urbanSTL

blzhrpmd2 wrote:Perhaps this facet of the conversation should move over to "urban theory" or "stl compared to other cities" or somewhere else.

Who is an example of someone nationally who has Peacock's credentials or who has that level of experience in regional business dealings who "gets it" in regards to urban promotion? If Peacock is missing the mark here then I'm not sure what the mark looks like given the task at hand. This is a sincere question as I will admit, I'm biased by the sporting lens in analysis of this conundrum. Trying to remove the NFL aspect of this, however, I admire someone in Peacock's position trying to make an impression on the national level in regards to our determination and drive. We don't have enough of that I think it would be a shame for Peacock's campaign to end with.....we came up short....again.

As he says, this stadium won't fix our ills. But not having it is not going to necessarily fix anything either except give anti-stadium crowds the satisfaction of dodging a bullet and the rest of the country to say STL loses again. But back to the question, who is an example of person who "gets it"?

Paul McKee?

To allow the NFL to keep all the name rights, the State will restructure its portion, as described in the Post piece today.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... be6ed.html

"The amount of money really isn’t different,” Peacock said. “It’s just the construct of it. And it has certain implications.”

The article also had this, which I guess addresses maintenance:

"On Monday, Nixon’s stadium task force sent an email to the NFL’s Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities offering, among other things, to give the cash from Enterprise to the team. The letter also offered stadium operations to the team, Peacock said. If agreed, the team would gain responsibility for maintenance and upkeep, and also the proceeds from concerts, college football games and other events. Under the new proposal, about a third of the stadium taxes would still fill city coffers. The city would send the remaining two-thirds, not to the team, but to the state stadium authority. The stadium authority would use those taxes and team rent payments on the new facility to pay off $75 million in additional construction bonds."

^^^^^ if the team would keep "proceeds from concerts, college football games, and other events," would that mean that the Rams would keep proceeds from any hypothetical MLS team that would be granted to StL and played in the stadium? I would suspect no MLS team would ever agree to that and would refuse to play in the Rams stadium.

No MLS proceeds are not part of it

latest offer from the Task Force to the NFL is Rams keep Naming Rights, 64% of taxes generated on the site and Rams get to operate the stadium (while paying the maintenance of it) but they would hold the master lease and book as many events as they want and keep profit (not just taxes) from those other events (excluding mls)

cngrant wrote:^^^^^ if the team would keep "proceeds from concerts, college football games, and other events," would that mean that the Rams would keep proceeds from any hypothetical MLS team that would be granted to StL and played in the stadium? I would suspect no MLS team would ever agree to that and would refuse to play in the Rams stadium.

I was wondering the same thing. I'm hoping they mean special events, not new home franchises, but I'm guessing everything will be negotiated downstream if the Rams stay. In Minnesota, they touted MLS in the new stadium, but now are building a separate smaller outdoor stadium for MLS downtown near the Vikings stadium. Maybe revenue had something to do with that, or they just wanted to play outdoors.

By the way, Fox 2 is reporting that NGA folks are asking about the stadium. I didn't make this up, so take it or leave it.

"The proposed $1.6 billion dollar National Geo-Spatial-Intelligence Agency site at Cass and Jefferson would keep 3,100 jobs in the city. City leaders say one of the often-asked questions in the site selection process is about whether the stadium`s going to be built."

http://fox2now.com/2015/12/04/board-of- ... -projects/

^ i wondered about that too...so i called my contact at Army Corps of Engineers that is managing the EIS for NGA...said the NGA decision will not be impacted by weather the stadium is or isnt built

Another thing that's becoming clear is this stadium isn't getting built. Yes, we know Stan's goal is LA but we know that he might not get that wish...and he knows that too.....so you would think that him/rams would be very much involved with the stadium negotiations here. they aren't at all. To get from this point today to a point where ground can be broken there is a lot of work to be done with the team....and if the team wanted this and to open this stadium for the 2019 season a lot of the work needed to start months ago.

NGA location is being decided by the President. The NFL stadium means nothing.

I agree that the riverfront stadium probably will not be built.

Lets say Stan is blocked ande he doesnt build his revenue generating wonderland in Inglewood. This man is a real estate developer. Are we seriously to believe that he would plop the Rams down in Peacock's fantasy world, with little to no opportunity to develop aroudn it and maximise his investments?

He'll build his own stadium and his own surrounding developments in Maryland Heights if the NFL forces him to stay, and he doesn't go rogue.

Kurt was on that team most recently and still knows people on the team. He worked with Carson Palmer to make him better. So that doesn't bother me. He also supports keeping the Rams in St. Louis.

If the Rams leave, we should immediately start the "Bring Back the St. Louis Cardinals" campaign. And prepare for lower property values here, according to academic research reports that the Show-Me institute ignored. Show-Me claims we'll all find other hobbies and entertainment and spend the same thousands on that entertainment in the City. Or we might instead decide to travel or move to a fun city.

Some really good stuff in today's Monday Morning Quarterback column. Highlights:

• The six-owner Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities (perhaps the NFL could name a Vice President of Committee Name Improvement) is likely to end up either 4-2 or 5-1 in favor of the Carson project, a source with knowledge of the committee’s feelings told me. One asterisk there: The committee is likely to side with Carson as long as the new St. Louis stadium is rock-solid when it comes time to vote. If any of the six believe the St. Louis proposal is flawed, they could switch to Kroenke and Inglewood.

• No one knows the outcome. The reason, essentially, is that there are still a few important factors up in the air. St. Louis aldermen are scheduled to vote this month to approve funding for a new stadium for the Rams; if they do, how can the NFL abandon a city that has twice in the past 20 years committed to build a downtown stadium for the league? One other recent headache: The Federal Aviation Administration believes the Inglewood stadium would interfere with radar for plane traffic at Los Angeles International Airport. Could that be fixed? The league is confident Kroenke’s plan could be amended to address that.

• And as for Rams owner Stan Kroenke, should his dream of the Inglewood project die: No one knows what he’ll do. I hear he’s not interested in becoming the owner to move to London. But every other piece of speculation—that he sells the Rams, that he keeps the Rams in a stadium he doesn’t like, that he waits out the Bowlen family and buys the Broncos—is talk-show fodder. My best guess is he’d hang on to the team and become the biggest franchise free-agent in the coming few years. I keep hearing he doesn’t like the new St. Louis stadium project. It could be an ugly shotgun marriage, or Kroenke refusing to go to the altar.

http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/12/07/chip ... triots-nfl

Pretty much jibes with what I've long suspected: The NFL is waiting to see if St. Louis delivers the goods. If they do, the Rams stay. If they don't the NFL is as good as gone here.

All eyes on the Board of Aldermen Ways and Means Committee Meeting this Thursday at 9:00 A.M.

If Stan is denied LA, why would the NFL approve him to move anywhere else or be a free agent franchise. My understanding is that Goodell and the NFL would step in, put Kroenke and STL in a room and push a deal through, just like he did with Kraft and local officials. If he is not interested in London, that leaves maybe Toronto or San Antonio. Do those markets get him that much more, if any? I think if he is denied, he stays and either takes the Riverfront deal as is, negotiates it to his liking, using Maryland Heights as leverage or just builds in Maryland Heights as soon as he is denied. I wouldn't think the NFL would allow him to continue year to year and leave the STL market in limbo. That uncertainty, will continue to anger the fanbase and cause further disconnect.

My biggest concern is that STL gets everything in place, yet the NFL rejects the plan, claiming it is not "actionable" to their liking. That has always been a threat to STL keeping the Rams. I expect that to be the reason they give us, for allowing Stan to leave, if Carson falls apart. Their worst nightmare, is continuing into the 2016 season, with no resolution and 3 lame duck NFL cities.

NFL is now helping Oakland develop a stadium plan.... Get those United Moving trucks ready

I think Davis brings in a big-time investor if he goes to Carson. My understanding is that Davis has pretty resigned to the fact that he will go to Carson (if allowed), with a major investor, that will satisfy the owners. I know many old-school owners hold a vendetta against the Davis family, but in the end, it is all about the best financial deal for the owners. Some of them being elderly, I bet some of them don't even care much about what is best in the long term of the NFL, versus how much money they can get.

dbInSouthCity wrote:NFL is now helping Oakland develop a stadium plan.... Get those United Moving trucks ready

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sports/ci_ ... rs-stadium

Uses Eric Grubman as his source. I don't believe a single thing that comes out of this guys month. It's common knowledge that he favors Stan over the other plans.

Does anyone else think its odd that St. Louis must have a rock solid stadium plan, or otherwise the two cities that have crappiest current stadiums and virtually no plans at all to get new ones, in spite of trying for up to 15 years, get to keep their teams.

The Show-Me Institute has weighed in on the notion of a taxpayer funded riverfront stadium in STL, and they don't like it.

They do agree that being an "NFL City" is fun, but ask if it's worth the cost? They don't think so.

^ yeah their logical eventually leads to you paying a private company to walk on the sidewalk in your neighborhood that's now owned and run by US Sidewalks Corp based in the Cayman Islands

Northside Neighbor wrote:The Show-Me Institute has weighed in on the notion of a taxpayer funded riverfront stadium in STL, and they don't like it.

They do agree that being an "NFL City" is fun, but ask if it's worth the cost? They don't think so.

They've been spending a ton of money on radio ads and sending Joe Miller all over the state blasting the stadium. They also give lots of campaign money to MOLEG legislator campaigns to oppose the stadium, including Rob Schaaf of KC side St. Joseph, and Bob Onder of St. Charles.

Show-Me is just a right wing faux research organization funded by billionaire Rex Sinquefield. He tells him them the required results and they dry-lab the analysis to match his "eliminate-all-government" stance. He has given millions in campaign funds to hand-picked legislators, and brags about how easy it is to own a state legislature. He is behind the effort to kill the city earnings tax, and also is responsible for killing Expanded Medicaid in Missouri costing the state about $2 billion.

They haven't done a full analysis of this specific deal -- they just criticize other analysis and talk about general studies on stadium funding that may apply to 100% public funded stadiums, like the dome, but don't address this hybrid-style deal. Several studies say this is a good deal if it keeps the Rams in Missouri paying and generating more tax revenue for the state than the stadium bond payments. Here is one study from the Missouri state research organization called MERIC -- Missouri Economic Research and Information Center. It shows that building the new stadium and keeping the Rams is very lucrative for the state.

https://missouribusiness.files.wordpres ... -study.pdf

I've already accepted the fact that the Rams are gone. Its obvious to me that the NFL has a disdain for St. Louis and its likely due to our lackluster national image and slow economic growth. With that said, I think it will definitely be a kick in the gut to St. Louis. It will perpetuate the narrative that we are a dying region, but in reality it may be one of the best thing to happen to us. Maybe we will actually focus on real economic development instead of silver bullet projects like stadiums. Or maybe this will open up some room for an NBA team or MLS, which are obviously less controversial leagues. I just hate that St. Louis is tacking such a drumming from the national media. What makes Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo etc. more viable markets than St. Louis? Its all hogwash and the narrative will be that St. Louis is a bad sports market just because we have a greedy owner who wants to cash out in LA, a narrative that the LA-NY dominated media is not wanting to hear. There are idiots in LA saying that St. Louis can just cheer for KC, but turn their nose up at the idea that maybe the Bay Area doesn't need two teams, or that maybe SD could cheer on a LA team...total bs. The game is rigged against St. Louis on this one.

According to the PD, the Missouri legislature has dropped a list of legislator's names on Nixon's desk all opposed to the stadium deal, and it's a pretty long list.

Is the fat lady clearing her throat?