City vs Rams Lawsuit

jstriebel · PostNov 30, 2015#32012015-11-30T02:45+00:00

In case you were fooled into thinking Dave Peacock was doing this because he really cared about the city of St. Louis and downtown and the North Riverfront:

Frank Cusumano
@Frank_Cusumano
Quest to Peacock: how would u feel if Stan is forced to stay but builds own stadium in Maryland Heights? "That would be fantastic." #STLNFL

Just to be clear, a stadium way out in Maryland Heights might be the best outcome here. (Though I'd argue ridding ourselves of the NFL would actually be best.) My point is that Peacock has sold this hard as something that's good for the city and good for the North Riverfront. To call a Maryland Heights stadium fantastic completely undercuts his sales pitch for the task force's stadium, in my opinion.

gary kreie · PostNov 30, 2015#32022015-11-30T03:12+00:00

No, Dave and proponents of keeping the NFL have been completely consistent. Dave is only pushing for the new stadium because an improved stadium situation is what the NFL says is required to keep the Rams. No matter where it is. The Governor wanted the downtown location to meet his goal of improving depressed brownfield areas. It also has adjacency to the dome to allow payment extensions per the courts. Maryland Heights only works if Kroenke takes on a lot more of the cost, if not all of it.

imthewiz · PostNov 30, 2015#32032015-11-30T05:56+00:00

Basically, would it be better to have an NFL owner fund his own stadium? Obviously. Doesn't mean he doesn't think his plan is good for the city

DogtownBnR · PostNov 30, 2015#32042015-11-30T14:01+00:00

Not that this was ever a realistic possibility, but the Broncos are saying Kroenke will not be the next owner. Guess STL is either stuck with Stan or nothing.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... 1448891886

blzhrpmd2 · PostNov 30, 2015#32052015-11-30T15:18+00:00

Peacock seemed pretty clear in last night's Cusumano interview that he thought the city/north riverfront was the better location for a variety of reasons, however, if Stan wanted to invest in the team and region by building a MH complex, go for it. Retention of the Rams/NFL has been the priority. He also was clear he doesn't think Stan will do that.

This was the most he ever laid it out cut-and-dried that if the Rams go, so goes the NFL forever. Seems well timed to get the point across to the aldermen. I didn't think that the December owner meetings would yield that much, but we'll see. The recent trend is pointing to nothing happening in 2016.

MarkHaversham · PostNov 30, 2015#32062015-11-30T16:13+00:00

gary kreie wrote:Jason Rosenbaum of NPR just wrote this piece on stadium financing, which is by far the best so far.
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/tra ... nt-stadium

And in the piece he put a link to the actual spreadsheet created by Darlene Green that lays out all the City number with and without the stadium. From this, I can finally see where folks were coming up with the total cost of $22M (in 2015 dollars) as the difference between funding the stadium and not funding it.

Here is Darlene Green's spreadsheet.
http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/ ... 112015.pdf

City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 1 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr

City of St. Louis Stadium Funding 2 of 2 by Gary Kreie, on Flickr

Anyone know why the discount rate is 4.7%? That seems very specific.

DogtownBnR · PostNov 30, 2015#32072015-11-30T16:19+00:00

Is there any feel right now, as to whether or not the BOA will approve funding? Has the Jeff City/St. Joseph opposition been laying low waiting to see if the BOA approves this? I have not heard much Schaaf lately. I think it has been over a month, since he was still claiming to have the support, to shoot down the funding/block funding of the bonds. Regarding the BOA, my understanding has been, that Slay has enough backing, to get the funding approved. This delay has been more of a dog & pony show or an appeasement of the opposition. I saw that French tweeted yesterday, he is in full support of keeping the Rams, but not Jeff Fisher.

Antonio French ‏@AntonioFrench · 17h17 hours ago
"Jeff Fisher" is trending for all the wrong reasons. I hope the Rams stay in St. Louis. The coach... not so much.
55 retweets 123 likes



jstriebel · PostNov 30, 2015#32082015-11-30T16:48+00:00

^Antonio French is an Auburn guy and a huge football fan. A lot of stadium proponents unfairly consider him a hater who is out to kill the deal. Some of them know him from the Ferguson protests and hold that against him too.

In reality, French would love the NFL to stay in town, but we know he's committed to his principles, and he won't violate those. Some consider him a definite no, I've always considered him capable of being convinced.

My impression is that there just isn't enough momentum to kill the bill. Personally, I think that's unfortunate. But it looks like Slay has this one all politicked up. His people give him the numbers on the BoA, and on the Ways & Means committee it seems like it will pass a close vote.

Lewis Reed is a potential tiebreaker on the Ways & Means as well as the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. It sure sounds like he knows he'll vote for this, but for political reasons is making it seem like he's deliberating on it.

With those things true, I can't imagine the bill not passing. I don't like it, but that seems where it is headed.

Mound City · PostNov 30, 2015#32092015-11-30T17:49+00:00

jstriebel wrote:^Antonio French is an Auburn guy and a huge football fan. A lot of stadium proponents unfairly consider him a hater who is out to kill the deal. Some of them know him from the Ferguson protests and hold that against him too.

In reality, French would love the NFL to stay in town, but we know he's committed to his principles, and he won't violate those. Some consider him a definite no, I've always considered him capable of being convinced.

My impression is that there just isn't enough momentum to kill the bill. Personally, I think that's unfortunate. But it looks like Slay has this one all politicked up. His people give him the numbers on the BoA, and on the Ways & Means committee it seems like it will pass a close vote.

Lewis Reed is a potential tiebreaker on the Ways & Means as well as the Board of Estimate and Apportionment. It sure sounds like he knows he'll vote for this, but for political reasons is making it seem like he's deliberating on it.

With those things true, I can't imagine the bill not passing. I don't like it, but that seems where it is headed.

Completely agree with this assessment (though I personally want the bill passed).

FirSTLove · PostNov 30, 2015#32102015-11-30T17:56+00:00

Who knows maybe within 30 years the city and county will be reunified and the cost will then be split among 1.3 million residents instead of 300,000

Mound City · PostDec 01, 2015#32112015-12-01T01:19+00:00

Here we go.

Intrigue at Rams Park: Kroenke meets with Nixon

On the eve of a key NFL owners meeting in Dallas, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon met with Rams owner Stan Kroenke on Monday at Rams Park, multiple sources told the Post-Dispatch.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... to.twitter

DogtownBnR · PostDec 01, 2015#32122015-12-01T01:35+00:00

Intriguing for sure! Confusing as well. I think there's much more going on behind the scenes than we realize. I'm sure, good or bad for the future of the NFL in
St. Louis, there's a good reason this meeting happened!

gary kreie · PostDec 01, 2015#32132015-12-01T01:35+00:00

FirSTLove wrote:Who knows maybe within 30 years the city and county will be reunified and the cost will then be split among 1.3 million residents instead of 300,000

Since I believe that there is general agreement now that the numbers work out to an investment of $6.2 million TOTAL for the City for $750M worth of jobs, a $1B asset downtown on largely abandoned property, and a guarantee that St. Louis stays an NFL city for 30 years, I don't believe anyone can oppose this deal for the City on economic grounds.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 01, 2015#32142015-12-01T02:25+00:00

^ Good one, Gary. You surely convinced the Comptroller!

gary kreie · PostDec 01, 2015#32152015-12-01T02:36+00:00

I don't see how the Comptroller can legitimately oppose this on economic grounds, given that the total delta cost to the city from her own spreadsheet is only $22M, not counting school revenue, etc which brings the total delta cost down to no more than $6M. I guess for some it has to equal exactly zero cost, or it is a no go.

I suspect that if we keep mining the benefits of keeping the Rams here, we'll find that remaining $6M to city governments, without even invoking the liklihood of MLS or one dime of new economic development associated with the project.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 02, 2015#32162015-12-02T03:11+00:00

Sources say new plan has the city portion down to $75m and naming rights going back to Rams directly + 64% of gameday tax rev

goat314 · PostDec 02, 2015#32172015-12-02T04:04+00:00

^ If that passes, gonna be hard for Rams to get out of town.

urban_dilettante · PostDec 02, 2015#32182015-12-02T04:15+00:00

gary kreie wrote:I don't see how the Comptroller can legitimately oppose this on economic grounds, given that the total delta cost to the city from her own spreadsheet is only $22M, not counting school revenue, etc which brings the total delta cost down to no more than $6M. I guess for some it has to equal exactly zero cost, or it is a no go.

I suspect that if we keep mining the benefits of keeping the Rams here, we'll find that remaining $6M to city governments, without even invoking the liklihood of MLS or one dime of new economic development associated with the project.

Yeah, I don't see how the comptroller could possibly not want to risk the city's credit rating based on the idealist scenarios and unrealistically rosy projections of football fa… er, stadium proponents. It's not like she has decades of locally-sourced evidence to the contrary or the majority of economics literature on the subject helping to form her judgment or anything. I suspect that if the touted benefits of keeping the Rams were real they would have been better quantified by now.

jstriebel · PostDec 02, 2015#32192015-12-02T16:58+00:00

Kroenke is now reportedly proposing to make a second team a FULL partner in the Inglewood stadium.

There's a decent chance it's too late in the game for the two work, but if he's able to swing that, that's probably a death knell for the NFL in St. Louis.

dweebe · PostDec 02, 2015#32202015-12-02T17:39+00:00

jstriebel wrote:Kroenke is now reportedly proposing to make a second team a FULL partner in the Inglewood stadium.

There's a decent chance it's too late in the game for the two work, but if he's able to swing that, that's probably a death knell for the NFL in St. Louis.

The problem is neither the Chargers or the Raiders can bring the cash to the table required to be an even partner.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 02, 2015#32212015-12-02T17:55+00:00

seems like a hail mary pass from Stan....

this from dan kaplan

Rams Owner Stan Kroenke last week wrote Panthers Owner Jerry Richardson, a key member of the L.A. Owners Committee, outlining changes to the proposed Inglewood stadium that would allow the Chargers to become an equity partner. However, while Kroenke -- who unveiled the Inglewood project in January -- would allow the Chargers to pay for some of the stadium, the team would not get design input and have no role in surrounding development. It is also unclear from the proposal whether the Chargers would be 50-50 partners. It is not believed the Chargers, who are pushing a joint project with the Raiders in Carson, will accept the plan. The Chargers declined to comment. The shift is likely a recognition that the previous Inglewood proposal would not get the 24 owner votes necessary to pass. Kroenke in August told owners any second team would be a tenant in his stadium, so the letter marks a big shift in his approach and signals that his initial response was not well received. Owners are meeting today in Dallas to discuss L.A. and whether one or two teams should relocate there next season, if at all.

why would the chargers (who are the lead dog in the Carson site) thats winning, give it up for something lesser?

dweebe · PostDec 02, 2015#32222015-12-02T18:02+00:00

Neither the Davis family or the Spanos family have $1 billion in liquid assets to pay for half of a stadium in Ingelwood.

Mark Davis drives a 1997 Dodge Caravan and goes to all-you-can eat wing night at Hooters.
http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-foo ... -a-minivan
He may be inheriting a pro football team, but I have a nicer minivan than him.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 02, 2015#32232015-12-02T18:17+00:00

Stan plan B/hail mary DOA

Brian Feldt ‏@stlbizbfeldt 5m5 minutes ago
Doesn't look like Stan Kroenke's invitation for Chargers to join him in LA is being well received. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt …

daniel kaplan ‏@dkaplanSBJ 4m4 minutes ago
@stlbizbfeldt no it is not. Viewed as sign he doesn't have votes. And told chargers have concerns about the FAA issue

jstriebel · PostDec 02, 2015#32242015-12-02T18:19+00:00

That's no different from the fact that neither of them have the liquid assets to pay for the Carson stadium either.

But they're not paying for it with liquid assets, they're paying for it with financing agreements. I'm not sure why a partnership in Inglewood would be any different.

downtown2007 · PostDec 02, 2015#32252015-12-02T18:30+00:00

jstriebel wrote:That's no different from the fact that neither of them have the liquid assets to pay for the Carson stadium either.

But they're not paying for it with liquid assets, they're paying for it with financing agreements. I'm not sure why a partnership in Inglewood would be any different.

Yeah that's what I thought?

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode