City vs Rams Lawsuit

gary kreie · PostDec 08, 2015#32762015-12-08T23:03+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^^ Gary, Show Me Institute is garbage, but so is this MoEconDevo (which is Nixon's shop) MERIC analysis.... these jokers assume sell-outs for first three years and then attendance of 61,000 thereafter. That's unjustifiable and frankly reckless.

No, it is not unreasonable at all. St. Louis Rams have averaged 60,790 from 1995 through Sunday's game.

Year Total Home Average Home
1995 496,486 62,061
1996 484,896 60,612
1997 518,468 64,809
1998 431,143 53,893
1999 746,947 62,246
2000 657,427 65,743
2001 528,829 66,104
2002 528,498 66,062
2003 528,456 66,057
2004 527,384 65,923
2005 523,685 65,461
2006 522,610 65,326
2007 514,354 64,294
2008 479,843 59,980
2009 441,901 55,237
2010 423,383 52,922
2011 451,153 56,394
2012 396,925 56,703
2013 455,657 56,957
2014 456,146 57,018
2015 316,723 52,787
Total Average 505,710 60,790

They would have to average below 36,000 for the last two games for the total average to fall below 60K. And this with a St. Louis record of 135 - 184 - 1. The team averaged over 64,000 fans, the size of the new stadium, 9 of the 21 years, and over 61,000 fans 11 of the 21 years. So 64,000 at the start is completely reasonable, given a new stadium. If the team plays down to the level they've established since they moved here, they will average 61,000 as they did in the EJD. If they play just average, expect better.

If that is the only flaw you could find in this report, then MOLEG would be fools to not approve the stadium and miss out on $233 million in state revenue on top of the state bond payment contributions. But then again, this is the crowd that decided it was smart to turn down $2 Billion in federal money for health insurance for the poor of Missouri, making MO an island of uninsured compared to surrounding states.

PostDec 08, 2015#32772015-12-08T23:18+00:00

Northside Neighbor wrote: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?

Does the list indicate how much money in campaign contributions they have accepted from Rex Sinquefield? Have they bothered to learn that the State of Missouri will make more money from building the stadium and keeping the Rams, than the state contribution toward the stadium? According to the state agency MERIC - Missouri Economic Research and Information Center, the state will make $233 million in 2015 dollars on top of the state payments on the stadium.
https://missouribusiness.files.wordpres ... -study.pdf

Mike Downing of the Missouri Dept of Economic Dev said, " ...the players (both home and away teams), coaches and other staff income taxes will exceed the $12 million in bond payments. The way it works in MO is that both teams’ players pay income taxes on the actual number of games played in MO. Also, the state will collect taxes on other activities – ticket sales, concessions, team owner income taxes, stadium workers income tax, licensed products sales tax, etc. "

I don't know how close billionaire Rex Sinquefield is to billionaire Stan Kroenke, but given numbers, it looks like MOLEG votes against this are either just intended to bring down Nixon, or they are being bought with campaign contributions outright.

PostDec 09, 2015#32782015-12-09T01:15+00:00

Northside Neighbor wrote: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?

Here are the signers:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/292698910/Sta ... Signatures

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32792015-12-09T01:23+00:00

Not sure why people keep worrying about mo legislature. Everything Nixon is doing is by law and the way Goldman structured this the state will be legally obligated to pay the bonds. They have no choice. There is a good reason why Nixon has totally ignored them

Aesir · PostDec 09, 2015#32802015-12-09T02:17+00:00

Poll!!!

A telephone poll commissioned on Nov. 3 by the 15th Ward Democrats showed that 79 percent of 710 city residents surveyed were opposed to taxpayer funds being used for a new stadium, protesters said.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... f0ed1.html

Peacock - "The people want this"

imthewiz · PostDec 09, 2015#32812015-12-09T03:42+00:00

^^700 residents in a city of 300k

matguy70 · PostDec 09, 2015#32822015-12-09T03:49+00:00

In addition, a poll done by the 15th Ward with an alderman that is vehemently against the stadium and anything NEW in STL.

Such a great self-touted poll.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32832015-12-09T03:50+00:00

Well presidential polls are usually about 1000 of 150,000,000 registered voters. But issue is you can get a poll to say whatever you want based on the way you ask the question and how much details you give. I mean this is the case with obamacare. When people are asked about obamacare 55 oppose it. When properly explained and Qs asked by different aspects of it majority approve it

In this case if you asked. Should taxpayers fund new stadium. Of course majority will say no

If you said should the state of mo spend $290m over 30 years to fund new stadium and in return get $330m in player taxes that wouldn't exist if the team leaves, would you support it?

Majority would support it

roger wyoming II · PostDec 09, 2015#32842015-12-09T03:59+00:00

gary kreie wrote:
roger wyoming II wrote:^^ Gary, Show Me Institute is garbage, but so is this MoEconDevo (which is Nixon's shop) MERIC analysis.... these jokers assume sell-outs for first three years and then attendance of 61,000 thereafter. That's unjustifiable and frankly reckless.
No, it is not unreasonable at all. St. Louis Rams have averaged 60,790 from 1995 through Sunday's game.

Year Total Home Average Home

Total Average 505,710 60,790

There's a huge difference between reported attendance and actual attendance. It's an issue not just in STL but league-wide. If Mo Economic Development and the Task Force are basing #'s on the expectation that we'd have 97.5% of seats actually filled with real bodies for 10 games a year is insanely optimistic. I suppose it's okay to project this best-case scenario but only if you do so in tandem with more realistic, conservative scenarios.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32852015-12-09T04:01+00:00

Tickets sold is tickets sold.

roger wyoming II · PostDec 09, 2015#32862015-12-09T04:05+00:00

^ Nope. Tickets distributed are not tickets sold. And if people don't show up, they aren't generating sales taxes at the stadium.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32872015-12-09T15:02+00:00

Grubman on Bernie Show:

he said the costs are going up and financing going down.

Also stated the Rams will not commit to the stadium. The goal now for the task force is to get 24 votes away from Stan Kroenke.

This is all per Grubman.
Bernie sounds as shocked as anyone

downtown2007 · PostDec 09, 2015#32882015-12-09T15:20+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:Grubman on Bernie Show:

he said the costs are going up and financing going down.

Also stated the Rams will not commit to the stadium. The goal now for the task force is to get 24 votes away from Stan Kroenke.

This is all per Grubman.
Bernie sounds as shocked as anyone

Is this new news? The NFL will have to force Stan to commit to STL.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32892015-12-09T15:22+00:00

he is saying they wont....this stadium isnt getting built but that doesnt mean the Rams are leaving, most likely scenario is year to year at the Dome until they figure out whats next

Aesir · PostDec 09, 2015#32902015-12-09T15:46+00:00

Loved hearing Bernie get smacked down when he tried to combine his "strictly money" questions with emotional arguments. Brutal.

Still think the most likely outcome is Maryland Heights, but if the other NFL owners feel like Grubman does about what the City has offered, don't rule out them just helping Oakland and getting Kroenke and Spanos to play nice.

Maybe build a soccer stadium, on your own land, with your own Jamba Juice funds, Dave.

chaifetz10 · PostDec 09, 2015#32912015-12-09T15:50+00:00

I wouldn't be surprised if the stadium financing gets in place but Kroenke stalls. Wait another 5 years till the financing is out of date and try to move the team again.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 09, 2015#32922015-12-09T15:52+00:00

what a mess...Bernie said another NFL owner called him after the interview and asked what grubman was saying?

downtown2007 · PostDec 09, 2015#32932015-12-09T16:08+00:00

He had an invitation last week to be on the show but declined. Thought it was a good opportunity this week. The only reason Grubman was on the show was to cause an uproar before the BOA meeting and change stances. Too coincidental.

Screw him, we are keeping our team.

moorlander · PostDec 09, 2015#32942015-12-09T16:21+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:what a mess...Bernie said another NFL owner called him after the interview and asked what grubman was saying?

I heard that too. Weird.

PostDec 09, 2015#32952015-12-09T16:27+00:00

Here is the audio from Bernie and Grubman. If you follow this nfl thing at all you gotta give this a listen

http://www.101sports.com/podcasts/eric- ... situation/

dweebe · PostDec 09, 2015#32962015-12-09T16:27+00:00

The Rams are gone and there's nothing we can do about it. This should make many people here very happy.

mjbais1489 · PostDec 09, 2015#32972015-12-09T16:36+00:00

I was reading an MLS article and they made a point I had not through about. They said STL could be spurred to JUST DO SOMETHING if the NFL leaves. I could see the BOA and Slay pushing for an MLS stadium basically on the same ground with obviously less demolition as well as some subsidies to redo the north riverfront. That honestly would be my favorite end to this process. Save most of a neighborhood -provide some money to get it jumpstarted and get an MLS team.

ajwillikers · PostDec 09, 2015#32982015-12-09T17:26+00:00

^Real Fantasy Football: Having an MLS team, all our City's lovely quirks, combined with converting all streets and roads to either being slow-speed dense mixed-zone streets or limited access-high-speed connector roads/parkways, becoming our own Portland-esque St. Louis flavored epicenter in a generation. Mmmm...

DogtownBnR · PostDec 09, 2015#32992015-12-09T18:04+00:00

After listening to Grubman, he gave nothing positive IMO, to lead me to believe the 'Rams" are staying. I do not believe we will get another team if they leave, so nothing much that he said was positive, nor has he said anything new. In other words, I think STL's future as the home of the Rams, is not good.

Can anyone tell me more about an owner calling asking about Grubman? Not sure what that was all about.

dweebe · PostDec 09, 2015#33002015-12-09T18:22+00:00

DogtownBnR wrote:After listening to Grubman, he gave nothing positive IMO, to lead me to believe the 'Rams" are staying. I do not believe we will get another team if they leave, so nothing much that he said was positive, nor has he said anything new. In other words, I think STL's future as the home of the Rams, is not good.

Can anyone tell me more about an owner calling asking about Grubman? Not sure what that was all about.

It was not good at all.

I doubt we'll find out who that was. But the quickness in which that happened was interesting. It seemed like Bernie was back from commercial break and he was claiming to get requests for the interview audio.

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode