City vs Rams Lawsuit

Mound City · PostNov 03, 2015#30262015-11-03T20:51+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:Task Force to present 11/11/15. This meeting will likely decide the fate of the NFL in STL. I wouldn't think the BOA will have come to a decision by then. I wonder how this affects the NFL's overall perception of the STL plan.

This presentation could involve as many as 17 league owners over the three committees, assuming all 17 are able to attend.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 24e55.html

Even without the aldermen not having voted, yet, to approve the stadium financing bill, the plan in St. Louis is so far ahead of any proposal out of San Diego or Oakland that I feel confident in saying our task force will inevitably look far better than anyone those other cities send to present at this meeting.

Of course, it may ultimately not matter if the fix is in against St. Louis anyway, but at least we'll be representing well. And I'd like to think Peacock would have a good idea if the fix really were in or not.

DogtownBnR · PostNov 03, 2015#30272015-11-03T20:56+00:00

^

Win. Commit to the region. Fans will follow.

Couldn't agree more!

Hence the reason all of the analysis and in some cases criticism of STL as an NFL market, is completely BS!

gary kreie · PostNov 03, 2015#30282015-11-03T21:41+00:00

One more thing Grubman said that concerns me. He said our state had two NFL teams, whereas some states don't have any. Implying, I guess, that we should throw our support to the KC Chiefs. Hey, some states have one stadium and two teams (NY). We'll have one team and two stadiums. I think the new top tier should be having two stadiums -- one with a lid, one without. And with a world class water feature. LA doesn't have a water feature since that would require water.

Mound City · PostNov 03, 2015#30292015-11-03T21:45+00:00

gary kreie wrote:One more thing Grubman said that concerns me. He said our state had two NFL teams, whereas some states don't have any. Implying, I guess, that we should throw our support to the KC Chiefs. Hey, some states have one stadium and two teams (NY). We'll have one team and two stadiums. I think the new top tier should be having two stadiums -- one with a lid, one without. And with a world class water feature. LA doesn't have a water feature since that would require water.

Not that I think it really matters, but in what context did he make those remarks?

jstriebel · PostNov 04, 2015#30302015-11-04T00:19+00:00

^ Those remarks were made in the context of whether or not it matters that California already has 3 NFL teams.

I don't think he was trying to imply that Missouri shouldn't have 2 teams. He was implying that it's not necessarily bad for California to have 4 teams. He was saying certain places have and can support multiple teams.

So it wasn't exactly a positive for us since he was saying it'd be okay if the Rams were the 4th team in LA. But I don't think it was a negative either because he wasn't saying Missouri can't support 2.

andrewarkills · PostNov 05, 2015#30312015-11-05T01:31+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Here is some basic #'s with 2.5% growth yearly in tax revenue all the way up to 5% and everything in between
I didn't consider anything secondary like people eating at restaurant etc..its very hard to do and really a moot point. probably a wash when you consider current property taxes generated at the site vs no taxes with the stadium.

Top # is the net lose to the city...middle is if county put in $6M a year or county with $3.9M a year than what the net would be to the city

It's worth noting that the sales taxes are diverted at 100% years 1-10, 50% years 11-20, and 25% years 21-30. I'm working on a new financial model based on that and some other info. Will share results once completed.

dweebe · PostNov 05, 2015#30322015-11-05T01:46+00:00

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... s-angeles/

League sources have increasingly indicated in recent weeks that there is a growing sentiment toward Inglewood as the superior site and Spanos’ options could be limited to accepting a deal to team with Kroenke or get back to work with the NFL and San Diego on a proposal in either Mission Valley or downtown.

roger wyoming II · PostNov 05, 2015#30332015-11-05T02:18+00:00

^ We'll see how things shape up after the owners' meeting next week, but I wouldn't doubt that is what's going on. I've always assumed he with the most money wins. But I guess we'll see soon enough,

gary kreie · PostNov 05, 2015#30342015-11-05T04:03+00:00

I see Scott is advocating spending $150M on transit rather than stadium. Average light rail costs have ballooned to $100 million per mile. (A 4.3 mile extentsion of the Green Line in Boston is now projected at over $1 Billion.) So for $150M we could extend metro link somewhere from .7 to 1.5 miles, or have a new $1 Billion stadium and keep the Rams.

If the BOA kills the stadium, it will make it easy for the NFL to justify what they want to do anyway. And it will confirm what Kroenke tells them about St. Louis.

mill204 · PostNov 05, 2015#30352015-11-05T07:03+00:00

^ $150 million would be just the local match for the entire project. Feds currently match 1:1, so the total transit build would be $300 million which would get 2 - 4 miles.

dbInSouthCity · PostNov 05, 2015#30362015-11-05T12:20+00:00

There is no fed $ for transit expansion available until 2024.

MarkHaversham · PostNov 05, 2015#30372015-11-05T16:23+00:00

gary kreie wrote:I see Scott is advocating spending $150M on transit rather than stadium. Average light rail costs have ballooned to $100 million per mile. (A 4.3 mile extentsion of the Green Line in Boston is now projected at over $1 Billion.) So for $150M we could extend metro link somewhere from .7 to 1.5 miles, or have a new $1 Billion stadium and keep the Rams.

If the BOA kills the stadium, it will make it easy for the NFL to justify what they want to do anyway. And it will confirm what Kroenke tells them about St. Louis.

Does it have to be Metrolink? What if we picked, say, ten bus routes, and committed to running them every 10 minutes? I'm guessing that would be something like $1mil per route per year?

jstriebel · PostNov 05, 2015#30382015-11-05T20:56+00:00

gary kreie wrote:If the BOA kills the stadium, it will make it easy for the NFL to justify what they want to do anyway. And it will confirm what Kroenke tells them about St. Louis.

Kroenke's telling the NFL that we're a fiscally responsible city that has had enough with silver bullet projects and is interesting in seeing if we can better prioritize our needs?

Perhaps my opinion of Stan has been wrong all along.

PostNov 05, 2015#30392015-11-05T20:57+00:00

The Show Me Institute weighs in. It's not great.

http://showmeinstitute.org/blog/corpora ... dome-lease

I'm sure someone will have some numbers that will push back on some of this. And I welcome that.

It still just looks like such huge and unfair commitment being asked of the city.

PostNov 05, 2015#30402015-11-05T20:58+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:There is no fed $ for transit expansion available until 2024.

I could wait until 2024 if we identified a concrete plan sooner than that. Our payments on a new stadium would last until 2052.

Mound City · PostNov 05, 2015#30412015-11-05T22:14+00:00

I could be mistaken, but I believe the RSA statutes make it clear that the bonds must be specifically for convention/sports venue related construction or improvements on or adjacent to the existent convention center complex.

I'm all for the issuance of new bonds to overhaul our public transit system, and in fact I hope Mr. Ogilvie continues to push for them after the stadium finance bill debate is over, but I don't think that's really relevant to the discussion of whether or not to finance the stadium.

jstriebel · PostNov 05, 2015#30422015-11-05T22:46+00:00

Mound City wrote:I could be mistaken, but I believe the RSA statutes make it clear that the bonds must be specifically for convention/sports venue related construction or improvements on or adjacent to the existent convention center complex.

I'm all for the issuance of new bonds to overhaul our public transit system, and in fact I hope Mr. Ogilvie continues to push for them after the stadium finance bill debate is over, but I don't think that's really relevant to the discussion of whether or not to finance the stadium.

I think it is relevant, but it's certainly not a direct connection.

You're right about the restrictions on the bonds. And also the hotel tax that pays for part of the bonds has limitations that it be directed towards convention, sports, or tourism spending.

With that said, we're still ultimately spending part of our budget on this. And we know that we're having to make up a lot of these bond commitment with general fund money. And it appears that number is only going to get much larger with this new deal.

Ultimately, the more we spend on something, the less we can spend on something else. Even though some of the money is restricted in various ways, it's not as if it's new separate money. It's our money, and by directing it to one thing (a football stadium) we can't direct it somewhere else.

If someone suggests that we could directly spend this money on something other than a football stadium. Yeah, they're wrong or misleading someone. It can't work that directly. But it's not an entirely incorrect suggestion either.

gary kreie · PostNov 06, 2015#30432015-11-06T12:25+00:00

MarkHaversham wrote:
gary kreie wrote:I see Scott is advocating spending $150M on transit rather than stadium. Average light rail costs have ballooned to $100 million per mile. (A 4.3 mile extentsion of the Green Line in Boston is now projected at over $1 Billion.) So for $150M we could extend metro link somewhere from .7 to 1.5 miles, or have a new $1 Billion stadium and keep the Rams.

If the BOA kills the stadium, it will make it easy for the NFL to justify what they want to do anyway. And it will confirm what Kroenke tells them about St. Louis.
Does it have to be Metrolink? What if we picked, say, ten bus routes, and committed to running them every 10 minutes? I'm guessing that would be something like $1mil per route per year?

The new stadium will only cost the city $3M per year. So you could maybe fund 3 buses., not 10.

PostNov 06, 2015#30442015-11-06T12:39+00:00

jstriebel wrote:The Show Me Institute weighs in. It's not great.

http://showmeinstitute.org/blog/corpora ... dome-lease

I'm sure someone will have some numbers that will push back on some of this. And I welcome that.

It still just looks like such huge and unfair commitment being asked of the city.

Joe Miller and all the Show-Me folks analysis always coincide exactly what filthy rich guy Rex Sinquefield's hunches, since he funds them. Joe is the same guy who also said a new stadium will create no new construction jobs. When you read it, you find that he found a study somewhere that is talking about people being pulled from other jobs. He forgot that those jobs are just pushed to the future, not eliminated. He is also the guy who said that city will lose no tax money because we Rams fans will go to the city and spend the same amount on other entertainment, like more movies. When I challenged that, he modified it to say the region will not lose tax money, but by region he meant most of the Midwest. Even that is wrong since folks travel to where entertainment is such as Vegas and Florida. So I don't know how close Rex and Stan are, but I can see the Show-Me uses the classic half-truth technique to persuade. I wouldn't trust them on this issue at all. In his first point here, why does he not consider that there has been inflation since 1995? $6M then is equal to more than $9M now. He conveniently ignores it.

PostNov 06, 2015#30452015-11-06T13:19+00:00

All the projections of tax revenue from the Rams are based on the current team, at the end of one of the worst win loss records in NFL history. What if the team actually gets up to average on the field or has home playoff games? Business in the dome and around it could go up by at least 50% if we sell out, since advertising, endorsements, parking demand, Rams apparel sales, sports bar sales, etc will shoot up. What was the revenue in 2000 and 2001 inflation adjusted? It would be hard to imagine Arlington Texas, same size as St Louis, wringing their hands over whether keeping the Cowbows justify spending $3M per year to get a billion dollar stadium.

dmelsh · PostNov 06, 2015#30462015-11-06T15:32+00:00

gary kreie wrote:All the projections of tax revenue from the Rams are based on the current team, at the end of one of the worst win loss records in NFL history. What if the team actually gets up to average on the field or has home playoff games? Business in the dome and around it could go up by at least 50% if we sell out, since advertising, endorsements, parking demand, Rams apparel sales, sports bar sales, etc will shoot up. What was the revenue in 2000 and 2001 inflation adjusted? It would be hard to imagine Arlington Texas, same size as St Louis, wringing their hands over whether keeping the Cowbows justify spending $3M per year to get a billion dollar stadium.

If the Rams win up in Minnesota, watch out at the next home game against the Bears. That place will be packed and loud with both teams filling up the dome. Sadly you'll still have the national media claiming that the majority of fans are bears fans.

jstriebel · PostNov 06, 2015#30472015-11-06T17:19+00:00

Indeed you're right about the fluctuation in tax revenue Gary. But you also can't ASSUME they're going to be good. It's a tough issue in that regard.

You have to hope for a great team but be prepared for decades of bad.

DogtownBnR · PostNov 06, 2015#30482015-11-06T17:41+00:00

http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/repor ... s-angeles/

If this is true, I would have to think this bodes well for Kroenke moving. The Carson crew cannot afford that kind of money on top of the money to build a stadium. Assuming Stan spends almost $2 Bill. to build a stadium and $1 Bill. to move, $3 bill. is a lot of 'jack'. Would Stan spend $3 bill to make his team worth that much. Doesn't seem like good biz, but then again, he is arrogant, so it may be his ego that is pushing him to LA. Seems like an LA franchise would have to be worth $4 Bill. to make it worth it. I think the math must add up, if StanK is to eager to move to LA.

roger wyoming II · PostNov 06, 2015#30492015-11-06T18:25+00:00

gary kreie wrote:All the projections of tax revenue from the Rams are based on the current team, at the end of one of the worst win loss records in NFL history.

I don't believe that is correct. I know for sure it wasn't the case for the application for the MDFB tax credits; in that instance, they assumed 100% capacity for at least several years after opening. I suspect the projections have remained that way. Also, can you elaborate on your $3M figure?

jstriebel · PostNov 06, 2015#30502015-11-06T19:10+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/repor ... s-angeles/

If this is true, I would have to think this bodes well for Kroenke moving. The Carson crew cannot afford that kind of money on top of the money to build a stadium. Assuming Stan spends almost $2 Bill. to build a stadium and $1 Bill. to move, $3 bill. is a lot of 'jack'. Would Stan spend $3 bill to make his team worth that much. Doesn't seem like good biz, but then again, he is arrogant, so it may be his ego that is pushing him to LA. Seems like an LA franchise would have to be worth $4 Bill. to make it worth it. I think the math must add up, if StanK is to eager to move to LA.

People often say it's "all about business." And with the NFL, that's definitely true.

But I don't think that IS true with Kroenke. I think this is about ego for him.

I mean, even the value of the franchise is an ego driven thing. It could quadruple over night, and it's really just a number next to his name. He wouldn't have that money on hand. He'd still owe all of the debt on the move and construction. And he's never shown a desire to sell his franchises anyways.

Sports—or at least the Rams—are all about his personal desires. And unfortunately the ego trip that is owning the NFL's LA team ranks well ahead of serving his own community.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode