City vs Rams Lawsuit

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 13, 2015#5512015-01-13T17:10+00:00

quincunx wrote:Brings up a good question. Who is on the hook for cost overruns?

in the ATL case, the owner...he asked the NFL to allow him a $850m line of credit to cover the over run and his portion of the cost....
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... r-falcons/

dweebe · PostJan 13, 2015#5522015-01-13T17:17+00:00

Slightly OT:
AT&T Stadium has issues again with traffic and taxis at last night's National Championship game.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local ... 42514.html

quincunx · PostJan 13, 2015#5532015-01-13T18:08+00:00

Stl Public Radio - Former St. Louis Mayor: Build New Rams Stadium In Illinois

“This building needs to be built in Illinois,” Schoemehl told “St. Louis on the Air” host Don Marsh on Monday. “We are never going to recapture downtown or reestablish downtown as the center of this region until we create a impetus to rebuild the Illinois side of the river. I think that stadium, especially the way it’s designed with a capacity to handle a soccer team, I think that could be a great economic driver for Illinois and for the east side of the region.”

http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/for ... m-illinois

roger wyoming II · PostJan 13, 2015#5542015-01-13T18:15+00:00

^ listen to the man!

dweebe · PostJan 13, 2015#5552015-01-13T18:21+00:00

quincunx wrote:Stl Public Radio - Former St. Louis Mayor: Build New Rams Stadium In Illinois

“This building needs to be built in Illinois,” Schoemehl told “St. Louis on the Air” host Don Marsh on Monday. “We are never going to recapture downtown or reestablish downtown as the center of this region until we create a impetus to rebuild the Illinois side of the river. I think that stadium, especially the way it’s designed with a capacity to handle a soccer team, I think that could be a great economic driver for Illinois and for the east side of the region.”
http://news.stlpublicradio.org/post/for ... m-illinois

Says the guy who chased off the Big Red because he couldn't get along with the St. Louis County Exec. Plus like Illinois would really spend one single cent on a downstate sports venue.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 13, 2015#5562015-01-13T18:30+00:00

^ Rauner is going to show his support of SW Illinois by stepping to the plate -- with his own money to boot! More seriously, I'm sure one can overstate the damage a dead zone across the riverfront does to our own city but it is a serious issue. Some improvements are needed and could be a win-win for both sides of the river. And placing the stadium on our riverfront as Car Park Village - The Sequel as presented is urban malpractice for an area so close to the CBD and full of alternative potential,

imperialmog · PostJan 13, 2015#5572015-01-13T18:49+00:00

^ Is the issue of the Metro East and its problems a significant reason for overall regional development and its center of gravity? I really wonder how practical a Metro East location would be, since to many people it would be a non-starter and would reject going to a game outright due to perception. I remember this was an issue when the Cardinals were looking for a stadium site.

If they needed that much parking, would it be just as well to use the old Chrysler plant site? Though isn't that location at this point off the table since I'm not sure what the status is there but I was thinking some people are going to start moving in soon. But a place like that would likely also have brownfield redevelopment money involved as a portion of funding.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 13, 2015#5582015-01-13T19:21+00:00

^ I think the Fenton site may be in flux... a vague plan was announced but meanwhile officially it is in the running for NGIA; perhaps the site is large enough to accommodate both. But I also suppose if the Saint Louis Riverfront site fell through they'd love to host the Rams.

Good question of how many people would be turned off by a east riverfront stadium -- I suspect in the end not many fans would not go because of it. The area is isolated and wouldn't really have security concerns. Those who have such concerns already think downtown is a hell hole so I doubt it would be much worse for across the river.

dweebe · PostJan 13, 2015#5592015-01-13T19:57+00:00

East Riverfront: I personally think that area bounded by the river on the west, I70/Rt3 on the north/east, MLK bridge overpass on the south would be an interesting idea. Once again though, you'll get nothing out of Illinois.

Fenton: No, no, no, no! Landlocked by the river with one way in and out.

jstriebel · PostJan 13, 2015#5602015-01-13T21:45+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ I think its a formality at this point, they emailed me saying 2015 season ticket prices will be the same as 2014 and more details to come next week.

Until it's exercised, I'll be worried. The actions of the Rams are different from the actions of Kroenke. I don't think Demoff knows everything Stan is doing. He has to proceed with the St. Louis Rams until they aren't. If Kroenke hasn't exercised the 2015 year of the lease yet, I can't be certain he will.

To be clear, he PROBABLY will. The Rams will probably be here in 2015. But don't rule it out yet.

blzhrpmd2 · PostJan 13, 2015#5612015-01-13T22:09+00:00

Peacock said in the press conference that they looked somewhat at other sites around the metro but wanted to try and contribute to the city center.....Didn't want the stadium and therefore the media identity of STL to be "in the middle of nowhere."

To me this is the most urban thing I've heard someone in a position of power say ever.

It is hard for me to be too disappointed about their efforts to keep the Rams, entice MLS, keep the stadium in the city, in downtown, literally on the river, with mass transit access, improve northern connections from Arch Grounds, incorporate some of the old warehouses and buildings, and provide some tailgating experience that some fans want. I do agree the surface lot could be controlled, but the point is to entice Stan with more revenue which goes back to the main goal of the project. If the initial plans were in Riverport or Fenton, there would be just as many pages of people screaming about the lack of potential for development and how the powers that be turn their back on the city. I like how when the guy with the other blog derails the project he brushes off the power plant retention as an "AB restaurant or something." So now, it's not only about saving a building or buildings...that's not good enough. One must use it in exactly how we all want. Sheesh.

I realize my football fan arm is probably winning the arm wrestling match against my (nascent) urban enthusiast arm, and maybe my imagination is not as developed as others who are more upset about the loss of potential for some of these buildings that may take 20-30 years if ever to realize. I see it as a decent starting point that is likely open to negotiation of the ultimate final proposal.

I liked Shady Jack's take on the pace of riverfront development and not begrudging them for trying to make something happen....."If Lewis and Clark landed on this spot north of downtown now they'd probably recognize it."

roger wyoming II · PostJan 13, 2015#5622015-01-13T23:01+00:00

^ I think it is fair to say that if two people shared the same belief that the public side of funding is okay, the degree to which they support the proposed location in large part will depend upon how optimistic they are on the area's future without it.

I'm firmly in the camp that sees that millions of dollars have been invested in the area in recent years and millions of dollars more will continue to be spent.... and if the economic development authorities believe that this is a high-importance area and become actively involved with additional (but still modest) subsidies beyond normal HTC & LIHTC & the like then things could be transformed rather quickly.

In contrast, while I think the stadium site plan has some good things (love the power plant and riverfront trail treatment), I am very skeptical that it will lead to any significant additional development in the foreseeable future. That's why I'd be very open to having it out of downtown.

urban_dilettante · PostJan 13, 2015#5632015-01-13T23:46+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:...I am very skeptical that it will lead to any significant additional development in the foreseeable future. That's why I'd be very open to having it out of downtown.

yep. we've already tried this multiple times; stadiums do not stimulate significant development or commerce. T-Rex is doing more for downtown development than all of our stadiums together have accomplished. this city's collective memory is sh*t. and for everyone claiming that the branding and the skyline shots are so important and beneficial: where are the results of the last 50-something years of skyline+stadium "money" shots? all that branding doesn't seem to have accomplished much.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:I realize my football fan arm is probably winning the arm wrestling match against my (nascent) urban enthusiast arm...

no offense to football fans, but i think this is probably the case with most people who support this proposal.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 14, 2015#5642015-01-14T13:44+00:00

I'm no expert on the public vote requirements, but to me it seems likely a vote would be required as the intent to refinance the bonds is to obtain new money to build a new stadium.... this article cites several law professors, etc. who say it appears that a vote would be needed although final details of the arrangement would need to be seen:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... bf6e9.html

I think that would be the proper move and would have a chance of passing.... it wouldn't be easy but I assume that this would only happen after Kroenke or another owner is on board and the proponents can argue that unlike last time, the team and NFL are contributing x percent to the project. If they tried to proceed with a vote it would just be litigated anyway and slowing down the process with an uncertain outcome.

PostJan 14, 2015#5652015-01-14T14:42+00:00

^ more thoughts on the funding issue and how it relates to public vote/support for a new stadium.... if I understand things right, the local share of the bonds right now are coming from hotel taxes passed by both city and county. Is this tax set to expire once the bonds are paid off? I think there should be an on-going hotel and car rental tax -- why not charge visitors a reasonable amount for visiting our fair city? --so to me the question is should the funding after 2021 go to a new stadium or to other possible public projects/programs.

Also, what about the state portion of covering the bond payments? Will the legislature have to support a bond refinancing? Would the refinancing possibly get them to pay their share off early? I'm just wondering how much the state legislature could be expected to be a partner in either backing a new stadium or an alternative project beyond its limited $12 million commitment set to end in 2021 with the EJD bonds set to be paid off.

quincunx · PostJan 14, 2015#5662015-01-14T14:56+00:00

Speaker Diehl didn't think there was much chance the Legislature would vote for any support for a new stadium.

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 14, 2015#5672015-01-14T15:10+00:00

^ he is working with Peacock on the shell game aka bond extension....

MarkHaversham · PostJan 14, 2015#5682015-01-14T15:49+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:^ I think it is fair to say that if two people shared the same belief that the public side of funding is okay, the degree to which they support the proposed location in large part will depend upon how optimistic they are on the area's future without it.

I'm firmly in the camp that sees that millions of dollars have been invested in the area in recent years and millions of dollars more will continue to be spent.... and if the economic development authorities believe that this is a high-importance area and become actively involved with additional (but still modest) subsidies beyond normal HTC & LIHTC & the like then things could be transformed rather quickly.

In contrast, while I think the stadium site plan has some good things (love the power plant and riverfront trail treatment), I am very skeptical that it will lead to any significant additional development in the foreseeable future. That's why I'd be very open to having it out of downtown.

The other side of the coin is that, even if spending $400mil on advertisements or whatever would do more for the city than the stadium deal, that doesn't mean it's a politically or practically viable alternative. People support sports to a degree they don't support, say, venture capital.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 14, 2015#5692015-01-14T16:00+00:00

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ he is working with Peacock on the shell game aka bond extension....

I think the key might be if a re-work would get the state portion lower on an annual basis.... so the legislature could say instead of $12 million for the annual Saint Louis stadium payments its say only $10 million (even though of course its basically doing this forever instead of ending in 5 years or so). Same thing for locals.... if the annual payment would go down to say $5 million each instead of $6 million that would be a boost in building support.

Back to the local hotel taxes, I assume they've been enough to cover the bond obligations, but how much do they raise? Where does any excess go? I wish there were a solid, easily-accessible faq addressing the various issues involved.

dweebe · PostJan 14, 2015#5702015-01-14T16:25+00:00

roger wyoming II wrote:Back to the local hotel taxes, I assume they've been enough to cover the bond obligations, but how much do they raise? Where does any excess go? I wish there were a solid, easily-accessible faq addressing the various issues involved.

What about rental car taxes? IIRC we don't have any because Clayton based Enterprise has always killed any talk of that.

roger wyoming II · PostJan 14, 2015#5712015-01-14T16:49+00:00

^ I've heard that as well that is the reason for rental car taxes not being part of the mix.

Here is a good espn article from last year on how the CVB needs some significant money for Dome upkeep regardless of Rams:

The publicly-funded Edward Jones Dome anticipates needing an extra $40 million to cover maintenance over the next 15 years, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported Wednesday. The St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority, which owns the downtown dome, expects to exhaust its $16 million in savings in six years...

Brian McMurtry, the authority's executive director, is asking the three governments to not only continue providing at least $4 million for annual upkeep payments but to also consider sending the dome an additional $40 million in cash, or selling $40 million in new bonds. He's also suggested putting several stadium-related items on the city's bond issue list for a public vote as early as this November.

"I'm going to tell you, they don't know how they're going to do it," he said. "But they want to know what it's going to take."

Dome maintenance is almost entirely dependent on public dollars -- unlike Busch Stadium, a private ballpark funded largely by the St. Louis Cardinals, and the Scottrade Center, which is maintained by the owners of the St. Louis Blues and was built with $135 million from local companies.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11067 ... ic-funding

When the Rams leave that should eventually lead to more revenue for the CVB to hopefully shore things up a bit but damn these things are an expensive venture. Kind of like the highway system, the more you grow the more you owe.

dredger · PostJan 14, 2015#5722015-01-14T17:20+00:00

^ Roger, wouldn't the comments about Busch Stadium and Scottrade/Peabody be simplistic? I understand that the entertainment tax on each ticket sale goes directly back into the venue. Not sure the split between bond payments, maintenance, etc. but assume both facilities come way ahead with event revenues that are paid by ticket holders and going back to the facilities themselves. Understand that Rams tickets are more expensive on average than Cardinal tickets but sales must be at 4 or maybe 5 to 1 over a given sport season.

I really do think this will be a big financial shell game at end of day as Peacock started with the one simple basis. Their will be no support from State of Missouri at end of day. I almost wonder if it was Peacock who came to the rescue of Gov. Nixon who was probably clueless from the get go. I also see why Peacock brought soccer into the proposal from the get go with its x number of games and x number of tickets sold. Their is a lot to say about ticket sales and tax revenues back to the facility itself as well as being able to have a way to share corporate sponsorship

dbInSouthCity · PostJan 14, 2015#5732015-01-14T17:28+00:00

yes, the cardinals owners are running a pretty good scheme on the "privately funded" Busch stadium part....

blzhrpmd2 · PostJan 14, 2015#5742015-01-14T19:43+00:00

I think t rex is doing great things for downtown. Does this or any other stadium stand in the way of other groups investing in the myriad of vacant office space in downtown? Is the argument that none of our sports venues provide any economic benefit to downtown?

For those that don't like the project, what's your ideal city site?

dweebe · PostJan 14, 2015#5752015-01-14T20:02+00:00

blzhrpmd2 wrote:For those that don't like the project, what's your ideal city site?

My list of preference for all locations thrown about
1) Kosciusko
2) current proposal
3) shoehorn a stadium into the Jefferson/40/Market/20th Street area
4) SE corner of 70/170
.
.
.
dead last) Fenton

City vs Rams Lawsuit

Choose Display Mode