urbanSTL

^ Joe Bucks comments aren't targeted at you and me, they are targeted at 90% of the population who doesn't know the details or how the sausage is made so you have to sell them on other things that sound good.

Same reason MoDOT blames its budget issue on higher MPG cars instead of inflation and other complex issues.

courtland wrote:More new stadium debate....the guys pretty much on target, Ms. Jones, not so much, IMO.

http://nextstl.com/2015/09/stay-tuned-t ... -proposal/

That show really needed to be an hour. Jeff hogged a lot of the air time and I would have liked to hear More of Alex.

Jones really bugged me.

"As far as I'm concerned, we are a BASEBALL TOWN and a HOCKEY TOWN."

Well, yeah, except for 1999-2004, when our football team was as at least as competitive as both our hockey and baseball teams, and Rams tickets were harder to come by than either Blues or Cardinals tickets.

"We need to take care of home before we think about keeping an NFL team."

Really? Are we truly so weak that we can't walk and chew gum at the same time? Besides, there is a time limit on this proposal; as soon as Nixon is term-limited out, it's all over if we don't have the proposal ready by then.

It's also highly disturbing how many times Rainford had to explain to others at the table, repeatedly, at this stage in the game 8 months after the plan was unveiled, that this stadium cannot be built without the private contributions from PSL-purchasers, an NFL team, and the NFL, itself.

STL Task Force will present on Oct 6th or 7th.
Oakland isnt invited because the NFL has given up on Oakland
SD may present but yesterday was the deadline to get a Jan 2016 vote for public $ and Chargers did not come to the table. Next chance to for a public vote is June 2016. the ship has left the SD port and is sailing towards LA only question left is will the Raiders meet them there or will the Rams meet them there.

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ Joe Bucks comments aren't targeted at you and me, they are targeted at 90% of the population who doesn't know the details or how the sausage is made so you have to sell them on other things that sound good.

Same reason MoDOT blames its budget issue on higher MPG cars instead of inflation and other complex issues.

So, basically, when the data's not on your side use lies and propaganda to trick… er, "sell" people.

^ no. The data is on the right side but it's hard to explain to the general population. And most don't care anyway

^ the data absolutely is not, if we're talking about data showing that stadiums promote economic development or a quantifiable return on public investment.

roger wyoming II wrote:^ No, he was being a dick and saying STL would be crippled without the NFL and have a frightening future. Total b.s. and he should shut his million $$ pie hole on such matters and stick to broadcasting and dissing Stan.

Angry...

roger wyoming II wrote:^ No, he was being a dick and saying STL would be crippled without the NFL and have a frightening future. Total b.s. and he should shut his million $$ pie hole on such matters and stick to broadcasting and dissing Stan.

HUH?

moorlander wrote:

roger wyoming II wrote:^ No, he was being a dick and saying STL would be crippled without the NFL and have a frightening future. Total b.s. and he should shut his million $$ pie hole on such matters and stick to broadcasting and dissing Stan.

HUH?

He made those comments at that recent corporate event where Dan Dierdorff also spoke... I'll try to dig up the article I saw where he made those eye-catching comments about an NFL-less Saint Louis.

With the state, city, owner, and league all paying for the stadium who actually owns the stadium once it's completed?

^ probably the RSA or the City of STL- i think 29 of 32 NFL stadiums are owned by a public entity
Most people assume that Jerry Jones owns AT&T Stadium, but City of Arlington does.

Jason Cole on 101 ESPN Radio

http://www.101sports.com/
Go down to Jason Cole interview, bottom of page.

Very interesting stuff. Of course I take everything with a grain of salt:

-Task Force & Rams main issue will be who pays for cost-overruns. That will be an issue that needs to be worked out...very critical.
-Bernie will reach out to Dave Peacock for answers.
-Cole says NFL LA Committee 6-0 / 5-1 in favor of the St. Louis Stadium & STL having a team. Doesn't mean owners are though.
-San Diego going to LA for sure. Question is, do they go to LA with the Rams in Inglewood or Raiders in Carson
-Situation will not go to a vote. One team will back off politely and let the others go.
- Faction of 9-14 owners that think Kroenke right owner to go to LA, due to his deep pockets. He would go with San Diego
-NFL relocation vote would be too ugly and factionalized to happen.
-LA Subcommittee wants to avoid musical chair situation. Not appealing to NFL & high level source
-NFL wants to be in St. Louis. He called STL a great NFL market.
-Fanbase/city are loyal to a team, not any team, so a St.Louis Jags , Raiders or whatever, not preferred. Thinking a city will embrace a 3rd franchise name/logo/etc (Cardinals, Rams & ?) is wrong.

I'd hope this means the Rams name stays in STL, even if Stan goes. This info, if true, bodes well for STL. The Negative is the fact that so many owners think Stan is the man for LA. That is concerning. I think the NFL has to consider doing something to keep STL an NFL city, if the Rams go. I can't imagine the owners passing on a shovel-ready stadium in STL. Good interview nonetheless.

moorlander wrote:With the state, city, owner, and league all paying for the stadium who actually owns the stadium once it's completed?

Wouldn't be surprised if it's a liability for the state/city and asset for the owner. So the public owns the debt and the owner owns the cash flow. But i'm not sure how it works.

moorlander wrote:New stadium’s cost more than doubles that of Edward Jones Dome. Why?

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... at-of.html

A big reason for more cost is the new stadiums are better. That is because the NFL and owner will now typically contribute $450 million dollars. This started after the dome was built, which made it that much harder to stay in the upper tier --obviously the signers of the Rams deal couldn't have anticipated this massive stadium subsidy from the NFL and owners back then.

The article points out that in 2015 dollars, the public money for the new stadium is a lot less than for the dome, and for a much better stadium. They fail to mention that players salaries and taxes on them have grown exponentially since 1995, pumping more money into state coffers via state income tax than that state pays for the dome each year, and will cover the state payment for the new stadium each year also when the bonds are extended in 2021.

It still seems as if there is a campaign out there to mislead the public on their cost, which is essentially nothing at the end of 30 years. It is all paid back by taxes and revenue from the Rams and fans as I've pointed out using numbers directly from the Post Dispatch -- undisputed by anyone on this board. I was glad to see Jeff Rainford on StayTunedSTL Thursday countering the disinformation campaign with the truth.

gary kreie wrote:They fail to mention that players salaries and taxes on them have grown exponentially since 1995, pumping more money into state coffers via state income tax than that state pays for the dome each year, and will cover the state payment for the new stadium each year also when the bonds are extended in 2021.

In 2014, Gleba says, the state “received approximately $18.4 million from all NFL players for duty days in Missouri.” If you figure that the Chiefs and Rams split that total about evenly, then the Rams (and their visitors) accounted for about $9.2 million in income tax, which is pretty close to the $10 million that Nixon claimed.

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/earni ... -the-rams/

$9.2 million < $12 million

I was glad to see Jeff Rainford on StayTunedSTL Thursday countering the disinformation campaign with the truth.

Can you provide a time stamp? Was it when he pulled the city-wide 8% property value increase out of his ass? Or was it when he claimed that the stadium will promote development, contrary to what most research shows and contrary to what happened the last four times we built stadiums?