Yes, those cities are renovating the stadiums, but at much less of the cost of a new stadium, and I believe some are receiving significant private dollars.
- 109
Obama's plan could kill the Chargers and Raiders hopes of building new stadiums, sports teams would not be able to use municipal bonds to fund stadiums under the plan. I don't know about the STL stadium proposal because the bonds would be extended, right? ...maybe somebody could answer that question.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... ama-bonds/
If passed this would an interest turn of events.
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2015/feb ... ama-bonds/
If passed this would an interest turn of events.
http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/01 ... wl/385004/
According to this the rams players do not not pay an 1% income tax do to the NFL being a nonprofit
The NFL is a blight on the tax payers
According to this the rams players do not not pay an 1% income tax do to the NFL being a nonprofit
The NFL is a blight on the tax payers
- 8,155
^ I don't think that is quite correct.... there is this passage:
(Because the NFL is a non-profit, state and local authorities can't collect taxes on game tickets.)
But I believe that is in reference to Super Bowl tickets not being taxed b/c the non-profit league hosts it rather than a for-profit individual team. But with respect to the city's earnings tax, again I don't think it is 1% on the entire football salary income of players and is probably much less as they are employed in unincorporated Saint Louis County and only spend a limited number of days on the field in Saint Louis City.
(Because the NFL is a non-profit, state and local authorities can't collect taxes on game tickets.)
But I believe that is in reference to Super Bowl tickets not being taxed b/c the non-profit league hosts it rather than a for-profit individual team. But with respect to the city's earnings tax, again I don't think it is 1% on the entire football salary income of players and is probably much less as they are employed in unincorporated Saint Louis County and only spend a limited number of days on the field in Saint Louis City.
- 3,767
^ There has to be more to this meeting, whether it be good or bad for STL/Peacock. Dave had to take this RARE chance to say what he wants to say to Stan. I'm sure he had to know Stan was going to be there. Dave was probably ready to talk, with a calculated agenda. I wonder if a future meeting was set up or if Stan just blew him off. I assume, Stan talked to him, but both men know, their fates are now in the hands of the NFL. Also, if the Rams are gone and Dave knows it, the relevance of the conversation is much less than we know. I still have SO many questions! If I had 20 minutes with Stan, I would not be wasting my time talking the NBA and Mizzou. That is what stltoday reported them talking about, while also spending a few min. on the STL stadium effort. While this story is very interesting, the fact that they talked, gives me no new optimism, that the Rams will be staying in STL.
At the same time..... "dirt is turning".
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d0512.html
At the same time..... "dirt is turning".
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... d0512.html
- 9,566
^ dirt has been turning on that site for a year now...people fail to realize that Stockbridge has a approved plan for everything but the stadium long time ago and started working on it long time go...of course it only made national news when the stadium was thrown in.
- 1,868
Blegh, the whole stadium looks like a giant hashtag.beer city wrote:New AC Milan stadium - Can you imagine something on the river?
http://www.dezeen.com/2015/02/04/arup-n ... l-stadium/
- 3,767
^^Do you buy the whole "build it and they will come" line that Mayor Butts is using? I am not sure I build this stadium unless I have a team. Obviously, there is a good chance they get the Rams, but there's no way the stadium gets built without a team IMO. As you mentioned, dirt has been moving for some time. The project has multiple phases, along with infrastructure work that needs to be done. I wonder if they have a plan B and if so, what it is. I also wonder if they build it and the Rams move there, if the NFL would allow another venue to be built in Downtown LA and attract say the Chargers. I wouldn't want to be in Inglewood in that scenario. The Downtown team would outdraw the Rams. I would want to be sure the NFL would not do that, if I am Stan. He'd play 2nd fiddle to the Downtown team. That is a huge risk, assuming AEG gets their stuff together and gets Farmers Field done.
http://fox2now.com/2015/02/09/st-louis- ... m-updates/
Butts is saying it's happening and talks about UCLA, USC, MLS, as other users if the NFL doesn't commit right away. Hunn also says he still feels it is far too early to determine what the Rams really want to do.
Butts is saying it's happening and talks about UCLA, USC, MLS, as other users if the NFL doesn't commit right away. Hunn also says he still feels it is far too early to determine what the Rams really want to do.
On side note, it will be interesting to see if AEG/Farmer Field also breaks ground without a team. I stayed downtown LA a few weeks ago at JW Marriot and got to a see a mock up of their proposed stadium. Taking the comments with a grain of salt, it sounds like USC and UCLA see an opportunity to play in a new place and a new stadium also sets up MLS. At this point, between Oakland, San Diego and St. Louis some one is going to lose a team.
.
I think that Peacock put St. Louis ahead of the other two cities as well position St. Louis for a future MLS franchise. I also believe a deal has already been made on existing bond revenues to avoid a vote from either the state house and or local referendum. The questions of course, is it enough? do they really need the sea of parking? and will an MLS ownership team with some money step up to the plate with a stadium deal done?
.
I think that Peacock put St. Louis ahead of the other two cities as well position St. Louis for a future MLS franchise. I also believe a deal has already been made on existing bond revenues to avoid a vote from either the state house and or local referendum. The questions of course, is it enough? do they really need the sea of parking? and will an MLS ownership team with some money step up to the plate with a stadium deal done?
Certainly seems to be a "Whoa, not so fast there Stan" from the NFL.
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
NFL forms L.A. committee, reminds teams they need OK to move, memo says
Interesting cast of characters in the owners selected:
http://www.latimes.com/sports/sportsnow ... story.html
NFL forms L.A. committee, reminds teams they need OK to move, memo says
Interesting cast of characters in the owners selected:
In the memo, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell announced the forming of the “Committee on Los Angeles Opportunities,” consisting of owners Clark Hunt of Kansas City, Robert Kraft of New England, John Mara of the New York Giants, Bob McNair of Houston, Jerry Richardson of Carolina and Art Rooney of Pittsburgh.
http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/M ... elopm.aspx
Source: Roger Goodell “Extremely Pleased” With Latest St. Louis Developments
If you thought the NFL had written off St. Louis, you may want to think again.
A source tells insideSTL.com that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon called Roger Goodell Friday to inform him that local officials have worked out deals with both Ameren and Terminal Railroad Association, two companies that own land where the proposed stadium would be built.
The source says Goodell was “extremely pleased and happy” with the news.
Why?
Publicly, this obstacle has not received nearly as much attention as the financing of the project, but had either Ameren or Terminal refused to work with officials, the proposed stadium could have been buried before it even had a chance to be built.
And, privately, some local officials and Commissioner Goodell himself were concerned that either Ameren or Terminal would not agree to a deal. But, late last week, they both did. Nixon called Goodell to let him know, and perhaps to those who are understandably concerned that St. Louis is witnessing its final NFL season, the NFL Commissioner was happy to hear that the stadium project can move forward.
Source: Roger Goodell “Extremely Pleased” With Latest St. Louis Developments
If you thought the NFL had written off St. Louis, you may want to think again.
A source tells insideSTL.com that Missouri Governor Jay Nixon called Roger Goodell Friday to inform him that local officials have worked out deals with both Ameren and Terminal Railroad Association, two companies that own land where the proposed stadium would be built.
The source says Goodell was “extremely pleased and happy” with the news.
Why?
Publicly, this obstacle has not received nearly as much attention as the financing of the project, but had either Ameren or Terminal refused to work with officials, the proposed stadium could have been buried before it even had a chance to be built.
And, privately, some local officials and Commissioner Goodell himself were concerned that either Ameren or Terminal would not agree to a deal. But, late last week, they both did. Nixon called Goodell to let him know, and perhaps to those who are understandably concerned that St. Louis is witnessing its final NFL season, the NFL Commissioner was happy to hear that the stadium project can move forward.
- 3,767
^That is big news. One of many hurdles has been jumped. However, the largest hurdle may be fighting off politicians and opponents, that may go as far as lawsuits, to make sure the bond extension goes to a vote. Nixon has maintained that this will not need to be voted on. Guess we'll see. The fact that Goodell is posturing in a positive way towards the St. Louis plan, bodes well for the Task Force and their efforts.
I was thinking... If the Rams move, the most appropriate team to move to that site, may be the Chargers, considering the power plant on the site. 
- 641
Well, Nixon just acknowleged that "several" more buildings will be incorporated into the plans and they are working with the Historical Society to identify which ones should be rehabbed as part of this total development.
- 8,912
HEAR, HEAR!sirshankalot wrote:Well, Nixon just acknowleged that "several" more buildings will be incorporated into the plans and they are working with the Historical Society to identify which ones should be rehabbed as part of this total development.
- 8,155
^ that's cool. And regardless of whether the stadium moves forward, I really hope we can get a creative re-use of the power plant. A similar renovated plant in Cleveland's Flats was a popular bar/restaurant complex before being turned into an aquarium.
- 9,566
Randy Karraker @RandyKarraker 2m2 minutes ago
Why weren't Peacock & Blitz at @GovJayNixon press conference? Because they're meeting with the NFL right now.
Why weren't Peacock & Blitz at @GovJayNixon press conference? Because they're meeting with the NFL right now.
- 641
There's clearly a back-room deal that AN NFL team will be playing in this new stadium. I've also heard that Peacock has guarantees from all 17 Fortune 1000 companies plus additional private co's on luxury box purchases....The man is ridiculously impressive.
If there was any question as to why Peacock was chosen for this job, then I hope there isn't now.
Also, is it just me, or is that the most fired up Nixon has ever been at a press conference?
Also, is it just me, or is that the most fired up Nixon has ever been at a press conference?
Gut feeling is that Peacock is working the MSL angle hard but doesn't make sense to advertise that fact until St Louis in a position to keep an NFL team and ground broken on an open air stadium. like the sound of Chargers next to a power station but have a tough time seeing a swap happen. However, could Stan K be in a position in the near future to claim that he delivered NFL two new stadiums. A new stadium for either Charger or Raiders (or maybe both in LA giving Stan a sweet lease deal) and St. Louis Rams (paid for in big part by public and NFL)? At the same time, he could probably land a MSL team into both stadiums. I just think a MSL angle is being played below the surface and we might see some surprises at the end of all this mess.
In the long term, keeping more structures rather than the sea parking makes so much more sense from a development perspective or at least from my limited view and understanding.
Another thought, do you think a deal with Terminal railroad will allow for passenger facilities to be added? It makes sense for game day if Amtrak/Missouri/Illinois could add some game day extras or at least a whistle stop!!. However, I's sure their is a share of legal issues to be addressed more so then infrastructure issues.
In the long term, keeping more structures rather than the sea parking makes so much more sense from a development perspective or at least from my limited view and understanding.
Another thought, do you think a deal with Terminal railroad will allow for passenger facilities to be added? It makes sense for game day if Amtrak/Missouri/Illinois could add some game day extras or at least a whistle stop!!. However, I's sure their is a share of legal issues to be addressed more so then infrastructure issues.