urbanSTL

A tidbit, that I think would be interesting to speculate on. Boston/Olympic dropped its bid and now LA frontrunner. One comment being reported on is the possibility of new NFL stadium in LA as a possible venue. The fun part to speculate on, In relatively short order the possibility of Carson City Stadium picking up a financial public partner could be taking a big step forward. Throw in the talk about NFL studios next door and you a got ready made media center for Olympics.

The funny bit about the comment about NFL stadium in LA is that it came from CEO of he Giants who was tasked in putting things together for San Fran's initial US Olympic proposal together. Pretty much goes out of his way to discount a new stadium in Bay Area. Or another way to put it or how I read the lines, any Olympic support from the region will not be a benefit to the Raiders/Oakland.

http://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco ... oston.html

Organizers behind L.A.’s Olympics bid recently called San Francisco Giants CEO Larry Baer, who helped put together the Bay Area’s pitch.

“I’m not saying we are going to do it, but we are certainly open to discussing it,” Baer told the Chronicle.

The advantages of a joint California bid? If the Games were split between the Bay Area and LA it would address the problem of providing enough facilities for Olympic events, Baer said adding that L.A. plans to build a new football stadium.

http://www.dailynews.com/sports/2015072 ... -sorts-out

This was attached to Vincent Bonsignore's twitter feed. Nothing new, but interesting nonetheless.

If San Diego and Oakland are move to LA. Cant St Louis just sit on its hands and demand more money from Kronke? Where else would he go?

What will actually happen if SD/OK move to LA --> St Louis will still just give Kronke whatever he wants and about 50% of the stadium will be built with public money. And there will be little input by locals on where or how the area is developed.

^ London? Toronto? he has 9 more years left on the Dome lease that isnt losing him money.
but the NFL isn't going to publicly allow SD/OAK to move without all agreements for new stadium in place here.

based on whats coming out of SD and Oakland recent meeting with NFL this week, i think the Charges and Raiders have told their players to start house hunting in LA

I would think that the NFL, as part of rejecting Stan's attempts to move to LA, they would require STL to fund their portion of the stadium and get the project done. There will be no backing down and saying to Stan, 'where you going to go now buddy?'. The NFL will want a deal in STL finalized, as part of forcing the Rams to stay. Now, that said, this is all assuming LA gets a Carson deal done. Keep in mind SD & OAK are one in the same, with regards to Carson. There would be no situation where one is ready to go and one is not. OAK & SD will do everything hand in hand, like a joint venture or partnership. If one goes down, then entire deal falls through. I could see a scenario where the Carson deal fails and one of the two jumps in Stan in Inglewood. I don't think that is ideal, but you never know. All I do know, is that SD & OAK do not want to be in the same boat, while Stan is in LA, marketing and promoting the LA Rams as "LA's team". Then if one of those teams tries to come later, many of the NFL fanbase in LA, will already be loyal to the Rams. This is quite a dilemma for the NFL, the cities and the franchises. Lots of moving parts. This is going to be epic. Let's hope that STL is not the city left out of this game of musical chairs.

More bad news for Oakland: Can confirm Bay Area leaders will not be in Chicago to update NFL's LA owners committee on #Raiders stadium

mjbais1489 wrote:If San Diego and Oakland are move to LA. Cant St Louis just sit on its hands and demand more money from Kronke? Where else would he go?

What will actually happen if SD/OK move to LA --> St Louis will still just give Kronke whatever he wants and about 50% of the stadium will be built with public money. And there will be little input by locals on where or how the area is developed.

We are already building stadiums with public money whenever we visit Atlanta, Minneapolis, Indy, etc. So, by public money, you do realize it would be money from visitors for the city portion -- also known as getting back some of the money we give their cities. And the state portion is completely covered by Rams player and personnel income taxes. So, yes it will be money laundered through public channels to get these users to hand it over, but not a dime will come from St. Louisans unless they go to games, or stay in local hotels.

Someone is funding a huge disinformation campaign trying to convince people that the stadium will cost St. Louis citizens a billion dollars of their hard earned tax money. Not true.

Blah blah blah blah.. I heard a rumor that the Tampa Bay Bucs are now threatening to leave Tampa and move to LA. Let the speculation begin. I am so tired of this story.

gary kreie wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote:If San Diego and Oakland are move to LA. Cant St Louis just sit on its hands and demand more money from Kronke? Where else would he go?

What will actually happen if SD/OK move to LA --> St Louis will still just give Kronke whatever he wants and about 50% of the stadium will be built with public money. And there will be little input by locals on where or how the area is developed.

We are already building stadiums with public money whenever we visit Atlanta, Minneapolis, Indy, etc. So, by public money, you do realize it would be money from visitors for the city portion -- also known as getting back some of the money we give their cities. And the state portion is completely covered by Rams player and personnel income taxes. So, yes it will be money laundered through public channels to get these users to hand it over, but not a dime will come from St. Louisans unless they go to games, or stay in local hotels.

Someone is funding a huge disinformation campaign trying to convince people that the stadium will cost St. Louis citizens a billion dollars of their hard earned tax money. Not true.

Gary, it's not about the root source of the dollars. Those taxes are being paid regardless of an NFL stadium being built here. They're being paid by visitors to the St. Louis public via taxes. They are OUR tax dollars at that point.

And then it's an issue of how we spend those tax dollars. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about whether they ought to go to a stadium, but just pointing out that this money doesn't go away if the stadium isn't built. (I do believe we have limited options with it, but it doesn't have to go to a stadium.) And that's why they ARE our tax dollars and why it is a choice.

http://www.si.com/nfl/2015/08/03/nfl-lo ... relocation

This guy fanning the flames or truly know the scoop?

Hopefully, those 2 teams are playing in Carson!

No vote on city money for new stadium, judge rules

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d_headline

Judge rejects city law requiring vote on funding for stadium

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/jud ... ng-stadium

jstriebel wrote:

gary kreie wrote:

mjbais1489 wrote:If San Diego and Oakland are move to LA. Cant St Louis just sit on its hands and demand more money from Kronke? Where else would he go?

What will actually happen if SD/OK move to LA --> St Louis will still just give Kronke whatever he wants and about 50% of the stadium will be built with public money. And there will be little input by locals on where or how the area is developed.

We are already building stadiums with public money whenever we visit Atlanta, Minneapolis, Indy, etc. So, by public money, you do realize it would be money from visitors for the city portion -- also known as getting back some of the money we give their cities. And the state portion is completely covered by Rams player and personnel income taxes. So, yes it will be money laundered through public channels to get these users to hand it over, but not a dime will come from St. Louisans unless they go to games, or stay in local hotels.

Someone is funding a huge disinformation campaign trying to convince people that the stadium will cost St. Louis citizens a billion dollars of their hard earned tax money. Not true.

Gary, it's not about the root source of the dollars. Those taxes are being paid regardless of an NFL stadium being built here. They're being paid by visitors to the St. Louis public via taxes. They are OUR tax dollars at that point.

And then it's an issue of how we spend those tax dollars. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about whether they ought to go to a stadium, but just pointing out that this money doesn't go away if the stadium isn't built. (I do believe we have limited options with it, but it doesn't have to go to a stadium.) And that's why they ARE our tax dollars and why it is a choice.

Thank you for not disagreeing with me. And so far nobody has disagreed with my calculation that the "$4.2 million a year — from ticket sales, payroll, concessions, etc. — two-thirds of the $6 million the city pays to cover Jones Dome debt service and upkeep", reported by the Post would grow to more than $8M per year in 30 years, assuming 2.5% inflation, and total more than the total spent on new stadium bonds. But only if the Rams stay.

So the stadium deal at least breaks even for the city, county, and state. The county really makes out - they keep Rams Park. Most players probably live in St Charles and pay taxes there. And there is some value in intangibles such as the businessmen touting the NFL when recruiting top talent. And what about charities helped by the NFL and Rams players and owners here, partly to avoid taxes?

Absolutely disgusting, but also totally expected.

At this point I hope the Rams leave, so that the dishonest stadium-backers get a little karma for literally suing the public in order to shove them a fat one.

I think those calculations are probably imperfect, but I think they're okay which is why if we can keep tinkering with the site plan, I'm okay building the stadium. As much as I am growing to dislike football and certainly the NFL, I still don't want to lose my team.

So if we can get a decently urban stadium site plan, sure. I think the city probably stands to lose a little money on the deal (although you could be right that OVER TIME it may pay for itself—hard to say really), and that state probably stands to come out close to even or a little ahead. So it's not a terrible financial deal if it's something we want.

What makes me sad is that 1) it's such a struggle to get a moderately urban site plan (although this improves with every rendering), and 2) we've now lost the right to decide if it's what we want. It's no longer up to the citizens (who I honestly think would have approved it).

http://lockerdome.com/7475583080735553/7910047376219153

"My task force partner Bob Blitz deserves a great deal of credit for today's result. Bob's commitment to the stadium project is impressive and his work on this matter, along with other members of our legal team, was extraordinary.

"The court's opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for the NFL in St. Louis and the continued rebirth of our downtown. As we continue to make excellent progress on the stadium project, this is a great time for everyone in the St. Louis region to rally on behalf of something that will make a difference in our economy, national profile and quality of life for generations to come. We can make it happen."

Until we get the big money from uber rich people out of the voting process, I'll be afraid that the people will be persuaded to vote against their own interest -- such as when big money convinced folks to allow felons to have guns. As far as I know, only the anti-stadium side is spending big money in the media to try to persuade voters, not the pro-stadium side. And it's working. And the talk shows side with their advertisers.

Aesir wrote:Absolutely disgusting, but also totally expected.

At this point I hope the Rams leave, so that the dishonest stadium-backers get a little karma for literally suing the public in order to shove them a fat one.

How petty. They've set out to fulfill a very specific objective, they detected a city ordinance hindering their pursuit of that objective, they calculated that the law with respect to that ordinance was on their side, and they were right.

If anything, get mad at the knee-jerk reactionary "tax watchdogs" who hastily put the ordinance together outside the bounds of our laws.