urbanSTL

gary kreie wrote:6/10 of 1% of the yearly $1B budget to get $850 million from others to finally develop that wasteland seems like a good deal.

i guess one man's stadium is another man's wasteland. i'd rather keep the historic buildings and see the north riverfront develop—slowly if necessary—into something that resembles a city.

i guess one man's stadium is another man's wasteland. i'd rather keep the historic buildings and see the north riverfront develop—slowly if necessary—into something that resembles a city.

^ Truer words were never spoken. And in a divided region like STL, where most residents don't even live in the city proper, it's an even more glaring fact.

The people who CHOOSE to live in the city want an urban fabric and value historic buildings. The legions of those who have left have turned their backs on that urban fabric, but have the lion's say when it comes to regional decision making.

And so when it comes down to things like highway construction, school funding, and now stadiums, those of us calling the city proper home, those of us living in the place that makes St. Louis, ST. LOUIS, generally have decisions made by outsiders.

It's a condition of being a city resident. In many ways your desires and dreams are subordinated to a suburban ethic.

Another 100 acres of tax-exempt land plus a gov't-owned $1B liability that consumes city services and infrastructure doesn't sound like a good deal to me. The City needs productive land uses.

^ Absolutely. What this damn city needs is more business and more residents. Let's subsidize those more directly rather than some kind of crazy Rube Goldberg device.

I like this thread and enjoy the debate both pro and anti-stadium, but the people doing their own financial modeling to fit their narrative are going to give me an aneurysm.

Robert, while I respect and agree with your point that my numbers are too simple, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to fit a narrative.

It makes me sad to see that this probably isn't a very good deal for the city because I want it to be. I hate football and the NFL, but gosh darn it, I love the Rams. And even though I know it's not ideal, I've got myself prepared to sacrifice some tax money and some urbanity to be happy with this stadium.

I just want it to be a good plan... and I just don't think it is.

I realize inflation matters to some degree. And I realize that we don't have the actual tax projections. And there's probably even more to it. But I think it's pretty clear this deal puts us on the hook for more money than we have been.

I do not understand arguments from people like Ray Hartman who want to pretend that inflation should not be considered. Inflation and player salary escalation is what makes the old original state payment of $12M now completely covered by taxes on the player and staff. By conservative estimates, that revenue should rise to $30M per year while the payment stays at $12M. If the state would just sign its excess windfall over to the city in future years, it would likely cover any city shortfall. The taxes the State, City, and County all made off of the Rams & staff staying and building this stadium more than pay back their investment. Those government entities are just fighting over who gets to keep their part of the loot.

The Rams pay their way. Unfortunately, we have to use tax laws to pry their fair share of the money from the Rams players, staff, users, and advertisers, and that technically makes it public money. But there is so much disinformation about how we could spend that Billion on Police, or Teachers, or whatever, as if it was sitting in a pile somewhere, that a public vote would be easy for Kroenke to buy.

Was listening to sports radio yesterday. A bunch of people falling all over themselves declaring this is the most united STL has ever been. (after the public townhall or whatever it was called) Closest I've ever come to calling into a radio show. If you were united you would get STL County, St. Charles County, Madison, Jefferson and St. Clair or wherever you live to put up money!

I find it obnoxious when people who aren't paying for things declare this is needed. Okay why don't you put up some money if its so important? I wish they had chosen a county site for this stadium.

Having attended the Town Hall at the Peabody Tuesday, and then thinking about what I saw and heard from Eric Grubman, these five things are bothering me about what he must be hearing behind closed doors from Kroenke and toadie Kevin Demoff:

1. Grubman seemed surprised and skeptical when a fan said that DeWitt paid for 80% of the Cardinal stadium with private money. He looked back at his lawyer as if to say, that can't be true. But it is.
2. One fan read words he got straight from the NFL Market Study. Grubman didn't seem to recognize the words and wanted to know the author. He didn't think it was his own study, but it was. The speaker just had notes, so he couldn't show Eric the study & author. The words that bothered the fan were the ones that said attendance in St. Louis dropped off when performance on the field "waned". Having the worst 5 year stretch in NFL history is a little worse than "waned." And I guess Grubman didn't read his own NFL study.
3. Grubman said that the owners had to believe a market was viable for the next 20 to 30 years, not just current status. This came after a fan provided stats that showed St. Louis was in the middle of NFL metros or better in every economic and population category. So is this a new condition to stay? At current rates of growth, only a couple of NFL towns will pass St. Louis in these categories in the next 20 years, barring war on our soil or something. And none from the Midwest. So I'm wondering if Kroenke is feeding him "city" rankings, not metro rankings, to make us look worse. Also, I hear San Antonio a lot. Their metro is 2.1 million and the Alamo Dome is older than our dome. You could combine it with Austin, but Austin has a 102,000 seat stadium for UT football. Those fans are already committed to near-pro football.
4. When asked directly if he thought St. Louis was a good NFL market now, a simple Y/N Question. He replied, "I think you are passionate about the Rams."
5. Grubman said that even after the new stadium is built, it will only rank 7 to 15 compared to other stadiums. So does he still believe we owe Kroenke a top tier stadium? (#7 is top 1/4, by the way.) Is every new stadium from now going to need to be a new Jerry Dome? The San Diego proposed stadium looks about like ours. (They emphasize the shimmering outer walls that look identical to what Centene put on the side of their parking garage in Clayton a few years ago.)

Anyway, we don't get to hear what Kroenke and Demoff are telling the NFL behind closed doors. But Grubman's comments don't give me a good feeling that the NFL decision makers are getting the truth.

gary kreie wrote:Having attended the Town Hall at the Peabody Tuesday, and then thinking about what I saw and heard from Eric Grubman, these five things are bothering me about what he must be hearing behind closed doors from Kroenke and toadie Kevin Demoff:

1. Grubman seemed surprised and skeptical when a fan said that DeWitt paid for 80% of the Cardinal stadium with private money. He looked back at his lawyer as if to say, that can't be true. But it is.
2. One fan read words he got straight from the NFL Market Study. Grubman didn't seem to recognize the words and wanted to know the author. He didn't think it was his own study, but it was. The speaker just had notes, so he couldn't show Eric the study & author. The words that bothered the fan were the ones that said attendance in St. Louis dropped off when performance on the field "waned". Having the worst 5 year stretch in NFL history is a little worse than "waned." And I guess Grubman didn't read his own NFL study.
3. Grubman said that the owners had to believe a market was viable for the next 20 to 30 years, not just current status. This came after a fan provided stats that showed St. Louis was in the middle of NFL metros or better in every economic and population category. So is this a new condition to stay? At current rates of growth, only a couple of NFL towns will pass St. Louis in these categories in the next 20 years, barring war on our soil or something. And none from the Midwest. So I'm wondering if Kroenke is feeding him "city" rankings, not metro rankings, to make us look worse. Also, I hear San Antonio a lot. Their metro is 2.1 million and the Alamo Dome is older than our dome. You could combine it with Austin, but Austin has a 102,000 seat stadium for UT football. Those fans are already committed to near-pro football.
4. When asked directly if he thought St. Louis was a good NFL market now, a simple Y/N Question. He replied, "I think you are passionate about the Rams."
5. Grubman said that even after the new stadium is built, it will only rank 7 to 15 compared to other stadiums. So does he still believe we owe Kroenke a top tier stadium? (#7 is top 1/4, by the way.) Is every new stadium from now going to need to be a new Jerry Dome? The San Diego proposed stadium looks about like ours. (They emphasize the shimmering outer walls that look identical to what Centene put on the side of their parking garage in Clayton a few years ago.)

Anyway, we don't get to hear what Kroenke and Demoff are telling the NFL behind closed doors. But Grubman's comments don't give me a good feeling that the NFL decision makers are getting the truth.

1. as he should...the Cardinals may have forward funded 80% of the cost but they too got tax rebates and other perks
5. he clarified that later and said it would be 15-20 in terms of revenue generated and he said its up to the other owners to determined if that's OK or needs to be better... can you imagine the 17 owners that would rank behind that in revenue saying "oh yeah that needs to be higher..we are only getting...oh wait..whats Stan complaining about? "
...there is such ranking that would rank stadiums by tier of how good it is..its subjective.

When I spoke to Eric Grubman myself, this ranking stuff first came up. I asked him what he thought about our stadium. He said new venues should start in the 'top tier' and go down as new ones are built. He specifically told me, when referring to projections for future revenues generated, the new riverfront stadium is not in the first 8 or the next 6, regarding tiers. He said it would fall into the 15 and up range. He did not elaborate from there. He also made it clear that this was not a general ranking of stadiums, but only based on projected revenues. Clearly, the NFL has a poor perception of the future of St. Louis and our local economy.

jstriebel wrote:Robert, while I respect and agree with your point that my numbers are too simple, I want to be clear that I'm not trying to fit a narrative.

It makes me sad to see that this probably isn't a very good deal for the city because I want it to be. I hate football and the NFL, but gosh darn it, I love the Rams. And even though I know it's not ideal, I've got myself prepared to sacrifice some tax money and some urbanity to be happy with this stadium.

I just want it to be a good plan... and I just don't think it is.

I realize inflation matters to some degree. And I realize that we don't have the actual tax projections. And there's probably even more to it. But I think it's pretty clear this deal puts us on the hook for more money than we have been.

That wasn't directed towards you. It's in general. Everyone is doing it (media and politicians included) and not just on this forum. Everyone with a mouth or a keyboard suddenly has a masters in finance and economics. That said, watching it there is definitely a pattern where the person producing the #'s conveniently leaves out critical aspects so the #'s match their overall point.

I found it to be good unintentional comedy for a while, but as we now have politicians latching on to some of the flawed projections I find it annoying and disturbing. What's the point in passing judgments on #'s being produced that aren't real?

^ I'm just glad we have Jack Coatar to educate all the people who want to question things on how these "dense financials" make such glorious sense. What a condescending jerk.

DogtownBnR wrote:When I spoke to Eric Grubman myself, this ranking stuff first came up. I asked him what he thought about our stadium. He said new venues should start in the 'top tier' and go down as new ones are built. He specifically told me, when referring to projections for future revenues generated, the new riverfront stadium is not in the first 8 or the next 6, regarding tiers. He said it would fall into the 15 and up range. He did not elaborate from there. He also made it clear that this was not a general ranking of stadiums, but only based on projected revenues. Clearly, the NFL has a poor perception of the future of St. Louis and our local economy.

What did he say when you responded that the baseball team here is the most profitable in the major leagues? Do they just assume we have alien DNA that just doesn't respond to good football like folks in other cities do? "Football" towns like KC and Pittsburg become baseball towns when their baseball organizations put out a good product.

The NFL is like Bernie Madoff -- we've invested in a bad team for years knowing that some day it would turn around and our investments in time and money would be paid back in full when the team started winning. But now that that may be starting, we find out Bernie is making of our investment and giving it to Hollywood, where they won't invest a dime.

Updated video of the stadium.

http://lockerdome.com/7475563015185217/8162429620330260

^I told him the revenues would grow if not for the fact that Kroenke has alienated so many fans with his relocation efforts, bad PR, lack of speaking, non-existent community presence, as well as the historically bad product on the field. The team value and revenues would grow by him committing to the City, ending the up in the air status and of course, putting a quality product on the field. That alone would lift the franchise back to the middle of the pack. Throw in a new stadium and the projections should be much better going forward. That was my argument to him. He did not disagree, but them continued with the 'owners will decide, not me' narrative. 'It is all about what the owners think, not me.'

He also said the information that put our new stadium and future revenue projections, in the middle tier (15-32), was based on information provided by the Task Force.

Also, Howard Balzer reported that other NFL execs disagree with Grubman's comments on the new venue being 15-32.

DogtownBnR wrote:^I told him the revenues would grow if not for the fact that Kroenke has alienated so many fans with his relocation efforts, bad PR, lack of speaking, non-existent community presence, as well as the historically bad product on the field. The team value and revenues would grow by him committing to the City, ending the up in the air status and of course, putting a quality product on the field. That alone would lift the franchise back to the middle of the pack. Throw in a new stadium and the projections should be much better going forward. That was my argument to him. He did not disagree, but them continued with the 'owners will decide, not me' narrative. 'It is all about what the owners think, not me.'

He also said the information that put our new stadium and future revenue projections, in the middle tier (15-32), was based on information provided by the Task Force.

I'm impressed that you were able to have such a substantive long conversation with him. Good job. Thanks.

DogtownBnR wrote:When I spoke to Eric Grubman myself, this ranking stuff first came up. I asked him what he thought about our stadium. He said new venues should start in the 'top tier' and go down as new ones are built. He specifically told me, when referring to projections for future revenues generated, the new riverfront stadium is not in the first 8 or the next 6, regarding tiers. He said it would fall into the 15 and up range. He did not elaborate from there. He also made it clear that this was not a general ranking of stadiums, but only based on projected revenues. Clearly, the NFL has a poor perception of the future of St. Louis and our local economy.

I wonder if the NFL has applied that standard to all cities before us when they've applied to receive NFL financing for a new stadium. It seems like an arbitrary standard that most midsized cities wouldn't be able to meet.

I was shocked when I walked in. He was just standing there. Nobody was really talking to him. Maybe some didn't even know who he was. I jumped at the chance. He was extremely accommodating, very friendly and down to earth. Unfortunately, I've heard he is a behind the scenes supporter of Inglewood.
In any event, as mentioned, I was able to get Roughly 10 minutes out of him, total of 2 different conversations. It was pretty amazing. I give him credit for standing up there in the lobby, taking the heat from fans. The NFL must pay him well. I was perturbed that the other 3 barely spoke. The lady spoke a bit, but the other 2 guys barely talked. They looked very nervous.

DogtownBnR wrote:I was shocked when I walked in. He was just standing there. Nobody was really talking to him. Maybe some didn't even know who he was. I jumped at the chance. He was extremely accommodating, very friendly and down to earth. Unfortunately, I've heard he is a behind the scenes supporter of Inglewood.
In any event, as mentioned, I was able to get Roughly 10 minutes out of him, total of 2 different conversations. It was pretty amazing. I give him credit for standing up there in the lobby, taking the heat from fans. The NFL must pay him well. I was perturbed that the other 3 barely spoke. The lady spoke a bit, but the other 2 guys barely talked. They looked very nervous.

I heard that a Charger fan asked about filing an anti-trust lawsuit against the league if they are not fair. Grubman said no true fan would ever want to keep their team by winning a lawsuit. Uh, I respectfully disagree. If a judge, rather than an NFL committee, agrees we deserve to keep the Rams, I'll go with that. I just worry that the owners are so mesmerized by The Kroneketonk in LA, that they'll simplify boil it down to which stadium is better, Peacock's or Kroenke's, and then find a way to justify their decision.