New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[den-the-coach]

Not if the NFL wants to show Cowboys/Eagles for the umpteenth time.

Agreed....Cardinals/Rams the stadium that Bill Bidwill never got! There is no water in Arizona it's a desert and Bidwill is on a horse with no name.

 

[RamBill]

Has the league created three lame duck NFL franchises in its handling of the Los Angeles stadium deal? 101ESPN's Kevin Wheeler discusses a recent report on the topic.

Listen to LA Stadium Discussion

 

[TSFH Fan]

IDK about anyone else, but an Attorney by the name of "Sunny Soltani?" It has so many things wrong with it. First off, he goes by "Sunny" and not "Sonny" now I understand it's the Golden State, but seriously? I have a feeling Sunny is going to be looking for five jobs: Three no-works and Two no-shows!

She.
http://www.awattorneys.com/our-team/attorneys/sanaz-sunny-k-soltani

 

[den-the-coach]

She.
http://www.awattorneys.com/our-team/attorneys/sanaz-sunny-k-soltani

Well, that makes much more sense, guess I should have looked that up.

 

[bluecoconuts]

It comes down to this. Either you're for public money being used on stadiums or you're against it.

If a private investor is funding everything up front and being reimbursed, it's no different than paying over time without a private investor paying up front. Either way there's a public/private split.

I'm simply pointing out the double-standard between Inglewood and St. Louis. Both require community investment, yet there are people all over right now approving what was done in Inglewood who are saying this needs to go to vote in Missouri.

If you're not one of those, then I applaud you. But when you've spend multiple lengthy posts trying to justify Inglewood, it seems to suggest otherwise.

I thought I was being clear, but I guess not.

I don't give a fuck about public money being used for a stadium.

If a city wants to do that then good for them. As long as they don't put others on the hook then I don't care one bit, and as long as they want it then cool.

As far as a I know St Louis doesn't put others on the hook, so I don't care. I assume most of the city supports it as well. Inglewood certainly did, overwhelmingly so. If they were against it then I'd say it wasn't right to pass it. Not because of any tax reasons, but because if they don't want the stadium then it shouldn't be forced on them.

That being said, my point was and continues to be that the Inglewood project is different. They are taking only profits and only after a certain threshold is made. It means that taxes don't come the individual person. They're not seeing their taxes rise any.

And again they're paying for city infrastructure upgrades that typically the city needs to pay for. Sewage, water, power, etc. When stadiums are built those aren't usually factored into the cost and thus the city take money from elsewhere and uses it for those upgrades. Kroenke is paying for them upfront and asking the city to reimburse him using only the profits that the project gets.

Its money that the city would otherwise get, but its not tax dollars from each citizen. The money could have been funded into different projects or even put away for a rainy day fund or something, who knows.

But it is different from what St Louis is doing, and when people get to equate the two they're incorrect to do so.

But again, so I'm clear, I don't give a single fuck about how the stadiums get funded. If the funding is there then its there. I wont be paying for it either way.

*Edit* also this "you're either with us or against us" black and white argument is a really poor one. Life is never black and white, things always change situation to situation.

 

[iced]

NFL source: NFL has mishandled Los Angeles. But can St. Louis save the day?

Posted on March 4, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

It’s no secret the NFL has used Los Angeles over the last 20 years as leverage to get stadium deals done in current cities.

But has the league overplayed it’s hand this time by creating a situation in which three teams aren’t just using Los Angeles as leverage, they literally might need the City of Angeles as their new home?

Think about it, when training camp opens next summer the St. Louis Rams,San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders could be entering their final seasons in their current homes.

Meanwhile, all three might have approved stadium deals in place in Inglewood and Carson and the ability to file for relocation in early 2016.

Imagine how that might play in St. Louis, San Diego and Oakland?

And that, according to a high-level NFL executive, is proof the league not only isn’t on top of the situation, it’s bungled it badly.

“Why would the league want this to happen?” asked the NFL executive, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “You’ve now created three lame-duck situations. It’s incompetent, to let it get to this point.”

According to the league executive, the NFL is holding out hope that Missouri and St. Louis leaders step up and save the day by approving a stadium plan that will help finance a new home for the Rams.

“I believe they think St. Louis is going to come up with a lot of money,” the source said. “I believe that’s their trump card.”

But that might open another can of worms for the NFL.

What if Rams owner Stan Kroenke wants so badly to be in Los Angeles he goes rogue and moves without approval?

“Stan’s trump card is ‘screw you I’m going to move anyway.’ the NFL executive said. “Meanwhile, the league says you can’t move and we have policy and procedures in place. So we’ll see you in court. And then you have an ugly court battle. So how is that good for anybody?”

With Kroenke on mute these days, it’s impossible to get a handle on what his true end game is – whether he really wants to be in Los Angeles or is simply using L.A. to get a new home in St. Louis.

But with the Raiders and Chargers fighting uphill battles getting new stadiums built locally, they might need Los Angeles more than the Rams.

If the NFL gives the nod to the Chargers and Raiders to build a shared stadium in Carson – what will Kroenke’s response be?

Especially if L.A. is his desired destination.

Would he risk challenging the NFL in court, and abandon any chance of a G-4 loan, the possibility of hosting future Super Bowls and the near certainty the NFL would demand he relinquish ownership of the Denver Nuggets – for which they’ve granted him waivers to skirt the league’s cross-ownership rules?

“Here is the big question for me,” the NFL executive said. “If the league approves the Chargers and Raiders and the league loans them $400 million for Carson, would Stan feel his project is viable anymore?

“If he’s now dividing up his revenues that he once thought was, maybe not 100 percent of but definitely 50 percent, and now he’s dividing it up three separate ways. He’s not getting any loans from the NFL, he’s not getting any Super Bowls forever because he’ll be a pariah, does that make sense for him anymore? Or does the project now become no longer feasible for him? That’s a real question.

“Because your revenue estimates get slashed, you have no Super Bowls and you’ve also be in violation of the league’s cross-ownership rules for years, for which he’s been getting waivers on all these years. Presumably if they got in a court battle the league would say ‘OK, you must divest yourself of the Nuggets immediately, no more waivers.’ So it’s not so easy as Stan saying I’m going to move no matter what.”

One other angle to consider: With NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell still wobbly after some high-profile mishaps last year, can he afford the bad press of letting the Rams leave St. Louis despite Missouri offering a sizable chunk of money to build them new stadium?

“I can’t see (Goodell) turning down $500 million dollars of public money and have those senators and the governor and the mayor come after him,” the NFL executive said. “That’s the last thing he needs.”


http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...ing_wp_cron=1425564614.6113131046295166015625

me thinks Some Socal writers have been stealing my ideas...

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Silvey seeks to restrict Nixon’s authority to bond Rams stadium
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — As St. Louis and Gov. Jay Nixon continue to slog through the process of negotiating a new NFL stadium to keep the Rams from shipping west to California, a lingering question about just who will pay, and how, is beginning to get an answer.

A few weeks ago Nixon indicated that while the NFL and Rams owner Stan Kroenke would be expected to contribute to a new stadium, the state of Missouri may potentially foot at least part of the bill as well. Nixon told lawmakers and the press that he may exercise his bonding authority to help pay for part of the cost of a new stadium.


Sen. Silvey

Some lawmakers immediately raised concerns. In the upper chamber, Sen. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City Republican, flatly rejected Nixon’s assertion of his authority. Silvey says that any bonding of this magnitude needs either legislative approval, or an affirmative vote of the people. He and several of his Republican colleagues asked for a legal opinion from Attorney General Chris Koster, one they have not yet received.

In the meantime, Silvey has filed SB460, which adds a single line to state statute that would clarify that such bonding measures need approval of state lawmakers or Missouri voters. The bill is scheduled for a hearing next week, and is already gaining support.

“Either make your case to the legislature and let us vote for it, or make your case to the people and let them vote for it,” Silvey said. “But the point is that the governor has taken the position that he has unilateral authority to extend bonds without asking permission from anyone.”

Silvey was in the House in 2005 when the Kansas City Chiefs looked to the state legislature to increase funding for sports stadiums to fund renovations. Silvey, along with 83 other lawmakers, signed a letter penned by then-House Budget Chairman Brad Lager that was delivered to then-House Speaker Rod Jetton. The letter rejected increased funding for the stadiums, and called on the legislature instead to prioritize education and programs for the poor, while inviting Jackson County residents to pay for their own sports team.

Silvey says the move worked. The legislature never gave the Chiefs any money, and Jackson County voters ultimately passed their own tax increase for the stadium. Silvey is now distributing copies of the letter, now almost a decade old, to potential naysayers or critics claiming his latest bill is a regional war with the St. Louis side of the state.

Silvey says that he doesn’t believe the legislature or the voters will necessarily reject new bonds for the Rams stadium, but says the full and complete plan must be made available first so everyone makes “an informed decision.”

“The state constitution gives the legislature the power of the purse,” Silvey said. “The appropriations process comes through us. For the governor to unilaterally have the authority to come in and issue debt makes the appropriation decision for us…His answer to me is, well you could just not appropriate it. But that’s not practical. If we don’t pay our debt, then we violate the constitution, and we are the ones who tank the bond rating because we didn’t make the debt payment.”

A new Rams stadium is likely to cost upwards of $900 million, and roughly half the funds are set to come from the NFL and the Rams organization. No NFL team has ever left a city that made a concrete proposal for a pricier venue.

 

[Angry Ram]

Wasn't there supposed to be some stadium updates yesterday (Wednesday)? What happened?

 

[Prime Time]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-carson-stadium-will-be-purchased-this-month/

Land for Carson stadium will be purchased this month
Posted by Mike Florio on March 5, 2015

Regardless of whether the Chargers and Raiders move to a new stadium to be built in Carson, California, the Chargers will own a large piece of land there.

According to Nathan Fenno and Tim Logan of the Los Angeles Times, the Chargers already have agreed to purchase from Starwood Capital Group the property on which the stadium would be built.

“There are no contingencies, there is no option,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani told the Times. “We have to buy it. Starwood has to sell it.”

Meanwhile, an effort has been launched to secure 8,041 signatures, which would result in a ballot initiative landing in the lap of the Carson City Council. If the members of the council approve the effort, the public would then vote on the plan.

The initiative would create a public authority that would own the team and lease it to the Chargers and Raiders. Despite the public ownership of the venue, no tax money would be spent on the project. Goldman Sachs and others have loaned $850 million to the effort, with the money being repaid from stadium revenues.

The Carson project currently is competing with a project in Inglewood for the privilege of building an NFL stadium. AEG still hopes to build a stadium in downtown L.A.

 

[RamFan503]

then wait for a vote in Inglewood

First of all, they went to the voters and got far more signatures from them than would have been needed to pass it. Second, the mayor didn't just rubber stamp it. The city council (see representatives) voted unanimously as a result of the overwhelming support.

they heard from the citizens at the meeting? what all 100 of them? so I guess if we round up 100 rams fans and ask them that's all we need?

Apples to Oranges but if that was sufficient to get the funding passed for the St Louis stadium, are you saying you wouldn't take it - GLADLY?

In reality, they did hear form the citizens. They collected the signatures in VERY short order from the voters. Isn't that hearing from the citizens?

and anyone who thinks Inglewood is a slam dunk is just as mistaken.

That I will agree with. But I don't think it will be a problem if Stan decides to go that route - at least in regards to the building of the stadium. Moving the team has its own set of issues that will be decided when the time comes. But I would agree with most in St Louis that if they have the funding and all their other ducks in a row and have plans for a top flight stadium, the Rams stay put.

 

[tonyl711]

They already voted the city council approved it 5-0 so it does not have to go up for vote in the city. That's why Inglewood is so far ahead of everyone else.

my point was that if St Louis is doing thing wrong by not having the public vote, Inglewood should do the same.

 

[tonyl711]

I think the reference was to people around the Web who take issue with the MO governor authorizing funds by himself, yet applauding a 5 man vote in Inglewood which isn't a lot better. Myself, I think both the 5 man vote and the governor's action to be justified. Speaking just of where I live in Missouri, it's too important to the city and the region to rely on the state senate. Their hatred of STL and to some extent KC is irrational.

you were right.

 

[RamFan503]

She.
http://www.awattorneys.com/our-team/attorneys/sanaz-sunny-k-soltani

But we're still talking about an attorney - right? Meh.

 

[RamFan503]

A little cut? As in 4x what the city would be earning.

You mean if it wasn't there? That city is playing in the red. This money is money they only get if this project goes forward. 25% of nothing is still nothing.

 

[RamFan503]

my point was that if St Louis is doing thing wrong by not having the public vote, Inglewood should do the same.

No.... if St Louis is doing things wrong then they are doing things wrong. If Inglewood is doing things wrong then they are doing things wrong. If the two entities have different rules then there is no parallel. But that doesn't mean St Louis (the Governor - I suppose in reality)should have to do anything it/he is not obligated to do. This is not a tit for tat. Inglewood representatives did what was required of them. If your assembly votes to restrict Nixon's powers - that is completely unrelated to anything that happened in Inglewood.

The point being that the funding in St Louis could be affected by your representatives pushing for a vote. The funding in Inglewood is not an issue.

 

[ZigZagRam]

You mean if it wasn't there? That city is playing in the red. This money is money they only get if this project goes forward. 25% of nothing is still nothing.

The rest of the Stockbridge development would've brought a lot of money to that community.

 

[RamFan503]

The rest of the Stockbridge development would've brought a lot of money to that community.

And? So you are saying that they would receive the same or more revenue with no stadium? And though you might be partially correct, I believe the mechanisms would put the revenues to the state and county first whereas the city will actually get some of the revenue streams from the stadium, the concert venue, and the Forum (already are) without them being divvied up by other entities. In the long run, by my understanding, the stadium is a huge boon to the Inglewood economy and gov't coffers. Again, I reserve the right to be dead wrong.

 

[LesBaker]

Bernie Miklasz provides Randy Karraker and D’Marco Farr on 101ESPN The Fast Lane with a new and interesting angle (Denver) in the STL Stadium drama.

Listen to Bernie Talk Stadiums

The Denver angle isn't new, several of the people posting on this site and others have brought it up.

How nice of Bernie (LOL) to glean from message boards on the web and then rephrase things and call it his own hahaha.

 

[blue4]

And? So you are saying that they would receive the same or more revenue with no stadium? And though you might be partially correct, I believe the mechanisms would put the revenues to the state and county first whereas the city will actually get some of the revenue streams from the stadium, the concert venue, and the Forum (already are) without them being divvied up by other entities. In the long run, by my understanding, the stadium is a huge boon to the Inglewood economy and gov't coffers. Again, I reserve the right to be dead wrong.

I think we can all agree a new stadium would benefit both cities regardless of who's playing in them. I think the point of the conversation isn't the merits of the stadium but the fact that the media portrays the Inglewood plan as totally private financing. It's really only totally private in the initial stages, then the repayment starts. I don't think anyone doubts that it'll be good for Inglewood

 

[bluecoconuts]

The rest of the Stockbridge development would've brought a lot of money to that community.

The money for the infrastructure upgrades is already being spent, stadium or no stadium. It's an entirely separate thing really, its upgrades to the city infrastructure for the entire 300 acre project, not just the stadium, and thus the reimbursement is from the entire 300 acre project, not just what comes from the stadium.

A stadium just makes it faster and easier to make up the money they spent.