New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

best rendering, imo.

 

[brokeu91]

Very cool. No matter where you stand on the issue that's pretty cool

 

[brokeu91]

I'm lost. What does this mean?

I think it means the State Senate is no longer going to stop the governor from funding the stadium

 

[Legatron4]

"Language was removed from the budget for the Office of Administration that would prevent Governor Jay Nixon from authorizing bonds to pay for a new NFL stadium in St. Louis. Senator Ryan Silvey (R-Kansas City) said that's why he and several other lawmakers from both parties who conferred on that bill, didn't sign off on it."

"Apparently the Speaker of the House is not a fan of that language and demanded that it come out," said Silvey. "It was pretty forcefully removed during the debate and as a result, they had a hard time getting the requisite signatures to pass the committee report out."

http://www.ozarksfirst.com/story/d/...use-senate-votes/59432/zeuL2Ocxu0C3EsoefKKhZA

I'm sorry dude, but I'm seriously the dumbest person when it comes to stuff like this. I still have no clue what you're talking about lol

 

[Legatron4]

I think it means the State Senate is no longer going to stop the state from funding the stadium

Thanks Broke haha

 

[Big Game]

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQkGOSnJ9rY#utm_source=stltoday&utm_campaign=/newsletters/rams-newsletter/&utm_medium=email&utm_content=featured_headline



just an FYI

 

[ChrisW]

Hey bruh, check the relocation thread. You've got about 6 pages of discussion on today's events.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Could be, but wouldn't you think someone would make a statement about a representative from the Rams being involved in the Inglewood presentation just as easily as the tweet that came out saying that Kroenke was at the Stl Stadiums's presentation?

I believe there has been those statements, which is why JT updated his article. Kroenke being at them doesn't really mean much, because it's his group. Demoff being there is bigger in my eyes, because in a few ways it puts to rest the idea of the stadium being built and then rented to other teams, or being built for someone other than the Rams. Demoff only works with the Rams, so if it wasn't for them, why would he be there. If he did indeed help with the pitch, then that's even more damming (in the sense that the Rams really do want to move).

In the picture of will they/wont they/can they, it doesn't mean a lot, but it takes one of the alternatives, that the stadium isn't for the Rams, out of it.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I'm sorry dude, but I'm seriously the dumbest person when it comes to stuff like this. I still have no clue what you're talking about lol

The way I read it is that they were making the state budget, and Silvey tried to tack in that they can't extend the bonds, knowing that it's quicker and easier to pass because people will want to get the budget passed and through, and the Governor would be less likely to Veto. The House Speaker told him to dump that shit, because he probably wants a clean bill (nothing that has any extra bullshit added to it).

My guess is that Silvey's bill is still there, but not through the house. They just wouldn't let him add it to the budget. Politicians have a habit of adding on unrelated things to bills at the last second in order to sneak things in (knowing that most of the time it wont get read in full), so they can get their way. Sounds like the speaker wanted none of that shit.

It doesn't mean that his bill is dead, but it means he didn't get it added to the budget. It could indicate that the house doesn't have enough votes to pass or enough to overturn a veto though.

Again, that's what I think they're trying to say, it's a little confusing, and I'm not sure the details on either his bill or the Missouri budget.

 

[FrankenRam]

I cant love this enough!!!

[/QUOTE]

I must have donned my dunce cap again because, as much as I like this from a conceptual perspective, why is there always a piece of me that thinks....1993.....flood....when I see these renderings of the new stadium 2 feet off the riverfront.

Somebody tell me that possibility has been accounted for.

 

[Goose]

Legislature backs off banning public funds for new stadium

By Virginia Young

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon's push for public funding for a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis survived a test vote of sorts on Thursday. But it's unlikely to be the last word.

The Missouri Senate wanted next year's state budget to include a ban on using state money to pay off bonds for a new sports stadium. Senators attached the ban to the budget for the Office of Administration, the agency that pays out $12 million each year for debt service and maintenance on the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis.

That idea didn't fly in the House, led by Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country and a development attorney. After late-night talks Wednesday between House and Senate budget negotiators, the ban was struck from the state budget headed for final passage.


But that doesn't mean future legislators are obligated to pay for a new stadium, said Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City.

"Any contract we enter into has a clause: 'subject to appropriation,'" he said.

A planning team appointed by Nixon has proposed a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.

Most of the public money would come from extending payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. The Nixon administration contends the current stadium bonds could be extended without a vote of the Legislature.

Silvey and Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, argue that either the Legislature or state voters deserve a say on the new stadium before state dollars are committed.

"In my mind, that's a completely new deal," Silvey said. "The people 20 years ago didn't agree to that deal. You have to come back to the ones who hold the pursestrings and ask us if we will pay for this deal."

Said Schaaf: "We're talking about $500 million that we the people will not be able to spend on, say, classroom teachers."

Silvey said if Nixon goes ahead, bondholders may be taking a risk. Based on a recent attorney general's opinion, the bonds would be "technically a debt of the sports authority, not a debt of the state," Silvey said.

And each year, legislators would decide whether to provide the state's share of the bond payment. With no advance pledge from legislators, payments for a new stadium could be in jeopardy, he said.

"Because of the 'subject to appropriations' clause, were not technically obligated to pay," Silvey said. "This is an issue that will not go away if they move forward" without a legislative or public vote.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/article_c3f3fc17-42ef-5e07-a536-729bb396c419.html#.VTlnaLlTk8g.twitter

 

[IowaRam]

 

[tonyl711]

I think that Stan K. being at the presentation yesterday seems like a big deal. I know we are all inferring at lot of things, but I will start with the premise, right or wrong, that Kroenke pitched or stood in front of the NFL committee yesterday and backed the Inglewood plan (this has been speculated by some but NOT confirmed). If true, it is tantamount to standing up in front of all of your friends in school and declaring your candidacy for Class President. If he didn't already know before yesterday, after yesterday Stan must have a feeling about the tea leaves and which way this will eventually be decided, right? He's actually a member of this small, select club that will make the decision, not Carson, not the task force and not Inglewood. I can't believe he would risk losing this "contest" in such a colossal, public fashion. To an immensely successful Billionaire like Kroenke, having the committee tell him in front of all the other owners, and the world, that he can't have his fancy playpen and he must go back to St. Louis with his tail between his legs would be like being pantsed in front of the school.

My point is that, in my opinion, Kroenke is probably not going to be leaving this to chance, and be willing to just be surprised like all the rest of us when the NFL makes the announcement in December. Yesterday could very likely have been the tipping point either way, and if so then Stan needs to start backing away slowly beginning now if there is a decent chance that the committee/owners will pick Carson over Inglewood. If he presses the matter further, and then crashes and burns, that would surprise me greatly. Of course, I don't know if there are any other of these types of meetings like the one held yesterday that is scheduled for the future. Maybe this was it, and we just won't hear anything further until the NFL declares something. But Stan needs to start back peddling and initiating face-saving measures now if there is a chance this is going to go south on him. If he continues this pursuit without any sort of public capitulation, it tells me that he is pretty confident that his mission will ultimately be a success.*

* I also recognize that getting a brand spankin' new, almost fully funded football stadium is a pretty sweet consolation prize, and he can always spin the outcome as if that was his ultimate goal the whole time, but after yesterday it doesn't seem like many people will buy it (although I believe all will eventually be forgiven in STL in that case). I should also say that as a SoCal native, while I would enjoy having the Rams once again play in my City, I do not believe that the Rams remotely meet the spirit of the relocation rules and bylaws, and that fairness dictates that they should not be allowed to relocate. Whether fairness actually does play a role in the decision, I am pretty skeptical.

Isiah 58

IMO if Stan keeps the Rams here in St Louis, hurt feelings would heal pretty quickly as most would think it was just a leverage thing.

 

[ChrisW]

I must have donned my dunce cap again because, as much as I like this from a conceptual perspective, why is there always a piece of me that thinks....1993.....flood....when I see these renderings of the new stadium 2 feet off the riverfront.

Somebody tell me that possibility has been accounted for.[/QUOTE]

Yea man, it's been accounted for. It's above the 500 year floor plane.

 

[beej]

I must have donned my dunce cap again because, as much as I like this from a conceptual perspective, why is there always a piece of me that thinks....1993.....flood....when I see these renderings of the new stadium 2 feet off the riverfront.

Somebody tell me that possibility has been accounted for.[/QUOTE]

Peacock mentioned it in the very first unveiling. It's several feet above the 1993 mark.

 

[Elmgrovegnome]

I must have donned my dunce cap again because, as much as I like this from a conceptual perspective, why is there always a piece of me that thinks....1993.....flood....when I see these renderings of the new stadium 2 feet off the riverfront.

Somebody tell me that possibility has been accounted for.

Peacock mentioned it in the very first unveiling. It's several feet above the 1993 mark.[/QUOTE]

That is the first thing that I thought of too. A flood in the fall could wreck a season.

 

[ChrisW]

Demoff up next on 101 espn.

 

[blue4]

Legislature backs off banning public funds for new stadium

By Virginia Young

JEFFERSON CITY • Gov. Jay Nixon's push for public funding for a new stadium to keep the Rams in St. Louis survived a test vote of sorts on Thursday. But it's unlikely to be the last word.

The Missouri Senate wanted next year's state budget to include a ban on using state money to pay off bonds for a new sports stadium. Senators attached the ban to the budget for the Office of Administration, the agency that pays out $12 million each year for debt service and maintenance on the Edward Jones Dome in St. Louis.

That idea didn't fly in the House, led by Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country and a development attorney. After late-night talks Wednesday between House and Senate budget negotiators, the ban was struck from the state budget headed for final passage.


But that doesn't mean future legislators are obligated to pay for a new stadium, said Sen. Ryan Silvey, R-Kansas City.

"Any contract we enter into has a clause: 'subject to appropriation,'" he said.

A planning team appointed by Nixon has proposed a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on the Mississippi River, just north of downtown St. Louis. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.

Most of the public money would come from extending payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. The Nixon administration contends the current stadium bonds could be extended without a vote of the Legislature.

Silvey and Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, argue that either the Legislature or state voters deserve a say on the new stadium before state dollars are committed.

"In my mind, that's a completely new deal," Silvey said. "The people 20 years ago didn't agree to that deal. You have to come back to the ones who hold the pursestrings and ask us if we will pay for this deal."

Said Schaaf: "We're talking about $500 million that we the people will not be able to spend on, say, classroom teachers."

Silvey said if Nixon goes ahead, bondholders may be taking a risk. Based on a recent attorney general's opinion, the bonds would be "technically a debt of the sports authority, not a debt of the state," Silvey said.

And each year, legislators would decide whether to provide the state's share of the bond payment. With no advance pledge from legislators, payments for a new stadium could be in jeopardy, he said.

"Because of the 'subject to appropriations' clause, were not technically obligated to pay," Silvey said. "This is an issue that will not go away if they move forward" without a legislative or public vote.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/article_c3f3fc17-42ef-5e07-a536-729bb396c419.html#.VTlnaLlTk8g.twitter

Like Sen Rob Schaaf gives a shit about classroom teachers.

 

[Hacksaw]

Silvey said if Nixon goes ahead, bondholders may be taking a risk. Based on a recent attorney general's opinion, the bonds would be "technically a debt of the sports authority, not a debt of the state," Silvey said.

And each year, legislators would decide whether to provide the state's share of the bond payment. With no advance pledge from legislators, payments for a new stadium could be in jeopardy, he said.

"Because of the 'subject to appropriations' clause, were not technically obligated to pay," Silvey said. "This is an issue that will not go away if they move forward" without a legislative or public vote.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/article_c3f3fc17-42ef-5e07-a536-729bb396c419.html#.VTlnaLlTk8g.twitter

Great day for the vibe in StL. Your man Peacock is doing a real good job!

So I guess as long as the stadium is prosperous they would still likely provide the funds. It doesn't read like a certainty and this Silvey dude just got punked so my guess is he won't go away. This is the only sticky-wicket I can see.

 

[Hacksaw]

The stadium looks awesome! I love the horn around it. Let's go!

Man I keep looking for the big horn around it and I can't for the life of me see it. Where is it?