New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[MarkMyWords]

I think you are making one major wrong speculation. If Kronke came out tomorrow and said he wanted to pay for his own land and stadium in St Louis, the resounding "Yes", by everyone local including the government, would be heard all the way here in Oregon.

 

[RmsLegends]

The St Louis area is the 21st largest market, a city is also the metro areas so the region has not lost population, Ferguson is over, conventions are still happening.

And you are way off trying to make this a liberal vs conservative thing.

The loss of population in the city is nothing new as here are some links from there to back what I said.

http://nextstl.com/2014/09/pxstl/
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002013-shrinking-city-flourishing-region-st-louis-region
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/what-to-do-about-population-decline-in-st.-louis

I never said they were losing folks in the region I said city as I was building my case how they are losing folks that fall inside their taxing authority and as I said coupled with my other examples makes revenue avenues important to them. So while folks may stay in the region it does not mean the city is able to tax or have them as a source of revenue as they fall outside their authority.

As far as them losing revenue for Ferguson that is a given and there has been future cancellations as well for the reason I stated. So I am sure there are conventions still going on and I am sure there will be future conventions as well, but the fact is they have lost revenue and so capturing any and all future revenue becomes important to them as it would any municipality. So I see how them owning the stadium is very important from a revenue stand point.

 

[blue4]

Well I reckon blue4 if ya look to be offended ya will always find a cause to do so. My comments said no such thing and the way ya read it allows ya as the individual to hear what ya want to hear or when ya are looking to be offended find your cause.

I would think plainly from me quoting and speaking directly to Thor with my comment I came across as I know him and have had many interactions with him and so from a personal basis I commented him from a same perspective we have and share and speculated how another with our mindset could have come to a same opinion. That is all I did and said as my words are there for all to see.

So ya taking umbrage with me for things I did not say is over the top. While I make no excuse or back down from what I said, to me personally to read I was looking to debate which is better libs or cons is very far from my intent.

I never said I was offended, I said you were off base. If you didn't want to debate political parties, why bring them up? When they have nothing to do with any part of this.

 

[blue4]

The loss of population in the city is nothing new as here are some links from there to back what I said.

http://nextstl.com/2014/09/pxstl/
http://www.newgeography.com/content/002013-shrinking-city-flourishing-region-st-louis-region
http://nextcity.org/daily/entry/what-to-do-about-population-decline-in-st.-louis

I never said they were losing folks in the region I said city as I was building my case how they are losing folks that fall inside their taxing authority and as I said coupled with my other examples makes revenue avenues important to them. So while folks may stay in the region it does not mean the city is able to tax or have them as a source of revenue as they fall outside their authority.

As far as them losing revenue for Ferguson that is a given and there has been future cancellations as well for the reason I stated. So I am sure there are conventions still going on and I am sure there will be future conventions as well, but the fact is they have lost revenue and so capturing any and all future revenue becomes important to them as it would any municipality. So I see how them owning the stadium is very important from a revenue stand point.

Name these future cancellations that have been canceled due to Ferguson. If you can make that claim, surely you have solid proof.
As for revenue, Stan would get a lease. What extra revenue could we squeeze out of him beyond what's in the lease?

 

[MrMotes]

Personally bro my opinion is he has every intention of moving the Rams there.

I tend to agree. His actions do seem to indicate that.

One reason is he is like we are a conservative who gives money to conservative politicians and causes and like any of us who are conservatives one thing we find a hindrance is government so we believe smaller government is the solution.

Though i don't think a lot of people move from Missouri to California to get away from big government.

I expect taxes, regulations and wages are higher in California but then again the value and earning power of his franchise will be even higher still...

 

[RmsLegends]

So you say that he's a conservative but he wants to move the Rams to the Democratic mecca that is California?



You should frame this little paragraph as speculation as well. Owners in the NFL simply do not own venues. The reason why is they are a huge burden as they are easily twice as expensive as any other sports venue. The revenue streams are the real deal when it comes to NFL franchise owners.

PS - if I may suggest. In the world of internet forums, it's impossible to read things a certain way and impossible to read the original authors tone. Red font doesn't do anything to help the situation because it's harder to read, and puts off a more aggressive mindset.

I live in Colorado so for me to see Stan wanting his own venue is second nature since he already does out here. As well as Denver is not a conservative town yet he owns teams here as well. So his acknowledged political stance does not effect where he owns a team but as I opined might effect how he makes his decision up when confronted directly with gov.................such as he was promised a certain standard of stadium and had to seek recourse to get it then when he won gov defaulted. So combined with his political mindset and his experience from that standpoint I am pointing out it could have influenced any decision he makes and no secret folks will often chose another course of action to avoid circumstances they find personally uncomfortable.

As far as red goes while some here have heard me say before from other boards I have met them on over the past 16 years I have been on various Rams websites. I do so because I am red green colorblind and so like the stories of folks who are afraid of heights will go sky diving and such. For me since my whole adult life I have been denied jobs due to being colorblind, I post in red as my individual way to say I am not beaten. So that is what that is all about no aggressive tone by me just a personal way to say my personal limitation can be my advantage.

 

[RmsLegends]

I tend to agree. His actions do seem to indicate that.



Though i don't think a lot of people move from Missouri to California to get away from big government.

I expect taxes, regulations and wages are higher in California but then again the value and earning power of his franchise will be even higher still...

I was not implying bro he is moving to escape big gov, but showing how his current experience could have put a bad taste in his mouth and he can foresee it happening again as long as he does not personally own the stadium. An lets face it so far local gov in Inglewood has all but rolled out the red carpet for him and even tried to expedite were they can. So when ya experience one city breaking a promise and then another trying to rush through what ya want. Just tends to give ya warm fuzzies ............LOL

 

[tonyl711]

I was not implying bro he is moving to escape big gov, but showing how his current experience could have put a bad taste in his mouth and he can foresee it happening again as long as he does not personally own the stadium. An lets face it so far local gov in Inglewood has all but rolled out the red carpet for him and even tried to expedite were they can. So when ya experience one city breaking a promise and then another trying to rush through what ya want. Just tends to give ya warm fuzzies ............LOL

your last sentence was way off base and should be considered taunting, warm fuzzies? really? troll much?

 

[Blue and Gold]

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-gamesmanship-20150228-story.html

NFL in L.A.: AEG warns rival's stadium plan is vulnerable to terrorism

 

[RmsLegends]

Name these future cancellations that have been canceled due to Ferguson. If you can make that claim, surely you have solid proof.
As for revenue, Stan would get a lease. What extra revenue could we squeeze out of him beyond what's in the lease?

One such organization who has said they could is Church of God in Christ who has for the last 5 years dropped 98 million in the St. Louey enconomy.

https://bcnn1wp.wordpress.com/2014/...t-louis-over-shooting-death-of-michael-brown/

I personally don't think the trend will continue in given time as the public will find a new outrage to boycott, but as I said for now St. Louey has lost money and even possible future money so as I said I can see how personal ownership for the city helps with money they have already lost.

Ownership vs leasing??? I assume ya have done a tax form before have ya ever seen how ownership of something gives ya tax benefits that leasing doesn't? Will the lease allow him to profit from other booked events? An will the lease give him the authority to do changes to the venue or will be like what happened at the Dome were he ended up in arbitration?

 

[RmsLegends]

your last sentence was way off base and should be considered taunting, warm fuzzies? really? troll much?

So ya can say when ya feel ya have been slighted and then someone else looks like they are bending over backwards for ya from a emotional standpoint it don't make ya feel warm and fuzzy? So that is trolling to say perhaps the treatment by one makes another feel better than another?

 

[BuiltRamTough]

NFL in L.A.: AEG warns rival's stadium plan is vulnerable to terrorism - LA Times
In a bold move to cast doubt on a planned NFL stadium at Hollywood Park, the sports and entertainment firm AEG commissioned a study by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge that found the proposed Inglewood project would be a tempting target for terrorists and should not be built.

AEG has been pursuing its own NFL stadium next to Staples Center for several years and is in direct competition with Inglewood, whose plan was approved Tuesday by that city’s government.

In a 14-page report, Ridge said that because the Inglewood stadium proposed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke would lie within several miles of LAX and beneath the flight path of airliners, terrorists might try to commandeer or shoot down a plane and cause it to crash into the stadium, a scenario Ridge described as “a terrorist event ‘twofer.’”

Ridge said the Inglewood stadium, part of a planned retail, office and residential development at the now-defunct Hollywood Park racetrack, would have “a significant risk profile with the potential to produce consequences that will not only impact the airport and region, but global interests.”

In two environmental impact reports for NFL venues at the site -- studies completed in years before and after the 9/11 terror attacks -- the Federal Aviation Administration gave its blessing to proposed Hollywood Park stadiums around the same height as the current concept.

The former Pennsylvania governor, now a security consultant, said in the December report that NFL, state and local leaders, if they proceed with the Inglewood plan, “must be willing to accept the significant risk and the possible consequences. ... This should give both public and private leaders in the area some pause.”

The NFL, which is aware of the report, has several stadiums in close proximity to major airports and didn’t offer an opinion on the Inglewood site.

“We feel that the best approach is to look at these things with an independent eye,” said Eric Grubman, NFL senior vice president and the league’s point man on the L.A. market. “You should assume the NFL has its own experts hired and at work to assess any potential NFL site, in any city, regarding these matters. And it is that advice that we will rely on.”

Marc Ganis, a consultant who has worked on projects involving more than two-thirds of NFL teams, reviewed the document and said that just because a party wants to damage an opposing project, it doesn’t invalidate the conclusions.

“What the report does is call into question additional risks of the Hollywood Park project but does not have any definitive data that would argue against going forward,” Ganis said.

“Tom Ridge has great credibility, and the NFL has relied on people of integrity to issue other reports with subjective conclusions," Ganis said. “Clearly the intent is to bring the issue of security of the site into the discussion.”

In the report, Ridge invoked the terrorist group Al Qaeda, included pictures of two terrorist bomb-makers and mentioned the 2013 shooting of a Transportation Security Administration officer at LAX.

Earlier this week, the Inglewood City Council voted unanimously to approve the stadium project that is part of a 298-acre mixed-used development. While developers, which include St. Louis Rams owner Kroenke, pledge to start construction by December on a stadium that could cost a record $1.86 billion, no NFL team has yet filed for relocation.

In addition to the stadium, the proposed sports and entertainment district on the Hollywood Park site in Inglewood would be competing with restaurants and hotels at AEG’s L.A. Live.

Spokesmen for the Hollywood Park developers and AEG didn’t immediately return requests for comment Friday.

The Inglewood stadium’s developers say they’ll avoid flight-path concerns by digging their stadium deep into the ground.

The playing field would sit 100 feet below ground level, meaning that at its highest point, the covered stadium would be about 175 feet above ground, or 290 feet above sea level.

That’s eight feet shorter than a stadium plan that received a “no hazard” determination from the FAA in 1995, according to Inglewood’s environmental review, and within guidelines that L.A. County’s Airport Land Use Commission approved for the Hollywood Park plan in 2009.

“It was concluded that no FAA standards would be exceeded so long as no portion of any structure in the designated location exceeds an elevation of 290 feet above … sea level,” the Inglewood report said.

That report noted that Levi’s Stadium, the new home of the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, sits less than three miles from San Jose International Airport. Unlike the proposed Inglewood site, that stadium is not on the main approach route.

“The FAA conducts thorough technical reviews of all construction near airports to determine if they pose a hazard to aircraft or navigation aides,” said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman based in Los Angeles. “In this case, there is nothing for us to comment on because no one has presented us with a formal plan.”

A spokesman for Ridge said that the majority of his consulting work revolves around risk management.

“The LAX/stadium issue is one area of focus for AEG,” the spokesman said.

 

[RmsLegends]

I never said I was offended, I said you were off base. If you didn't want to debate political parties, why bring them up? When they have nothing to do with any part of this.

It is called perspective. If I was to say a woman fears to go out in the dark alone because she has been raped am I looking for a debate on was it her fault or not? Or merely giving perspective as to how I arrived at how she might fear going out alone. I stated Stan is inclined a certain way and due to his inclination when he met opposition it could very well effect his decision. So is merely my perspective as to a why he might move and why he is building a stadium in LA. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[Prime Time]

your last sentence was way off base and should be considered taunting, warm fuzzies? really? troll much?

Don't go there. Let the mods decide what is and isn't trolling. If you think it is, then use the mod report function.

And for everyone else, stay far away from politics no matter how well intended it may seem. It has the potential for blowing up a thread.

And finally, if you don't like the color or font someone uses, put them on ignore.

 

[bluecoconuts]

NFL in L.A.: AEG warns rival's stadium plan is vulnerable to terrorism - LA Times
In a bold move to cast doubt on a planned NFL stadium at Hollywood Park, the sports and entertainment firm AEG commissioned a study by former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge that found the proposed Inglewood project would be a tempting target for terrorists and should not be built.

AEG has been pursuing its own NFL stadium next to Staples Center for several years and is in direct competition with Inglewood, whose plan was approved Tuesday by that city’s government.

In a 14-page report, Ridge said that because the Inglewood stadium proposed by St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke would lie within several miles of LAX and beneath the flight path of airliners, terrorists might try to commandeer or shoot down a plane and cause it to crash into the stadium, a scenario Ridge described as “a terrorist event ‘twofer.’”

Ridge said the Inglewood stadium, part of a planned retail, office and residential development at the now-defunct Hollywood Park racetrack, would have “a significant risk profile with the potential to produce consequences that will not only impact the airport and region, but global interests.”

In two environmental impact reports for NFL venues at the site -- studies completed in years before and after the 9/11 terror attacks -- the Federal Aviation Administration gave its blessing to proposed Hollywood Park stadiums around the same height as the current concept.

The former Pennsylvania governor, now a security consultant, said in the December report that NFL, state and local leaders, if they proceed with the Inglewood plan, “must be willing to accept the significant risk and the possible consequences. ... This should give both public and private leaders in the area some pause.”

The NFL, which is aware of the report, has several stadiums in close proximity to major airports and didn’t offer an opinion on the Inglewood site.

“We feel that the best approach is to look at these things with an independent eye,” said Eric Grubman, NFL senior vice president and the league’s point man on the L.A. market. “You should assume the NFL has its own experts hired and at work to assess any potential NFL site, in any city, regarding these matters. And it is that advice that we will rely on.”

Marc Ganis, a consultant who has worked on projects involving more than two-thirds of NFL teams, reviewed the document and said that just because a party wants to damage an opposing project, it doesn’t invalidate the conclusions.

“What the report does is call into question additional risks of the Hollywood Park project but does not have any definitive data that would argue against going forward,” Ganis said.

“Tom Ridge has great credibility, and the NFL has relied on people of integrity to issue other reports with subjective conclusions," Ganis said. “Clearly the intent is to bring the issue of security of the site into the discussion.”

In the report, Ridge invoked the terrorist group Al Qaeda, included pictures of two terrorist bomb-makers and mentioned the 2013 shooting of a Transportation Security Administration officer at LAX.

Earlier this week, the Inglewood City Council voted unanimously to approve the stadium project that is part of a 298-acre mixed-used development. While developers, which include St. Louis Rams owner Kroenke, pledge to start construction by December on a stadium that could cost a record $1.86 billion, no NFL team has yet filed for relocation.

In addition to the stadium, the proposed sports and entertainment district on the Hollywood Park site in Inglewood would be competing with restaurants and hotels at AEG’s L.A. Live.

Spokesmen for the Hollywood Park developers and AEG didn’t immediately return requests for comment Friday.

The Inglewood stadium’s developers say they’ll avoid flight-path concerns by digging their stadium deep into the ground.

The playing field would sit 100 feet below ground level, meaning that at its highest point, the covered stadium would be about 175 feet above ground, or 290 feet above sea level.

That’s eight feet shorter than a stadium plan that received a “no hazard” determination from the FAA in 1995, according to Inglewood’s environmental review, and within guidelines that L.A. County’s Airport Land Use Commission approved for the Hollywood Park plan in 2009.

“It was concluded that no FAA standards would be exceeded so long as no portion of any structure in the designated location exceeds an elevation of 290 feet above … sea level,” the Inglewood report said.

That report noted that Levi’s Stadium, the new home of the San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara, sits less than three miles from San Jose International Airport. Unlike the proposed Inglewood site, that stadium is not on the main approach route.

“The FAA conducts thorough technical reviews of all construction near airports to determine if they pose a hazard to aircraft or navigation aides,” said Ian Gregor, an FAA spokesman based in Los Angeles. “In this case, there is nothing for us to comment on because no one has presented us with a formal plan.”

A spokesman for Ridge said that the majority of his consulting work revolves around risk management.

“The LAX/stadium issue is one area of focus for AEG,” the spokesman said.

I like AEG, but that's ridiculous, they could do the same thing to Staples Center/LA Live, I look at it all the time as we fly overhead. Plus they'd only really fly near it during landing.

 

[blue4]

One such organization who has said they could is Church of God in Christ who has for the last 5 years dropped 98 million in the St. Louey enconomy.

https://bcnn1wp.wordpress.com/2014/...t-louis-over-shooting-death-of-michael-brown/

I personally don't think the trend will continue in given time as the public will find a new outrage to boycott, but as I said for now St. Louey has lost money and even possible future money so as I said I can see how personal ownership for the city helps with money they have already lost.

Ownership vs leasing??? I assume ya have done a tax form before have ya ever seen how ownership of something gives ya tax benefits that leasing doesn't? Will the lease allow him to profit from other booked events? An will the lease give him the authority to do changes to the venue or will be like what happened at the Dome were he ended up in arbitration?

One such organization who has said they COULD. That's not the same as canceled. You said it was a given. I don't know why this would effect the stadium Stans team plays for, or how it can cost Stan and the Rams money. It might conceivably cost the CVC money, but Ferguson's 15 minutes are over really so tying Ferguson to the Rams is quite a stretch. I doubt Stan has given it any thought in his decision.

As far as owning vs leasing, yes there are advantages. But that's not what you said or what I responded to. You said the city would be desperate for revenue streams due to some mystery shortage and I responded that Stan would have a lease so any city revenue shortage would not effect him regardless. Everything you cited in your initial post, and most in the following, is either flat not true or irrelevant to Stan and the Rams. Stan wants to move because it will raise the value of his franchise, not because of riots, potential city tax shortages, or political affiliation. I'm not even sure Stan would own more than a part of any new LA stadium anyway.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I like AEG, but that's ridiculous, they could do the same thing to Staples Center/LA Live, I look at it all the time as we fly overhead. Plus they'd only really fly near it during landing.

I'm still going to buy a pair of PSLs, I'm not scared. I ride and die with my rammies

 

[drasconis]

I live in Colorado so for me to see Stan wanting his own venue is second nature since he already does out here. As well as Denver is not a conservative town yet he owns teams here as well. So his acknowledged political stance does not effect where he owns a team but as I opined might effect how he makes his decision up when confronted directly with gov.................such as he was promised a certain standard of stadium and had to seek recourse to get it then when he won gov defaulted. So combined with his political mindset and his experience from that standpoint I am pointing out it could have influenced any decision he makes and no secret folks will often chose another course of action to avoid circumstances they find personally uncomfortable.

As far as red goes while some here have heard me say before from other boards I have met them on over the past 16 years I have been on various Rams websites. I do so because I am red green colorblind and so like the stories of folks who are afraid of heights will go sky diving and such. For me since my whole adult life I have been denied jobs due to being colorblind, I post in red as my individual way to say I am not beaten. So that is what that is all about no aggressive tone by me just a personal way to say my personal limitation can be my advantage.

You really need to do some research, he was never promised anything. The stadium lease had clauses and options. He exercised his, the CVC exercised theirs. NO promises were broken, no one got a raw deal, no one got cheated. No one changed the contract, no one broke the contract. The contract was the same as it was before he bought the team. Both sides made choices based on their options and as allowed for under the contract.

 

[RmsLegends]

One such organization who has said they COULD. That's not the same as canceled. You said it was a given. I don't know why this would effect the stadium Stans team plays for, or how it can cost Stan and the Rams money. It might conceivably cost the CVC money, but Ferguson's 15 minutes are over really so tying Ferguson to the Rams is quite a stretch. I doubt Stan has given it any thought in his decision.

As far as owning vs leasing, yes there are advantages. But that's not what you said or what I responded to. You said the city would be desperate for revenue streams due to some mystery shortage and I responded that Stan would have a lease so any city revenue shortage would not effect him regardless. Everything you cited in your initial post, and most in the following, is either flat not true or irrelevant to Stan and the Rams. Stan wants to move because it will raise the value of his franchise, not because of riots, potential city tax shortages, or political affiliation. I'm not even sure Stan would own more than a part of any new LA stadium anyway.

No my reply was......................As far as them losing revenue for Ferguson that is a given and there has been future cancellations as well for the reason I stated.......................So my point was they have already lost money from cancellations and I was saying that was a given as in ya was already aware of that. I do concede that future cancellations is subjective as what time frame does future mean. Did folks cancel immediately or a week or a month after will they cancel a year from now? I have no clue so my example there I will conceded to ya as my point of argument was not well based and to general in nature to prove specifically other than possible.

So the city would not profit from owning the venue and charging for it's use by other events other than football? Ya missed read my post big time if ya came away with hearing me say the cities revenue problem would effect Stan. I was saying due to certain circumstances such as lost revenue from cancelled events we will go with present as I don't have enough proof to say future ones like I originally did. Coupled with the city has been losing population inside it's taxing authority coupled with the local senate passing a bill that will limit the percentage of revenue a city can use for it's budget. When ya look at these examples as I stated to me it becomes important for the city to own the stadium for the revenue stream the booking of events for usage would bring.

If ya go back and read my original post again ya will see I was making a case for why each wanted to own the stadium based upon there own personal advantage. I was arguing why two different entities want ownership and ya have lumped arguments for the cities side as arguments for Stan moving.

My arguments for Stan's move is I stated is because for one what ya read as a slander against libs. Is because of his inclinations and the fact he has shown them by giving money to a certain political party he is a small gov kind of guy. So to this point I believe he was offended when lets face it the city broke a legal contract and defaulted when the decision went his way. I also said that the city building a new stadium could be the same problem down the road as he would have a lease with them and what keeps them from defaulting on the terms of the lease again since they have already done so, he being inclined to believe a certain way about gov already and now faced with another lease by the same folks who just defaulted. Why would he have cause to trust their word anymore in the future when they already broke it. So even if they build a new stadium what assurance does he have down the road he is not back in front of a arbitrator and city default on that decision.

So I said I believe he has found his solution to be owning his own venue which he already knows the benes as he owns his venues out here in Colordao.

So anyway if ya read all my points as singular then I ask ya re read what I originally wrote and hopefully ya can see I was making 2 arguments as to why 2 different entities the city and Stan would want and feel advantaged by owning the stadium.

 

[blue4]

No my reply was......................As far as them losing revenue for Ferguson that is a given and there has been future cancellations as well for the reason I stated.......................So my point was they have already lost money from cancellations and I was saying that was a given as in ya was already aware of that. I do concede that future cancellations is subjective as what time frame does future mean. Did folks cancel immediately or a week or a month after will they cancel a year from now? I have no clue so my example there I will conceded to ya as my point of argument was not well based and to general in nature to prove specifically other than possible.

So the city would not profit from owning the venue and charging for it's use by other events other than football? Ya missed read my post big time if ya came away with hearing me say the cities revenue problem would effect Stan. I was saying due to certain circumstances such as lost revenue from cancelled events we will go with present as I don't have enough proof to say future ones like I originally did. Coupled with the city has been losing population inside it's taxing authority coupled with the local senate passing a bill that will limit the percentage of revenue a city can use for it's budget. When ya look at these examples as I stated to me it becomes important for the city to own the stadium for the revenue stream the booking of events for usage would bring.

If ya go back and read my original post again ya will see I was making a case for why each wanted to own the stadium based upon there own personal advantage. I was arguing why two different entities want ownership and ya have lumped arguments for the cities side as arguments for Stan moving.

My arguments for Stan's move is I stated is because for one what ya read as a slander against libs. Is because of his inclinations and the fact he has shown them by giving money to a certain political party he is a small gov kind of guy. So to this point I believe he was offended when lets face it the city broke a legal contract and defaulted when the decision went his way. I also said that the city building a new stadium could be the same problem down the road as he would have a lease with them and what keeps them from defaulting on the terms of the lease again since they have already done so, he being inclined to believe a certain way about gov already and now faced with another lease by the same folks who just defaulted. Why would he have cause to trust their word anymore in the future when they already broke it. So even if they build a new stadium what assurance does he have down the road he is not back in front of a arbitrator and city default on that decision.

So I said I believe he has found his solution to be owning his own venue which he already knows the benes as he owns his venues out here in Colordao.

So anyway if ya read all my points as singular then I ask ya re read what I originally wrote and hopefully ya can see I was making 2 arguments as to why 2 different entities the city and Stan would want and feel advantaged by owning the stadium.

Well, that's clearer. I don't agree with you on several points, but I see what you're talking about now.