^ Right.... the taskforce made a judgment call that may have been a major miiscalculation. County could have had a vote next month no probs if it were a simple extension of the bonds. Instead, they're scrambling to find a way to make the numbers work w/o the County's participation and have extended the financial process.
- 337
I guess that's possible, but I don't think they would have removed the County from the equation so early on if they weren't sure a public vote in the County would fail.
- 8,912
I thought the deal was that the county wouldn't pay for the new stadium but agreed to pay for upgrades to the Convention Center Dome when the Rams leave?
- 8,155
^ I think that is the hope but there is no agreement on that.... that could face some steep opposition from County council, etc. even if Stenger would be supportive of it. Also, I'm a bit unclear whether the $100 million the CVC is seeking for the convention center upgrades is inclusive of all the Dome upgrade needs. Anyway, lots of jack is being sought.
@dkaplanSBJ: St. Louis stadium task force submitted a term sheet today to the NFL for the proposed river front stadium.
- 3,767
Great news for the Task Force..... I think.... I assume they would have enough evidence to convince the NFL, that the City financing package will pass the BOA. I believe, in order the have the term sheet break down financing, it will assume the City portion will be approved....... I guess.....
- 337
I honestly don't get that sense at all.DogtownBnR wrote:Great news for the Task Force..... I think.... I assume they would have enough evidence to convince the NFL, that the City financing package will pass the BOA. I believe, in order the have the term sheet break down financing, it will assume the City portion will be approved....... I guess.....
To me it just seems like the NFL was really starting to get on them for dragging their heels, and they needed to send one so they could continue constructive dialogue with the NFL.
If they were confident their plan could pass the BoA now, they'd be having the bill sent to the BoA now. They originally figured to have this all straightened out by the end of October, but now the task force is saying they might not have the bill ready for "a few weeks." Obviously *something* needs to happen between now and "a few weeks" from now that hasn't happened yet.
So, the two burning questions are: 1) what is that *something*? And 2) how long is "a few weeks"? 2? 3? 4?
Could they still be biding their time, amassing votes behind the scenes? Are they trying to save face and give more time for Slay and the aldermen to develop a "comprehensive plan" addressing crime in the City? The fact that Mayor Slay has capitulated to French's demands and has agreed to meet with him and the aldermen about it at all suggests to me that the task force needs French to go away. But maybe I'm wrong, and the good mayor's only trying to save some face.
Hmmm.......
- 1,299
French isn't going away, but he's definitely softened his position. After the first meeting, he was sounding much more friendly towards the mayor office than he has in years. Timing now is everything. Will there be a "comprehensive plan" in the next few weeks? That just doesn't seem possible.
But will a new detente between French and the Mayor melt frozen relationships enough to move a bill through the Board of Aldermen? Maybe. Will Slay and French both emerge victorious, with a stadium deal in one hand and a commitment to formalize a comprehensive crime plan in the other? That would be a win-win.
What happens to the anti-stadium forces in that scenario? You get a crime plan. What happens to the crime plan supporters? You get a stadium deal. Will the stadium go up and crime go down? Well, that's beyond our control.
But will a new detente between French and the Mayor melt frozen relationships enough to move a bill through the Board of Aldermen? Maybe. Will Slay and French both emerge victorious, with a stadium deal in one hand and a commitment to formalize a comprehensive crime plan in the other? That would be a win-win.
What happens to the anti-stadium forces in that scenario? You get a crime plan. What happens to the crime plan supporters? You get a stadium deal. Will the stadium go up and crime go down? Well, that's beyond our control.
- 8,155
I think whether or not Darlene Green says the stadium financing plan will harm the city's credit rating will be the biggest factor in the fate of the BB.
just add an additional tax to the tickets for the additional revenue required, as a season ticket holder, I'm willing to pay it to enjoy watching NFL football in a brand new open air riverfront stadium. Also, thinking out of the box, why not have the county transfer ownership or allow the city to purchase the land that the Rams practice facility sits on...this will allow the city to impose the 1% earnings tax?
This morning Bernie's update along with the term sheet news was that he's hearing more whispers that owners may pressure Davis to sell to Kroenke. The Rams would then be purchased by local ownership.
Sound good, though we've heard it all before.
Sound good, though we've heard it all before.
^ The only problem with those whispers is that Davis has no incentive to sell from a business standpoint unless Stan K offers a number which makes even less sense when he already owns a franchise outright. I say that from the perspective that Davis has a franchise that guarantees a TV cut/revenue share of roughly $190 million and has a lease agreement for a stadium/training at $1 million a year.
I'm still at the believe that the only deal(s) that make sense for Davis is a Chargers/Raiders Carson city stadium/NFL studios and or San Antonio giving him a new stadium sweat heart deal like St. Louis did to get the Rams to move. Outside of that, why bother with anything else. Heck, from business standpoint why bother to pay extra to play in Santa Clara @ Levi's field.
I'm still at the believe that the only deal(s) that make sense for Davis is a Chargers/Raiders Carson city stadium/NFL studios and or San Antonio giving him a new stadium sweat heart deal like St. Louis did to get the Rams to move. Outside of that, why bother with anything else. Heck, from business standpoint why bother to pay extra to play in Santa Clara @ Levi's field.
All valid points, and it's likely all nonsense. However, the theory is that Stan will significantly overpay Davis for the "privilege" to take them to LA. If what I've heard regarding Davis is true, there are concerns of his long term ability to keep the team and pay the taxes. There are conflicting reports about what percentage he owns vs his mother, however.
I expect to continue to hear many more tall tales as we inch closer to the new year.
I expect to continue to hear many more tall tales as we inch closer to the new year.
Davis (and his mother) only actually own about 45% of the Raiders. They're not exceedingly wealthy, and he's already stated he'd be willing to take on a partner to make LA work.
There's virtually no chance that Kroenke would be a partner, though. Kroenke would likely look for the whole thing including purchasing the minority ownership stakes.
I have no doubt that Kroenke can very easily make an offer to Davis that makes a TON of financial sense for Davis to accept. Financial sense has never been the issue. The Raiders are a family tradition for the Davises, and that is the hurdle that would need to be cleared.
There's virtually no chance that Kroenke would be a partner, though. Kroenke would likely look for the whole thing including purchasing the minority ownership stakes.
I have no doubt that Kroenke can very easily make an offer to Davis that makes a TON of financial sense for Davis to accept. Financial sense has never been the issue. The Raiders are a family tradition for the Davises, and that is the hurdle that would need to be cleared.
- 337
David Peacock stopped by the KMOX studios this morning to give an update on the stadium project
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/audio/charlie-debbie/
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/audio/charlie-debbie/
And as for that bogus STLmag article all the haters are quoting...
“That $6 million, you know, is flat, so as the budget grows, and the city budget has grown with inflation and revenues and what have you over time, it’s a decreasing percentage of that budget,” Peacock says.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/10/16/ ... two-weeks/
“That $6 million, you know, is flat, so as the budget grows, and the city budget has grown with inflation and revenues and what have you over time, it’s a decreasing percentage of that budget,” Peacock says.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/10/16/ ... two-weeks/
- 488
imthewiz wrote:And as for that bogus STLmag article all the haters are quoting...
“That $6 million, you know, is flat, so as the budget grows, and the city budget has grown with inflation and revenues and what have you over time, it’s a decreasing percentage of that budget,” Peacock says.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/10/16/ ... two-weeks/
There's absolutely no way the City gets to that $150M number that Peacock has been saying without going above the $6M in bond payments annually. $180M in bond payments over 30 years doesn't buy you $150M now.
- 8,155
^ It's laughable that Hartman's article was bogus.... it may have been a trial balloon, but that was the proposal that Peacock submitted to Slay and Green. We'll see what Plan B is.
- 3,433
I think what Peacock is saying now is that they are requesting continuation of the $6M per year for 30 years when the current stadium is paid off. Then on top of that, add some kind of tax on the stadium generated revenue only, which starts low and goes up with inflation over time -- money that won't be there at all if the Rams leave. For instance, if you add a gameday tax that amounts to $1 on parking , $2 on concessions, and $7 on tickets per fan on average, then you completely cover the county portion of $6M per year. But start it at half that, and raise to about twice that over 30 years. As a Rams fan, I'll pay it. And how about a gameday advertising tax in the stadium zone. Also, I believe Stenger has a plan to extend the County contribution, but apply it only to the Convention Center, relieving the city of some of their contribution. Of course, that may happen anyway, with or without a stadium.
In the end, I believe Kroenke sized up St. Louis correctly -- we will find a way to not get this done and he'll be able to move the Rams -- no problem. As we know, in Missouri, the uber rich guys buy elections and politicians the way the rest of us buy popcorn. And Walmart advertising dollars have media influence too. So it's not surprising that media and politicians are rooting for Kroenke and LA, as if there is zero benefit for St. Louis.
Yesterday there were no NFL, MLB, or NHL games in St. Louis. According to Show-Me and Rob Schaaf, if there is no NFL, ticket holders like me will still come to the city and spend our entertainment money on restaurants and movies instead, so we all break even. They call it the "substitution effect". The nation may breakeven, but not Missouri and certainly not St. Louis. There is no other entertainment in St. Louis that can pry the thousands I spend on Rams tickets, city dining, parking, gas, concessions, and paraphernalia on game days. The marching band competition maybe? Yesterday, we bought shish-ka-bobs and cooked them outdoors. I'll spend my spare entertainment dollars on non-Missouri stuff like travel to Tennessee & Florida, NFL Sunday ticket, or just buy mutual funds on Fidelity. I'll be interested to see what stadium opponents say after they win, and the public asks why the $1billion spare dollars didn't make a dent in city crime as promised.
In the end, I believe Kroenke sized up St. Louis correctly -- we will find a way to not get this done and he'll be able to move the Rams -- no problem. As we know, in Missouri, the uber rich guys buy elections and politicians the way the rest of us buy popcorn. And Walmart advertising dollars have media influence too. So it's not surprising that media and politicians are rooting for Kroenke and LA, as if there is zero benefit for St. Louis.
Yesterday there were no NFL, MLB, or NHL games in St. Louis. According to Show-Me and Rob Schaaf, if there is no NFL, ticket holders like me will still come to the city and spend our entertainment money on restaurants and movies instead, so we all break even. They call it the "substitution effect". The nation may breakeven, but not Missouri and certainly not St. Louis. There is no other entertainment in St. Louis that can pry the thousands I spend on Rams tickets, city dining, parking, gas, concessions, and paraphernalia on game days. The marching band competition maybe? Yesterday, we bought shish-ka-bobs and cooked them outdoors. I'll spend my spare entertainment dollars on non-Missouri stuff like travel to Tennessee & Florida, NFL Sunday ticket, or just buy mutual funds on Fidelity. I'll be interested to see what stadium opponents say after they win, and the public asks why the $1billion spare dollars didn't make a dent in city crime as promised.
- 3,767
Looks like the NFL will hold a town hall meeting here on relocation. It is 10/27/15 at the Peabody Opera house, open to the public, season - ticket holders get first dibs on tix.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... g4.twitter
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... g4.twitter
- 488
See I generally don't like the stadium proposal but I'm fine with having a reasonable discussion. This quote just makes you seem unreasonable to considering anything besides your own opinion. I'm not stupid enough to believe if we don't have an NFL stadium we would have zero crime or that we'd all of sudden have a billion dollars to spend on things. Or that 60k people would come downtown every Sunday for 8 weeks every fall to spend their now free entertainment dollars.gary kreie wrote:
Yesterday there were no NFL, MLB, or NHL games in St. Louis. According to Show-Me and Rob Schaaf, if there is no NFL, ticket holders like me will still come to the city and spend our entertainment money on restaurants and movies instead, so we all break even. They call it the "substitution effect". The nation may breakeven, but not Missouri and certainly not St. Louis. There is no other entertainment in St. Louis that can pry the thousands I spend on Rams tickets, city dining, parking, gas, concessions, and paraphernalia on game days. The marching band competition maybe? Yesterday, we bought shish-ka-bobs and cooked them outdoors. I'll spend my spare entertainment dollars on non-Missouri stuff like travel to Tennessee & Florida, NFL Sunday ticket, or just buy mutual funds on Fidelity. I'll be interested to see what stadium opponents say after they win, and the public asks why the $1billion spare dollars didn't make a dent in city crime as promised.
What I am concerned about is now that the County is out of the financing the city will have to spend more money then is reasonable to keep the team . I'd like to actually see how the city is going to get $150M in contributions because we aren't there yet with just continuing the bonds. If it is game day revenue then I would like to see how that is generated. Didn't the comptroller come out and say already that game day revenue doesn't cover the $6M in bond payments?
lets say Peacock wants money out of ticket and concession sales - what if revenue from that isn't enough to cover what is expected out of the city? Does the city have to cover out of general?
- 3,433
The City does end up with a billion dollar asset right downtown. The school district will get more money, since there is a sales tax that goes to schools. And Great River Greenway gets money too from the sales tax. GRG is spending a lot in the city.
So instead of $6M per year, the stadium may cost the city closer to $10M per year. And the city estimates that they get $4.2M per year from taxes generate by the Rams and fans. The city budget is $1000 million ($1Billion) per year, so we're talking about 1% or so of the yearly budget. And the budget is projected to grow by 1% per year, or $10 million. 1% of the $1B budget is almost sofa change. Should we scrutinize the other 99% of the city budget and find out if there are items there that will not pay for themselves?
But, again, hey, if the city can no longer support the region in areas like this, we should consider building it outside the city. That's fine. We'll rename Clayton to New Town St. Louis and build it in county in 10 years when it will cost $3 Billion.
And with regard to folks being stupid, read the letter to the editor in today's paper. The public doesn't have a clue about the right anwser -- just as Kroenke is betting.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... d18b7.html
So instead of $6M per year, the stadium may cost the city closer to $10M per year. And the city estimates that they get $4.2M per year from taxes generate by the Rams and fans. The city budget is $1000 million ($1Billion) per year, so we're talking about 1% or so of the yearly budget. And the budget is projected to grow by 1% per year, or $10 million. 1% of the $1B budget is almost sofa change. Should we scrutinize the other 99% of the city budget and find out if there are items there that will not pay for themselves?
But, again, hey, if the city can no longer support the region in areas like this, we should consider building it outside the city. That's fine. We'll rename Clayton to New Town St. Louis and build it in county in 10 years when it will cost $3 Billion.
And with regard to folks being stupid, read the letter to the editor in today's paper. The public doesn't have a clue about the right anwser -- just as Kroenke is betting.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ma ... d18b7.html
I just went to the Kathleen Madigan show there Saturday. But this looks like a bigger joke. This is just a check box. What could anyone possibly say that would sway the owner from doing whatever the heck they want? Will our owner come out on stage? I'm sure they'll have metal detectors at the doors.DogtownBnR wrote:Looks like the NFL will hold a town hall meeting here on relocation. It is 10/27/15 at the Peabody Opera house, open to the public, season - ticket holders get first dibs on tix.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... g4.twitter
- 3,767
Gary, I bet it is entertaining, if anything. They will probably make sure the most uneducated baffoons get up there and speak, instead of people educated on the topic. Then the NFL can check the box, look good in the interim and make sure they are not challenged or made to look bad. I'm sure this "town hall meeting' will attract a swarm of media from all of the markets and national writers, even though it is a formality. I think someone needs to get up there and defend the market, discuss our history, the horrible owners we've endured, horrible record the Rams have had, as well as the looming move. Also, defend the market by presenting facts about the health of our region, in comparison to other markets. I think we have more to offer that many NFL markets. A person to self-promote our city, needs to show up. Then apply all of that to the NFL bylaws and the long term consequences for the NFL, if they are not followed. This could create chaos in the future, for the league. Not that Grubman hasn't heard this stuff from Dave Peacock, but you'd be surprised how misinformed these guys could be. I just hope it doesn't ugly, with a bunch of angry fans blasting the NFL reps. While they do deserve it, it could make us as a fanbase look bad. Even if you disagree with the stadium, I think most STL'ers will agree, that we are being mistreated by the league and Kroenke. That is enough reason to show up and stand up for STL. (Just keep it clean and respectful 
)
)