Share
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 09, 2015#3301

I didn't hear all of Grubman, but I caught the part about how (some? many? most?) owners don't feel the stadium is top tier and wouldn't be attractive to them.... this is consistent with that reporting that NFL thinks it would be more like $1.25M -- or about 25% higher than the current tag. At first I thought they were saying STL couldn't build what they want to on the riverfront for $1B, but now it sounds like what they are seeing isn't fancy/top tier enough.

Anyway, getting it out of the riverfront would allow for more $$ to be spent on the actual stadium instead of a pretty high percentage for site prep.

EDIT: forgot to add that the Grubman interview seems to confirm my belief all along that even if Kroenke isn't approved for LA he still will be free to move elsewhere if he wants to initiate a relocation process for another destination... no way the League will say that the STL offer is something that is golden; it'll just be that it decides that Carson is best alternative for being in LA.
13
New MemberNew Member
13

PostDec 09, 2015#3302

I've said it multiple times and I'll say it again, kick these bastards out of here. We don't need them.

Don't whore yourselves again.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostDec 09, 2015#3303

It's interesting to me that by his own measure, Eric Grubman has failed to do his job.

At the beginning of his interview with Bernie, he states that there are "no compelling proposals" from any of the current host cities.

A little less than 15 minutes later—and many times in the past few months—Grubman has stated that if every city has a good proposal and if the decision is tough for the owners, then he's done his job.

So...?
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostDec 09, 2015#3304

Grubman was slime. Bernie was great. I hope the other owners listen to this and hear what's going on. The only ray of light I heard was that Eric carefully separated Stan going for the new stadium, and Stan moving the Rams to LA. He implied that if the Rams stay, they would likely go year-to-year on the current lease in the dome. So much for the Demoff & the Rams saying they proposed the $700M dome upgrades to improve the fan experience here, not to get out of the lease.

Grubman was probably channeling Kroenke's positions. And Grubman said he considers amusement tax money as NFL money, not public, since the tax was waived for the Cardinals. He said that makes the public private split 30/70, not 40/60. Nice time to let us know, since this has been the plan since April. Chicago has a similar tax, so I assume Stan is just jealous of the Cards waiver. Of course the Cards paid for 80% of Busch III with their own money.

So what if we take his comment as an order to remove the waiver given to the Cards, or else the Rams leave. NFLs idea, not ours. We're shocked shocked that Stan and the NFL would throw Dewitt under the bus like that. And then we use that new revenue to pay the remaining $22M shortfall for the new stadium to get Darlene Green's vote.

PostDec 09, 2015#3305

roger wyoming II wrote:I didn't hear all of Grubman, but I caught the part about how (some? many? most?) owners don't feel the stadium is top tier and wouldn't be attractive to them.... this is consistent with that reporting that NFL thinks it would be more like $1.25M -- or about 25% higher than the current tag. At first I thought they were saying STL couldn't build what they want to on the riverfront for $1B, but now it sounds like what they are seeing isn't fancy/top tier enough.

Anyway, getting it out of the riverfront would allow for more $$ to be spent on the actual stadium instead of a pretty high percentage for site prep.

EDIT: forgot to add that the Grubman interview seems to confirm my belief all along that even if Kroenke isn't approved for LA he still will be free to move elsewhere if he wants to initiate a relocation process for another destination... no way the League will say that the STL offer is something that is golden; it'll just be that it decides that Carson is best alternative for being in LA.
Top tier was a requirement of the Dome, not this building. Stan must have convinced Eric that this one is required to be top 25%. Stan gets to hear all of Peacock's presentations and refute in private, but Peacock doesn't get to hear Stan's presentations to refute misinformation and distortions he may be telling Grubman and the NFL.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostDec 10, 2015#3306

This continues to make no sense to me. If Grubman has been plugged into Peacock's work all along, how could it get to this point and the end product be so far off the mark. This version of the stadium has been around since April. Surely there must have been thoughts like this back then. And while Grubman is saying on one radio show that STL won't have a palatable project, Peacock is being quoted as saying we're on the 2 yard line and need to punch it in.....what?

Since the spring it has seemed that the Taskforce's mission has been hazy at best (keep Rams, keep NFL?). It still feels like there is an outcome lingering that no one sees coming. Not necessarily good for STL, but not expected.

I wish I could have beard Bernie's follow up as I got out of my car right when Grubman was wrapping. Both of them got fairly fired up.
3,235
Life MemberLife Member
3,235

PostDec 10, 2015#3307

It wouldn't be that bad if we told the NFL to take a hike.
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 10, 2015#3308

blzhrpmd2 wrote:This continues to make no sense to me. If Grubman has been plugged into Peacock's work all along, how could it get to this point and the end product be so far off the mark. This version of the stadium has been around since April.
I don't know about that timeline.... I think once #NFL saw the specifics they pretty quickly told Peacock the task force wasn't using NFL Math in the calculations. Remember, BoA was expecting a bill in early September and it didn't come until the end of October... that was b/c they had trouble with the numbers, and it wasn't until the potential life saver tossed out by Enterprise that the task force even had a chance. But the NFL quickly said, uh, those dollars belong to us. Anyway, it was a while ago that I noted this proposal is not nearly as generous to the owner as the Vikings stadium deal is to Ziggy Wolf for a similar price tag... we're about $180M short.
1,982
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,982

PostDec 10, 2015#3309

I can't remember where I saw this. Probably here or Twitter.

But I believe we have an ordinance on the books that says any stadium with a private contribution of $200 million qualifies for the amusement tax waiver. That's why Grubman believes the NFL is entitled to it, and why he considers changing that rule now to put towards the funding would be unfair.

On that, he may actually have a point.

But the NFL is still beyond greedy. And, that's a really stupid law if that's truly how it's written. How do we fail to tie things to inflation (directly or through percentages) so frequently?
403
Full MemberFull Member
403

PostDec 10, 2015#3310

If St.Louis were smarter do you know what 1.1 Bil could get you here?? Heck you could easily get BPV off the ground or street cars possibly metro link top notch bike trails and a better more vibrant riverfront etc.
Its time for us to tell the NFL bye bye we have better things to do with our money like making St.Louis a cleaner safer beautiful vibrant smarter city to live in!!
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostDec 10, 2015#3311

The city would spend $52M on stadium over revenue, $29M if the Rams leave, and $0 if Rams stay and play in the dome. There is no $1.1B to spend on something else.
1,878
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,878

PostDec 10, 2015#3312

jstriebel wrote:I can't remember where I saw this. Probably here or Twitter.

But I believe we have an ordinance on the books that says any stadium with a private contribution of $200 million qualifies for the amusement tax waiver. That's why Grubman believes the NFL is entitled to it, and why he considers changing that rule now to put towards the funding would be unfair.

On that, he may actually have a point.

But the NFL is still beyond greedy. And, that's a really stupid law if that's truly how it's written. How do we fail to tie things to inflation (directly or through percentages) so frequently?
Yep, here's the ordinance:
8.08.010 Imposed.

Any person or persons, partnership of whatever form, or corporation in the business of admitting persons or groups upon payment of an admission charge to a pleasure ride or cruise, wrestling match, show or exhibition, boxing match, show or exhibition, sporting event, including but not restricted to baseball, football, rugby, soccer, hockey, basketball, rodeo, and other like entertainment presentation, are taxed upon the amount of gross receipts derived from such admission charges at the rate of five percent of the gross receipts, payable on quarterly calendar intervals; where the business is conducted for a period of time less than the licensing period hereinafter, the same rate of tax shall be levied and the amount thereof shall be paid for the period of time the business has been conducted.

Notwithstanding the foregoing paragraph, any person or persons, partnership of whatever form, or corporation in the business of admitting persons or groups upon payment of an admission charge to a pleasure ride or cruise, wrestling match, show or exhibition, boxing match, show or exhibition, sporting event, including but not restricted to baseball, football, rugby, soccer, hockey, basketball, rodeo, and other like entertainment presentation, and who or which: (1) has been designated the developer or redeveloper or co-developer or co-redeveloper (a "redeveloper"), pursuant to a redevelopment plan approved by the City by ordinance and a redevelopment agreement ("redevelopment agreement") approved by the LCRA, for the construction or substantial rehabilitation of a new or redeveloped sports arena, sports stadium, field house, ballpark or other type of sports or recreation facility to be constructed or rehabilitated after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this section ("recreation facility") and for the development of a substantial mixed-use development adjacent to the recreation facility which may include, but is not limited to, housing, offices, museums, entertainment venues, retail stores, restaurants or other similar facilities, all of which such facilities, including the recreation facility, are or will be located within a blighted and/or insanitary area, as determined by the City by ordinance, or (2) is the primary tenant, occupant or operator of the recreation facility, or has been designated as such pursuant to the redevelopment agreement ("tenant"), or (3) is an affiliate (as hereinafter defined) of such redeveloper or tenant, shall be taxed upon the amount of gross receipts derived from such admission charges at such recreation facility during the term of the redevelopment agreement at the rate corresponding to the estimated total amount of private investment for the construction or rehabilitation of the recreation facility as set forth in the redevelopment agreement in accordance with the following tax rate schedule:

Amount of Estimated Private Investment in the Recreation Facility

Tax Rate

less than $50,000,000

5% of gross receipts

$50,000,000-$99,999,999

4% of gross receipts

$100,000,000-$199,999,999

2% of gross receipts

$200,000,000 and above

0% of gross receipts
-RBB
488
Full MemberFull Member
488

PostDec 10, 2015#3313

gary kreie wrote:The city would spend $52M on stadium over revenue, $29M if the Rams leave, and $0 if Rams stay and play in the dome. There is no $1.1B to spend on something else.
Yup - I'm not a huge fan of the stadium but that area will need to be subsidized one way or another if we want it to become anything.
1,067
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,067

PostDec 10, 2015#3314

Interesting letter from Pittsburgh to the board of aldermen regarding riverfront development opportunity with stadia as centerpieces:




Also, Bernie's take on yesterday's circus act was the NFL transitioning to phase II of NFL-STL by beginning the negotiations for Stan in STL. It was revealed that the NFL basically reached out to Bernie to get EG on the show the night before he was the guest. NFL media relations tweeted out that he would be on Bernie show, then put the audio on NFL.com pretty quickly. Bernie's read is Carson is winning out and if that occurs, Grubman (as Stan's voice) is laying groundwork for next round of negotiations between Stan-NFL-STL-STL Country (MH)-Taskforce, what have you.
1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostDec 10, 2015#3315

gary kreie wrote:The city would spend $52M on stadium over revenue, $29M if the Rams leave, and $0 if Rams stay and play in the dome. There is no $1.1B to spend on something else.
Are you saying we can't fund a MetroLink expansion with PSLs?
3,433
Life MemberLife Member
3,433

PostDec 10, 2015#3316

MarkHaversham wrote:
gary kreie wrote:The city would spend $52M on stadium over revenue, $29M if the Rams leave, and $0 if Rams stay and play in the dome. There is no $1.1B to spend on something else.
Are you saying we can't fund a MetroLink expansion with PSLs?
I'll buy one. I guess it would mean I get the right to buy the same personal seat every time I ride. "Dude, that's my seat. Out."
8,912
Life MemberLife Member
8,912

PostDec 10, 2015#3317

So are we at the point now where it's believed that if the Rams are forced to stay that stan has no desire to move the rams into a new riverfront stadium. That he would either go year to year on the Dome in the short term, and possibly build his own stadium in MH...?

Or that Stan is gone, but some mystery team will move to the new riverfront stadium. Why else would the leaders keep reiterating that the goal is to keep StL an NFL city and not a NFL Rams City?
3,767
Life MemberLife Member
3,767

PostDec 10, 2015#3318

I think Bernie also mentioned that he thought it could be Grubman (who has clearly been in Stan’s corner throughout this process) trying to muddy the waters here in STL, before the Alderman vote. He also said it could be a combination of both Grubman trying to sabotage the STL stadium, but at the same time, in case Carson prevails, trying to squeeze a better deal out of STL. While all of this is happening, the private meeting between Nixon and Stan happened. Several meetings have involved Demoff. There is much more going on here, behind the scenes that we do and may never know about. While things appear a certain way on the surface, nothing is for sure. Bernie said his sources say Carson is way ahead. If STL is approved and Carson gets the go-ahead, I can’t see a scenario where the NFL wants STL to remain in limbo for several years, while Stan schemes up another plan. While they are money-hungry and greedy, they also want stability. If Stan is denied LA, I would think that Goodell tries to put the parties at the negotiating table, assuming Stan does not just say “F it” and build his own palace in the County. I could even see him acquiring the riverfront property, if he is forced to stay. There has also been rumors, in the case he’s denied, that he’d bring on Peacock as the face of the franchise and remove Demoff. He will need a major PR effort, to fix the damage he has caused. Winning or making a strong effort to win, could mend the relationship with the fanbase. Now I could be wrong. There could be a scenario where the NFL lets Stan stay in the Dome and scheme, but I would guess they’d prefer stability.
1,868
Never Logs OffNever Logs Off
1,868

PostDec 10, 2015#3319

What does "making a strong effort to win" mean in a league with strict salary caps?
459
Full MemberFull Member
459

PostDec 10, 2015#3320

How's this for an endorsement from a peer city...


http://bit.ly/1SQ3PSi

Come on STL, let's invest in our front yard!
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 10, 2015#3321

NFL more than likely will encourage Stan to look at London or Toronto than work out a STL stadium.
337
Full MemberFull Member
337

PostDec 10, 2015#3322

roger wyoming II wrote:NFL more than likely will encourage Stan to look at London or Toronto than work out a STL stadium.
What's your source and/or reasoning on that one?
8,155
Life MemberLife Member
8,155

PostDec 10, 2015#3323

^ It's not a secret that NFL would like to expand internationally. And Stan is the type of guy who might be interested in obliging. It all comes down to glamour and $$. NFL and Kroenke just aren't into STL that much.
3,767
Life MemberLife Member
3,767

PostDec 10, 2015#3324

What does "making a strong effort to win" mean in a league with strict salary caps?
Since the overwhelming perception is that Stan (if forced to stay) does not want to be here, an overhaul of the current regime, would be the first big move, in showing the fanbase he is in this to win here & now in STL. If he continues with the status quo, it will be perceived that he is just buying time until he can make his next big move out of town. (This is also assuming he tries to stay in the Dome)

Regarding his hire of Fisher, it had multiple purposes. He did want an experienced coach, after having 2 bust coordinators. However, to him, Fisher's best attribute was his previous experience with relocation. The game has passed him by, clearly. His 4 year run has been abysmal. He & Snead must go, either way, but especially if they stay.

SO, to answer your question, the Rams being competitive, is very different than other teams not in the relocation mix. Owners that have to crawl back to 'home markets' will face a different level of scrutiny. They will face a PR nightmare, that can only be fixed by committing to the market and WINNING!
337
Full MemberFull Member
337

PostDec 10, 2015#3325

roger wyoming II wrote:^ It's not a secret that NFL would like to expand internationally. And Stan is the type of guy who might be interested in obliging. It all comes down to glamour and $$. NFL and Kroenke just aren't into STL that much.
Key word: expand
Read more posts (2177 remaining)
Share