LA. Then the Rams stay and play in the dome for now. This could be seen as the best scenario, since taxes on Rams continues without stadium cost -- except that the $450 million in outside money doesn't happen, and the team could try this gambit again in a few years without a solid lease agreement.
Public doesn't pay a dime because the team stays and is taxed as usual, at least for a while.
3) The public money is killed because people are convinced they are giving money to Kroenke. This is Kroenke's dream scenario. He is betting for the public to be mad at him enough to vote down money for a stadium that the public would own so he can say to the NFL -- "See, they're idiots. You have to let me leave and earn the riches of my new stadium in LA."
Team leaves. In 10 years, St. Louis wants a stadium for MLS or NFL, but now gets no help from the league, just like the dome situation in 1995, and the public must pay an expansion or relocation fee for a stadium that will now cost $1.5 billion due to inflation. Or St. Louis remains just a baseball town and NFL fans travel to KC, Chicago, Indy, or Nashville to pay for their stadiums via their hotel taxes.
Public must still pay on the dome for 10 years but may have to raise taxes to cover the lost money from taxes on the Rams and game day activities. Also, the $300 million in future earnings to the state from taxes on the Rams is lost and must be made up with new taxes or cuts to schools, roads, or Medicaid.
Is there a scenario that I am missing? Show me the numbers.
1) The public locks in the source of its portion of the money, which even the Post Dispatch reluctantly agreed is more than paid back to taxpayers by taxes on the team and team activities if the team stays. We are willing to give big subsidies to Boeing and other businesses, since it pays off for the state, without a public vote. This is no different, except that here the business here doesn't get a dime of the money. The government, rather, will own the stadium asset, even though the NFL, Owner, and PSL will pay for 60% with private money. The NFL and RAMs follow their rules and the team stays and the stadium is built. $450 million in outside money plus $150 million in PSL money is injected into downtown.
Public doesn't pay a dime since all tax money spent is reimbursed by taxes on team and things that only happen if the team stays.
2) The public locks in its portion of the money, but the owner or NFL backs out on their portion. Then the NFL will have to decided if this shows the owner was never serious about staying, no matter how lavish the stadium upgrades, and 6 owners (along with Chargers, Raiders, and Jags owners) vote no on the Rams move to LA. Then the Rams stay and play in the dome for now. This could be seen as the best scenario, since taxes on Rams continues without stadium cost -- except that the $450 million in outside money doesn't happen, and the team could try this gambit again in a few years without a solid lease agreement.
Public doesn't pay a dime because the team stays and is taxed as usual, at least for a while.
3) The public money is killed because people are convinced they are giving money to Kroenke. This is Kroenke's dream scenario. He is betting for the public to be mad at him enough to vote down money for a stadium that the public would own so he can say to the NFL -- "See, they're idiots. You have to let me leave and earn the riches of my new stadium in LA."
Team leaves. In 10 years, St. Louis wants a stadium for MLS or NFL, but now gets no help from the league, just like the dome situation in 1995, and the public must pay an expansion or relocation fee for a stadium that will now cost $1.5 billion due to inflation. Or St. Louis remains just a baseball town and NFL fans travel to KC, Chicago, Indy, or Nashville to pay for their stadiums via their hotel taxes.
Public must still pay on the dome for 10 years but may have to raise taxes to cover the lost money from taxes on the Rams and game day activities. Also, the $300 million in future earnings to the state from taxes on the Rams is lost and must be made up with new taxes or cuts to schools, roads, or Medicaid.
Is there a scenario that I am missing? Show me the numbers.
What does this mean? Gypsies?blzhrpmd2 wrote:Browns, Colts, Cardinals, Chargers, Raiders, Titans......plenty of gypsies out there.
- 8,155
So now we're gonna have to raise taxes if Rams leave for whatever reason?gary kreie wrote:I see three possible outcomes....
Public must still pay on the dome for 10 years but may have to raise taxes to cover the lost money from taxes on the Rams and game day activities.
- 3,433
How much income tax revenue did the state lose, and how much did Texas gain, when AT&T left St. Louis for Texas? I believe it was substantial. Did the state offer to subsidize some AT&T facilities with some of the tax money they generated, as we are with Boeing? Did Texas make them that offer?roger wyoming II wrote:So now we're gonna have to raise taxes if Rams leave for whatever reason?gary kreie wrote:I see three possible outcomes....
Public must still pay on the dome for 10 years but may have to raise taxes to cover the lost money from taxes on the Rams and game day activities.
- 8,155
^ You've completely lost me. Your argument that if we lose the Rams the City and/or State might have to raise taxes just doesn't hold any water... perhaps the Rams are worth the subsidy -- there are legitimate arguments on both sides -- but saying that we're facing a fiscal calamity if they aren't here anymore is hogwash.
- 3,433
I didn't say there would be a calamity, but the state, city, and county will still have to make payments on the dome that won't be covered by income taxes on the Rams players and staff anymore. The money will have to come from somewhere.roger wyoming II wrote:^ You've completely lost me. Your argument that if we lose the Rams the City and/or State might have to raise taxes just doesn't hold any water... perhaps the Rams are worth the subsidy -- there are legitimate arguments on both sides -- but saying that we're facing a fiscal calamity if they aren't here anymore is hogwash.
Does anyone know if NFL allows an owner to take a minority stake in another team?
I can see Stan landing the new St. Louis stadium and turning around reaching a deal between Charges/Raiders for a stake in each team if he builds them a LA stadium (in Inglewood). Why not go BIG and pursue a plan and get a bigger piece of the NFL TV/license right pie with a stake in three teams. In the meantime he would manage to screw three places in Oakland, San Diego and deflate Carson dreams instead of one, St. Louis, while he is laughing to the bank. I doubt it would happen but I think it would be entertaining to speculate on.
I can see Stan landing the new St. Louis stadium and turning around reaching a deal between Charges/Raiders for a stake in each team if he builds them a LA stadium (in Inglewood). Why not go BIG and pursue a plan and get a bigger piece of the NFL TV/license right pie with a stake in three teams. In the meantime he would manage to screw three places in Oakland, San Diego and deflate Carson dreams instead of one, St. Louis, while he is laughing to the bank. I doubt it would happen but I think it would be entertaining to speculate on.
I would assume the "gypsy" term is referring to the Rams' itinerant propensity. My response was just noting that plenty of other teams have searched and wandered off to "greener" pastures. Aesir will have to chime in if there was an alternative meaning to the moniker.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/8/28/6 ... in-the-nfl
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/8/28/6 ... in-the-nfl
Ok, got it. Thanks.blzhrpmd2 wrote:I would assume the "gypsy" term is referring to the Rams' itinerant propensity. My response was just noting that plenty of other teams have searched and wandered off to "greener" pastures. Aesir will have to chime in if there was an alternative meaning to the moniker.
http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/8/28/6 ... in-the-nfl
- 3,433
I don't know if Stan is eager to "land" the new St. Louis stadium. But he might accept it if the NFL convinces him to. He'll have to shell out $250 million for a stadium he doesn't own. And then pay rent. He would not get the sweet deal he has on the dome now. But a new stadium could pay off if the business community steps up and buys up all the luxury skyboxes. They may want them more than the ones in the dome, since on cold days they can in sit indoors and look out on the wretched upper middle class having to sit outdoors and feel superior.dredger wrote:Does anyone know if NFL allows an owner to take a minority stake in another team?
I can see Stan landing the new St. Louis stadium and turning around reaching a deal between Charges/Raiders for a stake in each team if he builds them a LA stadium (in Inglewood). Why not go BIG and pursue a plan and get a bigger piece of the NFL TV/license right pie with a stake in three teams. In the meantime he would manage to screw three places in Oakland, San Diego and deflate Carson dreams instead of one, St. Louis, while he is laughing to the bank. I doubt it would happen but I think it would be entertaining to speculate on.
After digesting what Peacock said on Friday and just now on Channel 5, it really seems like they have the nod from the league here if we produce the stadium. I realize hat's still an "if" and they are basically doing PR for their own cause, however there is a big disconnect between the confidence of the task force, the evasive tone of Demoff, and the very public message that no details will be shared from Wednesdays meetings. It just doesn't add up with the information we have in front of us. The contradiction of the task force's attitude with KD's greasing the skids for relocation application is hard to grasp.
On Friday evening's Fastlane segment, when asked what to say to fans who believe the Rams are gone, I think Peacock said something like, "I understand it, but those people don't have all the information that I do...."
Watching the Blues' early exit and Wainwright's glass ankle made for a forgettable day for STL sports. Next year when the Blues get bounced in April, it will be harder to swallow if the draft and anticipation for the upcoming Rams' season is no longer an applicable distraction.
On Friday evening's Fastlane segment, when asked what to say to fans who believe the Rams are gone, I think Peacock said something like, "I understand it, but those people don't have all the information that I do...."
Watching the Blues' early exit and Wainwright's glass ankle made for a forgettable day for STL sports. Next year when the Blues get bounced in April, it will be harder to swallow if the draft and anticipation for the upcoming Rams' season is no longer an applicable distraction.
- 3,433
Here is a link to the Channel 5 interview with Peacock and Blitz:blzhrpmd2 wrote:After digesting what Peacock said on Friday and just now on Channel 5, it really seems like they have the nod from the league here if we produce the stadium. I realize hat's still an "if" and they are basically doing PR for their own cause, however there is a big disconnect between the confidence of the task force, the evasive tone of Demoff, and the very public message that no details will be shared from Wednesdays meetings. It just doesn't add up with the information we have in front of us. The contradiction of the task force's attitude with KD's greasing the skids for relocation application is hard to grasp.
On Friday evening's Fastlane segment, when asked what to say to fans who believe the Rams are gone, I think Peacock said something like, "I understand it, but those people don't have all the information that I do...."
Watching the Blues' early exit and Wainwright's glass ankle made for a forgettable day for STL sports. Next year when the Blues get bounced in April, it will be harder to swallow if the draft and anticipation for the upcoming Rams' season is no longer an applicable distraction.
http://www.ksdk.com/videos/sports/nfl/r ... /26436853/
- 8,912
The NFL definitely would not allow one to have ownership stakes in more than one NFL franchise. That would be a conflict of interest.dredger wrote:Does anyone know if NFL allows an owner to take a minority stake in another team?
I can see Stan landing the new St. Louis stadium and turning around reaching a deal between Charges/Raiders for a stake in each team if he builds them a LA stadium (in Inglewood). Why not go BIG and pursue a plan and get a bigger piece of the NFL TV/license right pie with a stake in three teams. In the meantime he would manage to screw three places in Oakland, San Diego and deflate Carson dreams instead of one, St. Louis, while he is laughing to the bank. I doubt it would happen but I think it would be entertaining to speculate on.
- 9,570
things seem very bad in SD and Oakland right now but a small part of me thinks that the NFL's grand plan is Rams in LA 2016, and give SD and Oakland one more year, since both owners have declared that they want to stay in the home markets if something can be worked out...end game is one joins the Rams in LA in 2017 (probably the Chargers ) and the Raiders go with 49ers... this would be what Stan wants...a year alone in LA to be THE team but im not sure the Chargers would bend over like that or even stay in SD if some other team is in LA....so this is why a small part of me thinks this...
things seem very bad in SD and Oakland right now but a small part of me thinks that the NFL's grand plan is Rams in LA 2016, and give SD and Oakland one more year, since both owners have declared that they want to stay in the home markets if something can be worked out...end game is one joins the Rams in LA in 2017 (probably the Chargers ) and the Raiders go with 49ers... this would be what Stan wants...a year alone in LA to be THE team but im not sure the Chargers would bend over like that or even stay in SD if some other team is in LA....so this is why a small part of me thinks this...
^Did someone hack your account?
While I wouldn't put anything past the league, in your scenario above, how do you see things going down locally? Does STL just drop the ball on some facet of the stadium or does the NFL look at the approved shovel ready plan, pat Dave and Bob on the head and say thanks for playing?
I've been wondering if the whole "NFL City" stuff around here is just as much NFL-driven as it is STL-driven. Do you think the NFL advised the task force to get STL's branding campaign to be molded into additional pressure on San Diego and Oakland? But then what's in it for us besides a lot of work with no reward? I think Dave knows something pretty substantial. I don't buy that after the meetings they just all sat around and said, well, we'll let you know. If they are requesting total silence about the details of the proceedings then something is floating around that probably points to an end game in all of this mess. I'm not saying it is necessarily great news for STL in the near future but like I said before, something doesn't add up.
While I wouldn't put anything past the league, in your scenario above, how do you see things going down locally? Does STL just drop the ball on some facet of the stadium or does the NFL look at the approved shovel ready plan, pat Dave and Bob on the head and say thanks for playing?
I've been wondering if the whole "NFL City" stuff around here is just as much NFL-driven as it is STL-driven. Do you think the NFL advised the task force to get STL's branding campaign to be molded into additional pressure on San Diego and Oakland? But then what's in it for us besides a lot of work with no reward? I think Dave knows something pretty substantial. I don't buy that after the meetings they just all sat around and said, well, we'll let you know. If they are requesting total silence about the details of the proceedings then something is floating around that probably points to an end game in all of this mess. I'm not saying it is necessarily great news for STL in the near future but like I said before, something doesn't add up.
- 9,570
in that scenario- Nobody drops the ball here...they have everything ready to go but Stan says no and works out a backroom deal with owners for 24 votes and throws Spanos a bone by saying you can be the 2nd team in LA in 2017 if you cant get anything in San Diego done without paying a dime for the Inglewood stadium.
- 3,433
As long as it isn't costing you and me anything yet, I see Dave Peacock's steely determination to keep doing what the NFL says to do as the right approach. In the future, no matter how this turns out, let history show that St. Louis did everything it could to keep the NFL. This will work well for us later if the NFL leaves and we go instead for an MLS or NBA team. I'll need to spend my discretionary sports dollars somewhere.
The last checkmark for St. Louis may be fan turn-out at Rams games. Then Stan may have to spend $250 million just to buy out remaining integrity of enough owners to get the vote to move.
The last checkmark for St. Louis may be fan turn-out at Rams games. Then Stan may have to spend $250 million just to buy out remaining integrity of enough owners to get the vote to move.
Unfortunately, I just saw on the Jim Thomas Rams chat that Kevin Demoff says Rams ticket sales are "slow".gary kreie wrote:As long as it isn't costing you and me anything yet, I see Dave Peacock's steely determination to keep doing what the NFL says to do as the right approach. In the future, no matter how this turns out, let history show that St. Louis did everything it could to keep the NFL. This will work well for us later if the NFL leaves and we go instead for an MLS or NBA team. I'll need to spend my discretionary sports dollars somewhere.
The last checkmark for St. Louis may be fan turn-out at Rams games. Then Stan may have to spend $250 million just to buy out remaining integrity of enough owners to get the vote to move.