^ The problem is its just really difficult to come at hard numbers.... how much do we spend on public safety overtime, e.g.? What are the lost property taxes? How much spending at games would have been spent elsewhere in the city on other activities? I think a more thorough analysis by city authorities is needed but I'm not sure how much more clear things would get beyond the budget director's rough estimates on direct taxes associated from the Rams.
- 3,767
Tidbits from Jim Thomas, on CBS 920 this morning: Rams confident they will get to LA, looking at practice facilities in CA, employees feelings on move, some told the organization wants them to move with them to LA.... few highlights.
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Move.aspx
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Move.aspx
Right now no one really knows exactly what the financial impact will be to the City's bottom line with a new stadium and new proposal. I guarantee you the new proposal is going to include dedicating more existing taxes to funding the stadium. Probably the ticket tax, which the City currently collects, would go to the stadium, and possibly other taxes or fees as well. That's a hit to the City's budget. On the other hand the team's lease rate will also increase to use the facility. My point is that the speculation right now is just speculation. Nothing formal has been presented on paper to anyone in public. All we know is that the current deal with the Rams in the Dome costs the City money each year that is not recouped in either direct tax collections or indirect economic activity. Will a new proposed deal be better or worse? Who knows at this point.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
Total mess. I wouldn't want to be an NFL owner faced with this nonsense.
https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny
Some additional rumors of practice facilities and presentation details.
https://twitter.com/dailynewsvinny
Some additional rumors of practice facilities and presentation details.
- 8,912
DogtownBnR wrote:Tidbits from Jim Thomas, on CBS 920 this morning: Rams confident they will get to LA, looking at practice facilities in CA, employees feelings on move, some told the organization wants them to move with them to LA.... few highlights.
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Move.aspx
The Rams will be "confident" publicly until the hammer drops. This will be really interesting watch how the Rams try to spin public relations disaster when they end up staying here. Stan a disgrace in his own home town. I think he'd have to sell.
Hadn't heard that yet. You have a source?gary kreie wrote:Fortunately Peacock is going around the country and visiting owners one on one. No Stan there. He can set them straight. Stan is losing and is getting desperate.
- 8,155
Curious what gives you such confidence the hammer will be dropped on Brother Enos? I think there are too many variables and possibilities out there.moorlander wrote:DogtownBnR wrote:Tidbits from Jim Thomas, on CBS 920 this morning: Rams confident they will get to LA, looking at practice facilities in CA, employees feelings on move, some told the organization wants them to move with them to LA.... few highlights.
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... -Move.aspx
The Rams will be "confident" publicly until the hammer drops. This will be really interesting watch how the Rams try to spin public relations disaster when they end up staying here. Stan a disgrace in his own home town. I think he'd have to sell.
^^I can't find the article, but I read that last week also. Not sure how I interpret Dave's play here. While one could see it has confidence and good strategy to directly lobby the cause, it could also be seen as 11th hour desperation as he sees the writing on the wall. Why exactly is he meeting with NFL owners now as opposed to all along, and who says he hasn't been?
Edit: here's a reference to Peacock's travels around the country in an article today:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... b3a98.html
These are the same questions we've had all along. When Peacock said that he has no objection to Stan going after LA, just not with our team, and ownership could possibly change, one has to wonder.....what the hell is he talking about?
As far as the hammer dropping, it can't be as simple as Rams to LA alone. The other two franchises are in just as much of a pickle as they've essentially told their home markets to stick it also. Interestingly, despite Stan's silence, the Rams have not publicly trashed STL the way the Chargers have San Diego....and STL/taskforce has not publicly trashed the Rams the way SD did the Chargers. The hypothesis of Rams and Chargers "working something out" seems unlikely only because Davis and Spanos have gone through such great lengths to showcase their union. Policy makes some great points about solving California with California that hopefully the NFL will listen to.
Edit: here's a reference to Peacock's travels around the country in an article today:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... b3a98.html
These are the same questions we've had all along. When Peacock said that he has no objection to Stan going after LA, just not with our team, and ownership could possibly change, one has to wonder.....what the hell is he talking about?
As far as the hammer dropping, it can't be as simple as Rams to LA alone. The other two franchises are in just as much of a pickle as they've essentially told their home markets to stick it also. Interestingly, despite Stan's silence, the Rams have not publicly trashed STL the way the Chargers have San Diego....and STL/taskforce has not publicly trashed the Rams the way SD did the Chargers. The hypothesis of Rams and Chargers "working something out" seems unlikely only because Davis and Spanos have gone through such great lengths to showcase their union. Policy makes some great points about solving California with California that hopefully the NFL will listen to.
- 8,155
^ I personally feel Davis would like to see something happen in Oakland but he just isn't getting any love back. I think another thing out there is in the end, do the owners really want to see two franchises in LA? If not, then I can see the Rams to LA and Oakland moving elsewhere with San Diego an issue of whether or not hey can patch things up there. It also would be awesome just in terms of sheer chaos to see San Diego officials put a proposal on the January ballot and voters approve it while at the same time Saint Louis gets its package together. Fun times!
Oh ok, thanks.jones123 wrote:stlien wrote:Pack up and go where?dbInSouthCity wrote:He wont go rogue, if he was he would have packed up after last season.
I assume the coliseum until the stadium would get built. That's what they would do if they move after this season.
- 8,912
I heard on the radio that the coliseum was ruled out. Report said the Dodgers are interested in leasing their stadium out.
- 3,433
The Post Dispatch said:ward24 wrote:Right now no one really knows exactly what the financial impact will be to the City's bottom line with a new stadium and new proposal. I guarantee you the new proposal is going to include dedicating more existing taxes to funding the stadium. Probably the ticket tax, which the City currently collects, would go to the stadium, and possibly other taxes or fees as well. That's a hit to the City's budget. On the other hand the team's lease rate will also increase to use the facility. My point is that the speculation right now is just speculation. Nothing formal has been presented on paper to anyone in public. All we know is that the current deal with the Rams in the Dome costs the City money each year that is not recouped in either direct tax collections or indirect economic activity. Will a new proposed deal be better or worse? Who knows at this point.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
"The Rams produce an estimated $4.2 million a year in city taxes — from ticket sales, payroll, concessions, etc., according to city budget division estimates — two-thirds of the $6 million the city pays annually to cover Jones Dome debt and upkeep."
It can't be that hard to request and review city budget division estimates. Sounds like something in a report. If that number goes up at 2.5% inflation rate, the $6M is more than covered after 30 years. Where's the counter argument?
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 8806c.html
Today on KMOX, Dave Peacock said that the Rams generate $15 million per year for the state, and that number will rise to $30 million. The state only pays $12 million per year toward the new stadium. Dave challenged state opponents to tell us how they can make up that shortfall if the Rams leave. This implies the state will bank $3 million the first year and $18 million profit eventually if they build the stadium and the Rams stay. Maybe they can give some of that windfall to the city. It is clear the Rams more than pay back the public money -- it just comes down to how the city and state agree to split up the loot. And I'm not even counting the money St. Louis County and St. Charles County bank from taxes on wealthy players who live there, or work at Rams Park.
- 8,155
^ The details can make a big difference on how things swing for the city... e.g., we lost the Cardinals admissions tax revenue as a subsidy for the new stadium. Will that happen again? On the other hand, perhaps we might have an opportunity to raise it or other gameday fees and get parking revenue where we don't presently. Right now we just don't know, and frankly a lot of that would be settled at a later date as part of lease negotiations.
- 190
I wonder how much of the money spent to raise that "15 million" in taxes the Rams "generated" for the state (or rather, as they admit, mostly for the Rams), would have gone to non subsidized housing, or local retail sales, or <gasp> even the River City Casino? Or maybe it could just go tax free over to Tianjin, China to help those poor, bedeviled souls.
But I digress. What I really meant to say was, "Warner to Holt for another Rams touchdown! Wilkins with the conversion"
But I digress. What I really meant to say was, "Warner to Holt for another Rams touchdown! Wilkins with the conversion"
- 3,433
Good point. It comes from player and staff income taxes but we can't guess if the state would spend it wisely. Too bad we have to devote some of it to a new stadium to keep it coming. If the Rams would stay and play in the dome, the state could keep all of it once the dome is paid off. But knowing MOLEG, they might blow the excess on free puppy mills or free bullets for all rather than expanding Medicaid. Maybe spending money on a new capital asset downtown avoids some of their mischief.KerrytheKonstructor wrote:I wonder how much of the money spent to raise that "15 million" in taxes the Rams "generated" for the state (or rather, as they admit, mostly for the Rams), would have gone to non subsidized housing, or local retail sales, or <gasp> even the River City Casino? Or maybe it could just go tax free over to Tianjin, China to help those poor, bedeviled souls.
But I digress. What I really meant to say was, "Warner to Holt for another Rams touchdown! Wilkins with the conversion"
- 3,767
I am not feeling too good about the Rams staying, after listening to Grubman on AM 920 this morning.
They don’t have the interview on insidestl.com yet, but they will.
Tim McKernan tweeted a few highlights:
https://twitter.com/tmckernan
Grubman said the Rams could leave even if we get everything in place. He mentioned that the Rams won the arbitration process, which tells me the NFL puts a lot of stock into that. He also said the owners have all the power, not NFL execs. I just feel like Grubman was elusive, sort of defensive and IMO, negative. He didn't even rule out 2 stadiums or going rogue. I feel worse about us being 'an NFL city' after hearing Grubman speak.
They don’t have the interview on insidestl.com yet, but they will.
Tim McKernan tweeted a few highlights:
https://twitter.com/tmckernan
Grubman said the Rams could leave even if we get everything in place. He mentioned that the Rams won the arbitration process, which tells me the NFL puts a lot of stock into that. He also said the owners have all the power, not NFL execs. I just feel like Grubman was elusive, sort of defensive and IMO, negative. He didn't even rule out 2 stadiums or going rogue. I feel worse about us being 'an NFL city' after hearing Grubman speak.
I would agree, the general vibe is not good. That said, Dave Peacock is incredible. Every time I hear him break this thing down, including his radio rounds yesterday, I somehow feel ok about the situation. Whether or not we keep football, I hope Dave continues to find ways to develop and promote a strong STL.
One has to wonder, however, if Grubman displays that much candor on the radio, how much more would he be honest and forthright with Peacock, Demoff, and Nixon atop the Four Seasons a few weeks ago? And yet Peacock seems undeterred. Doesn't. Add. Up.
One has to wonder, however, if Grubman displays that much candor on the radio, how much more would he be honest and forthright with Peacock, Demoff, and Nixon atop the Four Seasons a few weeks ago? And yet Peacock seems undeterred. Doesn't. Add. Up.
- 3,767
^I agree... Peacock's confidence and him saying we control our own destiny, is just odd, considering all of the other vibes I get, are either slightly different or opposite. Dave was on the Cardinal broadcast for an inning last night, with McLaughlin. He seems very positive and driven, to get this done and keep the Rams. I just feel like getting Kroenke to cooperate, assuming he has to stay, is going to be next to impossible. I have no doubts that Kroenke wants out in the worst way. I am curious how Stan was going to get around the cross-ownership issue. I heard that mentioned in Chicago the other day, but never heard anything since. He was supposed to have a solution to resolve that issue. I have zero confidence that the owners and league will do anything, but what is best with regards to lining their own pockets, even if it does not help SD, OAK or STL. In other words, letting Stan proceed in Inglewood. I think Stan's only obstacle to that is Dean Spanos, Mark Davis and whomever they have aligned with. The vote is likely the only obstacle. The bylaws mean nothing from what I see and hear from all parties that have spoken. I'm basically reading between the lines.
- 9,566
Grubman did address a few myth.
myth 1; Rams not involved in the process here
he said they are involved in the process here
myth 2; stan is leaving because he isnt saying anything
he said most nfl owners aren't involved anyway, these teams aren't their primary business. he has demoff and he has been working with the task force
myth 3; rams wont stay since Stan isnt part of the talks
he said last few stadium deals (vikings as example) nfl did all the negotiating with the city and owner came in for the baby shaking and hand kissing part.
Not sure what everyone was expecting from Grubman...he has no idea how this will go down until all plans are in front of the owners in the January meeting. Once they have all the plans they will choose the best plan for LA and the team (s) that aren't chosen for LA will be working with home city.
He said there is really nothing for the NFL to decide until there is legislative action for the stadium, until then poker face mode will be in full force.
myth 1; Rams not involved in the process here
he said they are involved in the process here
myth 2; stan is leaving because he isnt saying anything
he said most nfl owners aren't involved anyway, these teams aren't their primary business. he has demoff and he has been working with the task force
myth 3; rams wont stay since Stan isnt part of the talks
he said last few stadium deals (vikings as example) nfl did all the negotiating with the city and owner came in for the baby shaking and hand kissing part.
Not sure what everyone was expecting from Grubman...he has no idea how this will go down until all plans are in front of the owners in the January meeting. Once they have all the plans they will choose the best plan for LA and the team (s) that aren't chosen for LA will be working with home city.
He said there is really nothing for the NFL to decide until there is legislative action for the stadium, until then poker face mode will be in full force.
- 3,767
^I agree... Didn't expect anything big from the interview. I give credit to the Morning After crew for not backing down and asking tough questions. My personal vibe is more negative after the interview, but I couldn't be much more negative than I already was before. I think the vibe after the NFL meetings in Chicago, is that Inglewood is ahead and Carson needs some polishing. The vibe was also that Stan's presentation was great and wowed some owners, while Carson was only like 30 min. and garnered only 3 questions. I know that is all speculation and nothing necessarily confirmed, but it is for sure, it can't be a good thing that Jerry Jones backs Inglewood because he thinks the deeper pockets should prevail in the race to LA. I just got a negative vibe from Grubman, unlike hearing Peacock speak. He makes me feel like we have a good shot to 'remain an NFL city', whatever that means.
The fact that the Rams and Demoff have been involved, does not excite me much at all, since the NFL is likely forcing them to take part in the process. Demoff on Tuesday, did say that he spoke with Dave Peacock on Monday evening, to brief him on the presentation. This entire process is just so odd!
The fact that the Rams and Demoff have been involved, does not excite me much at all, since the NFL is likely forcing them to take part in the process. Demoff on Tuesday, did say that he spoke with Dave Peacock on Monday evening, to brief him on the presentation. This entire process is just so odd!
Here is the Grubman interview. It is up on insidestl.com
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... Place.aspx
Grubman basically says the bylaws come with wiggle room. There are lots of subjective parts to this process, like if the market is viable and a team can be profitable. Whether or not the stadium is good enough. The STL market is viable and the stadium, if done as drawn up is perfectly viable, but again, that is up to the owners to decide. In other words, we could have all of our ducks in a row, but it is up to the 'membership' to decide. That is why I am more negative than before Grubman spoke.
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R ... Place.aspx
Grubman basically says the bylaws come with wiggle room. There are lots of subjective parts to this process, like if the market is viable and a team can be profitable. Whether or not the stadium is good enough. The STL market is viable and the stadium, if done as drawn up is perfectly viable, but again, that is up to the owners to decide. In other words, we could have all of our ducks in a row, but it is up to the 'membership' to decide. That is why I am more negative than before Grubman spoke.
- 8,155
There's no doubt that the only thing keeping Stan from LA is the Carson plan. Bylaws mean nothing and can be massaged with NFL-speak.
After reading some of the recent insights, including Jim Thomas yesterday and how the owners were impressed by Stan's detailed presentation (and noting that he made the Rams presentation himself while Spanos and Davis did not), my gut feeling at this time is Rams go. I also feel that they may be alone in LA as I'm not sure it makes sense to have two teams in such a quirky market. So my pre-season prediction is:
Rams to LA in '16 while Chargers and Raiders seek Plan B. And that would leave the NFL in a great position as cities such as San Antonio likely would then join the fray and enter into a fierce competition with Saint Louis to get the Chargers or Raiders. A bit of a headache for the front office to have to keep dealing with the issue but that's why their paid big bucks.
After reading some of the recent insights, including Jim Thomas yesterday and how the owners were impressed by Stan's detailed presentation (and noting that he made the Rams presentation himself while Spanos and Davis did not), my gut feeling at this time is Rams go. I also feel that they may be alone in LA as I'm not sure it makes sense to have two teams in such a quirky market. So my pre-season prediction is:
Rams to LA in '16 while Chargers and Raiders seek Plan B. And that would leave the NFL in a great position as cities such as San Antonio likely would then join the fray and enter into a fierce competition with Saint Louis to get the Chargers or Raiders. A bit of a headache for the front office to have to keep dealing with the issue but that's why their paid big bucks.
- 9,566
Jason Cole reported that large group of owners still favor the Carson project and some owners (Jerry Jones) favor Inglewood...these 2 cant really be looked at as stand alone jobs also have to look at what the home market is doing. and right now home market in Oakland has nothing, SD has nothing and chargers are burning the heck out of the bridge to SD.DogtownBnR wrote: The vibe was also that Stan's presentation was great and wowed some owners, while Carson was only like 30 min. and garnered only 3 questions. I know that is all speculation and nothing necessarily confirmed, but it is for sure, it can't be a good thing that Jerry Jones backs Inglewood because he thinks the deeper pockets should prevail in the race to LA. I just got a negative vibe from Grubman, unlike hearing Peacock speak. He makes me feel like we have a good shot to 'remain an NFL city', whatever that means.
!
people have to remember that the chargers DO NOT WANT ANY TEAM (if its not them) in LA. even if they stay in San Diego.
biggest worry i had is that Stan and Dean would get together and work something out and both go to LA but i dont think thats happening. Stan wants to go in LA alone and establish himself, then have a 2nd team join. Dean doesn't want that especially when he has Goldman Sachs backed stadium in LA.
see this is the tricky part about using "owners" all the praise for Stan project came from his #1 cheerleader Jerry Jones and the Giants co-owner. those 2 were the "sources" some media quoted....as i said above large group of owners still prefer Carson because they feel that solves the 2 worst stadium situations and it solves it with local teams.roger wyoming II wrote:
After reading some of the recent insights, including Jim Thomas yesterday and how the owners were impressed by Stan's detailed presentation (and noting that he made the Rams presentation himself while Spanos and Davis did not), my gut feeling at this time is Rams go. I also feel that they may be alone in LA as I'm not sure it makes sense to have two teams in such a quirky market. So my pre-season prediction is:
I don't think I'll be able to support building a stadium to lure the Chargers or Raiders. And I don't mean building it without a commitment—I know we won't do that. I mean if the Rams move, then my tentative support for funding a new stadium will be gone.
I will probably not watch another NFL game.
I will probably not watch another NFL game.