New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RAMSinLA]

Maybe someone can repost to that StL paper msg board since this 39-year Ram Fan got banned for being pro-LA.

They banned you? This could get ugly...

 

[Loyal]

They banned me too......I really didn't do anything to deserve it and Mike Smith won't answer my emails

 

[iced]

Gray: St. Louis Stadium Authority Suit the Right Move for Task Force Efforts
Shane Gray posted on April 17, 2015 11:31

Recently, the St. Louis Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority filed a suit against the city of St. Louis that seeks to legally clarify if tax monies that were previously approved by the public to build the dome and convention center can be implemented towards a new riverfront stadium without another public vote.​

In the first count from the RSA vs. the City of St. Louis, it is asserted that "the State's plan for Professional Football in the RSA Statutes was in place long before the 2002 City Ordinance and is intended to be preemptive by the State as the Financing Plan and to prohibit a more restrictive local law such as the City Ordinance."

In the second of three counts, the RSA argues that "as it relates to the Financing Plan, the City Ordinance conflicts with a State Statute and violates the Missouri Constitution and is therefore void because it attempts to retroactively impose a vote requirement not contained in state statutes."

In the third and final count, the RSA asserts that "the City Ordinance is unconstitutional (a) because it is vague and ambiguous, (b) because it attempts to regulate legal entities separate from the City, and (c) because it seeks to impose voter requirements in certain types of financings in contravention of statutes which provide to the contrary."

According to RSA Chairman Jim Shrewsbury, another public vote should not be required.

“Our counsel has advised that because the proposed stadium involves a significant private financial commitment and no additional tax increase, another vote by the public is not needed. However, given the threat of protracted litigation, the RSA is asking the court to provide legal certainty on this matter now so that we can continue to move forward within the timeframe established by the NFL.”

In the end, this legal action will provide needed lucidity for Governor Jay Nixon's Stadium Task Force and expedite the process towards cementing a workable proposal for a new downtown stadium development -- regardless of the ruling that eventually transpires.

If the suit prevails and a public vote is deemed unnecessary, this will allow the RSA to ink in the use of current bonds over a long-term basis and cement the city's role in assisting to finance a new NFL venue. In other words, it will help to fast-track the process.

If the suit fails and renders current bonds unavailable without a public vote, the Task Force will know it must move quickly in efforts to lock down alternative funding that would essentially equate to what an extension of the current bonds would have provided.

Governor Nixon weighed in on the aforementioned RSA suit, stating a strong assertion that another public vote in St. Louis city is unnecessary due to the fact that no new taxes would be instituted for funding efforts.

​

"Last year, I asked Dave Peacock and Bob Blitz to develop a proposal that would leverage private dollars to protect taxpayers, revitalize a distressed area, create jobs and allow St. Louis to remain an NFL city. I especially appreciate Bob and Dave’s work to identify a path forward that would impose no new burdens on taxpayers. Because this plan would impose no new taxes and instead use funding that has already been approved by the voters, another public vote is not required.”

In the event that the RSA wins the aforementioned suit, the city would continue current stadium expenditures of $6 million per year beyond 2021, sell or donate land that lies in the area of the proposed new venue and would utilize tax increment financing (TIF). In addition, the city would also use a portion of the taxes and parking fees that would be generated by a new stadium. In total, St. Louis city would cover less than 15 percent of the costs of the entirety of the Task Force's plan.

In the 2015 fiscal year, St. Louis' payments made towards the dome/convention center will ultimately constitute just over one-half of one percent of the city's total budget expenditures.

Dave Peacock -- co-chair of the Stadium Task Force -- asserts that the NFL's shortened timeline for the cities of St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland to finalize stadium deals made the suit against St. Louis a wise one. There has been talk in league circles that a potential vote on relocation of the Rams and/or Chargers and/or Raiders could be moved up from early 2016 to the fall of this year.

"A public vote is not required," Peacock said via statement upon the release of the suit against St. Louis. "However, to finalize our proposal in the accelerated timeframe required by the NFL, it’s important to obtain legal clarity quickly.”

Speaking of quickly, the St. Louis Task Force has been asked to present an update to the NFL's six owner Committee on L.A. Stadium Opportunities at the league's New York Headquarters next week.

More specifically, the Task Force is expected to update Art Rooney of the Steelers, Clark Hunt of the Chiefs, Jerry Richardson of the Panthers, Robert Craft of the Patriots, John Mara of the Giants and Bob McNair of the Texans on stadium design, project schedule and the overall progress of efforts being made towards a new facility.

At this point, St. Louis is considered to be significantly further along than either San Diego or Oakland in relation to each of the three cities respective quests to keep their NFL teams in town. St. Louis could make another quick leap forward if the above-mentioned suit proves successful and if things go well at NFL Headquarters next week.

According to this from David Hunn of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, representatives from the Rams, Raiders and Chargers will also present updates to the stadium committee and league executives next week.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...it-the-Right-Move-for-Task-Force-Efforts.aspx

 

[RamFan503]

Moving out of state and moving to a market that has 1/4 of your ticket sales are completely different entities

Saying you have x% of your sales from an area and opening your books to demonstrate it is completely different.

 

[RamFan503]

20 years ago. They were in LA a long time 20 years ago. I don't see why people keep bringing up 50 years as if that's relevant. The Rams want to move to LA because it's the number 2 market, not because anyone gives a crap that they were there for a long time a long time ago.

Sorry but you don't really see the fact that even after the 20 years there is still a large fan base there that wouldn't be there for another team? It's a combination of large market and known fan base.

The fifty year span that the Rams were in LA is VERY relevant to a great many fans.

Do you really think that if we were talking about the Cards coming back to the Lou rather than the raiders that there wouldnt be a whole bunch of st Louis fans excited by the idea and in turn make it more relevant for the NFL to make that move?

 

[RamFan503]

I agree, that was exactly my point. No one cares how long a team has been in a city except us fans. Whether it's 20 years in St Louis or 50 in Los Angeles. I was devastated when the Rams left LA, no one cared about that either.

Disagree. The NFL wants instant audience. If they could have blocked the initial move they would have. But having a fan base already in place will be something they consider. I almost guarantee it.

I'm not saying it outweighs the last 20 years but it definitely counts.

 

[den-the-coach]

Disagree. The NFL wants instant audience. If they could have blocked the initial move they would have. But having a fan base already in place will be something they consider. I almost guarantee it.

I'm not saying it outweighs the last 20 years but it definitely counts.

Very True and the LA Times poll will also be taken into consideration. IMO nothing is off the table the NFL could come back and say just about anything and that is why I truly wonder? Again their PR machine will spin it just like corporate america does when they consolidate or relocate jobs. It has nothing to do with the day to day operations.

In the end what will matter is what venue the NFL likes better and as always JMHO.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Woah.
Interview starts at 21 minute mark.
Mark Fabiani just told Fred Roggin that the Rams and Chargers playing in Inglewood is "certainly an option."
After the interview Fred tells you what he took away from the interview.

http://download.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d1/d8/d5/d1/dD/1851D_3.MP3?show=The Fred Roggin Show&category=Sports & Recreation&callsign=KFWBAM&market=las-vegas&listeningSessionID=55099cb24b69f3e9_2626231_Zrt8tSJ9_00000000Cki

It's hard to read this guy but I've never heard him say that before. He also says when will see new renderings.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The way I see it is, the Chargers want LA but they want to go into LA at the same time with another team, they don't want to be tenants. Stan wants LA a handful of years and then he will welcome a team afterwards. My guess is the NFL will tell Stan if he wants to move and own a stadium in LA he has to cut a legit deal with Spanos or else.

I didn't forget about the Raiders but why should they get a sweetheart deal in LA and pitch in 200-300 mill? When Stan Spanos and Goldman Sachs are putting the real effort and money. I understand that the chargers should get first dibs on LA but why the raiders.

 

[iced]

Saying you have x% of your sales from an area and opening your books to demonstrate it is completely different.

And why would you make that claim to 31 other business owners if it wasn't true, knowing they could easily look it up themselves?

This isn't kindergarden - these are billionaires, and they didn't get here by making outlandish claims that they can't back up

 

[iced]

I didn't forget about the Raiders but why should they get a sweetheart deal in LA and pitch in 200-300 mill? When Stan Spanos and Goldman Sachs are putting the real effort and money. I understand that the chargers should get first dibs on LA but why the raiders.

How are we so sure that the investors are only in it for Chargers only?

I find it hard to believe Chargers only and not 2 teams like Raiders/Chargers would be a better investment from an invester point of view- they stand to get a bigger return on their money with 2 teams

 

[blue4]

Sorry but you don't really see the fact that even after the 20 years there is still a large fan base there that wouldn't be there for another team? It's a combination of large market and known fan base.

The fifty year span that the Rams were in LA is VERY relevant to a great many fans.

Do you really think that if we were talking about the Cards coming back to the Lou rather than the raiders that there wouldnt be a whole bunch of st Louis fans excited by the idea and in turn make it more relevant for the NFL to make that move?

I'm talking about the trend of people using that as some sort of justification for moving the Rams. Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right, just another wrong. I realize that there are Rams fans in LA that are excited. How could I not? But I don't think a few fans in L.A. justify moving, nor do I like this notion that seems to be going around that 50 years in a former town trumps 20 in a current town. That is my point in every response I've made to posts that bring up 50 years. Really doesn't have a thing to do with acknowledging that there are Rams fans in LA.

As for the Cardinals, sure I'd be excited. But I wouldn't claim that that our years trump their years. I wouldn't be looking to minimize their history as the Cardinals had their highest point there. The same way I don't like our St Louis Rams history minimized as I'd say our SB victory, 2 SB appearances, and GSOT more than equal the SB appearance and fearsome foursome for grand moments in Rams history.

I do realize there is a large group of fans in LA. What I'm not sure people realize is how comments like "50 years trumps 20, I'd say that means home" sounds to STL residents who know that they are losing a team because the 2nd richest owner wants the 2nd largest market. Not because of a grand history, or Rams fans in LA from 20 years ago, or even because LA ponied up any money to build. I doubt I'm the only member of this board who feels this way.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I'm talking about the trend of people using that as some sort of justification for moving the Rams. Sorry, two wrongs don't make a right, just another wrong. I realize that there are Rams fans in LA that are excited. How could I not? But I don't think a few fans in L.A. justify moving, nor do I like this notion that seems to be going around that 50 years in a former town trumps 20 in a current town. That is my point in every response I've made to posts that bring up 50 years. Really doesn't have a thing to do with acknowledging that there are Rams fans in LA.

As for the Cardinals, sure I'd be excited. But I wouldn't claim that that our years trump their years. I wouldn't be looking to minimize their history as the Cardinals had their highest point there. The same way I don't like our St Louis Rams history minimized as I'd say our SB victory, 2 SB appearances, and GSOT more than equal the SB appearance and fearsome foursome for grand moments in Rams history.

I do realize there is a large group of fans in LA. What I'm not sure people realize is how comments like "50 years trumps 20, I'd say that means home" sounds to STL residents who know that they are losing a team because the 2nd richest owner wants the 2nd largest market. Not because of a grand history, or Rams fans in LA from 20 years ago, or even because LA ponied up any money to build. I doubt I'm the only member of this board who feels this way.

I agree. 20 or 50 years doesn't mean anything Bc a LA Rams fan 70 years ago is probably too old right now to even care, you get the idea.

My thing is when someone says STL is where the Rams belong. I say the Rams belong in LA too. The way I look at is Georgia and Stan are the same. They both did it Bc of money.

At the end of the day STL and LA both are home to the Rams.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

How are we so sure that the investors are only in it for Chargers only?

I find it hard to believe Chargers only and not 2 teams like Raiders/Chargers would be a better investment from an invester point of view- they stand to get a bigger return on their money with 2 teams

Sorry dude I can't answer that Bc I don't understand what you meant.

 

[iced]

Sorry dude I can't answer that Bc I don't understand what you meant.

lol i just came back from a party and have quite a few while operating on 3 hours of sleep; i think i misread something along the lines lol, cause i certainly can't recall it at the moment :cheers:

 

[BuiltRamTough]

lol i just came back from a party and have quite a few while operating on 3 hours of sleep; i think i misread something along the lines lol, cause i certainly can't recall it at the moment :cheers:

Lol it's coo, I'm actually high right now watching hockey. Anyways my point is that why should Mark Davis get a free pass to LA when Spanos has been trying to get a stadium for 14 years and Stan really hasn't tried loll but at least he's putting in big money and has already bought the land and let's be honest he's been working on LA for a couple or more years now. I don't get that. Idk how Mark can make a case against Stan,

 

[blue4]

I agree. 20 or 50 years doesn't mean anything Bc a LA Rams fan 70 years ago is probably too old right now to even care, you get the idea.

My thing is when someone says STL is where the Rams belong. I say the Rams belong in LA too. The way I look at is Georgia and Stan are the same. They both did it Bc of money.

At the end of the day STL and LA both are home to the Rams.

I can't say I agree with the last sentence. I feel that STL is the home of the Rams. Just as I feel STL has no more claim to the Cardinals. I'm glad we acknowledge the Cardinals history with honoring the players from that era, but this is no longer their home, despite there being holdover fans. And if the Rams do leave, I can't say that I would blame a LA resident for feeling that same way.
I do agree about Stan and Georgia.

 

[blue4]

Lol it's coo, I'm actually high right now watching hockey. Anyways my point is that why should Mark Davis get a free pass to LA when Spanos has been trying to get a stadium for 14 years and Stan really hasn't tried loll but at least he's putting in big money and has already bought the land and let's be honest he's been working on LA for a couple or more years now. I don't get that. Idk how Mark can make a case against Stan,

Davis is going to take what he is given. He doesn't have the money or the savvy to compete in this type of arena. That's why he'd be a damned fool to pass up being gifted a market like STL if that's the way the NFL wants it to go. If the Rams and Chargers move to LA along with the 49ers in SF, he won't be able to give tickets away. Especially in that shit hole they play in.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Woah.
Interview starts at 21 minute mark.
Mark Fabiani just told Fred Roggin that the Rams and Chargers playing in Inglewood is "certainly an option."
After the interview Fred tells you what he took away from the interview.

http://download.podcast.play.it/media/d0/d0/d1/d8/d5/d1/dD/1851D_3.MP3?show=The Fred Roggin Show&category=Sports & Recreation&callsign=KFWBAM&market=las-vegas&listeningSessionID=55099cb24b69f3e9_2626231_Zrt8tSJ9_00000000Cki

It's hard to read this guy but I've never heard him say that before. He also says when will see new renderings.

Chargers open to working with the Rams is interesting, previously it seemed as if Spanos was anyone but Kroenke.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Davis is going to take what he is given. He doesn't have the money or the savvy to compete in this type of arena. That's why he'd be a damned fool to pass up being gifted a market like STL if that's the way the NFL wants it to go. If the Rams and Chargers move to LA along with the 49ers in SF, he won't be able to give tickets away. Especially in that crap hole they play in.

Mark is a weird ass dude. He's okay building a 55,00 seat stadium and sharing the market with the 49ers but he wouldn't want a riverfront stadium that seats 64,000 in a market where the Cardinals are worth the most in MLB and he's the only football stadium in town.

Mark seems like he just wants to stay home in Oakland and not make as much money as other NFL owners. He might be cool with being 32nd in the league in worth and revenue. Tbh that's a cool person as an owner. He's chill.