New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[den-the-coach]

The onion, right?

http://toastdispatch.com/st-louis-plans-welcome-raiders-new-stadium/

And BTW seeing the Raiders emblem on that Stadium really pissed me off. Sometimes you don't realize how you're going to react to something, but that truly bothered me, guess I have more Missouri in me than I thought!

 

[tonyl711]

Delays. And that not only puts you potentially behind another project but costs huge amounts of money. So if you don't have to, and you feel pretty confident that the citizens are behind the project, you definitely don't. And Nixon shouldn't either if he doesn't have to. Why the heck would you?

that was my point, that you cant fault one for something and not the other for doing the same.

 

[tonyl711]

http://toastdispatch.com/st-louis-plans-welcome-raiders-new-stadium/

And BTW seeing the Raiders emblem on that Stadium really pissed me off. Sometimes you don't realize how you're going to react to something, but that truly bothered me, guess I have more Missouri in me than I thought!

ill agree. pissed me off too, not funny at all

 

[bluecoconuts]

that was my point, that you cant fault one for something and not the other for doing the same.

But they're not under the same circumstances. I can fault a guy for driving like an asshole, speeding and running red lights because he's just being a douche, but I'm not going to fault a guy for doing that when his wife is bleeding out in the backseat and he's trying to get her to a hospital. Circumstance means everything there. It's an extreme, but the different stadium proposals aren't similar in how they approach their financing/public support, so in theory it makes sense you can fault one and not the other.

Inglewood had probably 90%+ approval for the project, a vote, frankly, would be a waste of money, so the city council just went ahead with a vote themselves to speed it up.

I'm not sure what the approval rating the St Louis project has among citizens, but if it's high enough (and I believe it is) where a vote is just a waste of time money, then yeah Nixon should be able to approve it as well, or at least the legislature. That's not to say I demand St Louis gets a vote, more that blanket statements don't really work when the details are so different, or at least different enough.

If the vast majority of Inglewood residents disapproved of the project, or it was closer to a 50/50 split, then I'd say the process was wrong, and it should have been a vote. Likewise if the approval of the St Louis project is overwhelmingly high, then they shouldn't need to waste time with votes. It's all about what the people want. The problem is figuring out what the cutoff is. 60% approval is probably too low, 80% approval is probably high enough, 75%? maybe? What's the general consensus from the people, not just the football fans? I'm assuming it's probably pretty high, isn't it? If it is, then build baby build.

 

[RamFan503]

You're missing the point. These reimbursements were not included in the original Hollywood Park project that were already approved. And no, not every developer is handed free infrastructure improvements to make it work.

The reimbursements were not included in the original plan. And that is because the outlay is less to the developer in the original plan. The $14 million in taxes was to cover maintenance and ongoing expenses - not for the actual infrastructure improvements themselves.

And no - every developer is not handed free infrastructure improvements and neither is this development. The monies go to maintaining infrastructure and the ongoing expenses of fire, police, sewer maintenance etc... of the improvements the developer is building as part of the project.

Now no matter how you slice it, they're going to be handing over money to the developers.

They are paying money back to the developers in EXCESS of the actual costs of providing services necessitated by the maintenance of the infrastructure and other costs provided by the city to provide services. The city, in this case, is merely the collecting body of those funds. If the city were building the development, this is all monies they would hold onto. But as they are not building it, they are paying a portion back to the developers. It is still no money out of the pockets of the tax payer and it is all money the city would not have if not for the project. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If a city doesn't want to pay for the building of a stadium, there has to be a give there somewhere. And unlike other similar projects, the city is not putting out money it doesn't have or having to go to the taxpayers for a bond.

Is this a net positive for the people of Inglewood? IF a stadium gets built, it looks promising. Just like if the MO legislature approves re-financing the EJD bonds it will be a positive.

I agree with this. It is just that it is not known if this will happen in MO. I think it will if there is not too much politicking but it is not a done deal as of yet.

Yet some think one deserves a vote and the other doesn't.

I only believe that one deserves a vote if that is what is required by statute or law. Otherwise, let the elected representatives represent.

There's no new taxes with a STL stadium either. That's what this little debate is about: consistency.

It is a bit disingenuous IMO to say that extending bonds beyond their previously approved expiration date is not a new tax. But even still, if the mechanism is in statute for the Governor to be able to extend the bonds, then do it. Get 'er done.

I think it is interesting that some will argue that the Inglewood project is too steep a price for a developer to make money on yet they shouldn't figure out ways to recoup some of the costs when it won't actually cost the taxpayers anything but monies they wouldn't have if the stadium was never built. In this case, the developer is building everything including the infrastructure. So should the city expect to gain all monies as if it was the entity building the stadium? I don't think they should. If they are kicking in a big share of the costs, then yeah - I can see it.

By the same token, if MO builds a stadium for the Rams, they should recoup these costs as rapidly as possible. If it pencils out for them in a reasonable return on investment, then it is sound governing. If it is just something for their legacy at the expense of the taxpayers, then I think that is a dubious use of government resources. Personally, I think the Rams make the state, city, and county money in the long run. If that is the case they should build the stadium.

I just don't think you ask an owner to provide you with funds that don't make him a return. I'm not saying I feel sorry for this billionaires club but why is someone going to fork over millions with little return just to stay somewhere when they have options?

In either case, I don't really favor one stadium plan over the other except that I would rather the fans in St Louis get to keep the team they have supported through some pretty crappy production. I'd be freaking pissed if the Rams left and I lived in St Louis.

 

[RamFan503]

that was my point, that you cant fault one for something and not the other for doing the same.

Except that one has already done it - legally. And the other as of yet, has not. If Nixon does and it is all above board then great.

 

[tonyl711]

But they're not under the same circumstances. I can fault a guy for driving like an arsehole, speeding and running red lights because he's just being a douche, but I'm not going to fault a guy for doing that when his wife is bleeding out in the backseat and he's trying to get her to a hospital. Circumstance means everything there. It's an extreme, but the different stadium proposals aren't similar in how they approach their financing/public support, so in theory it makes sense you can fault one and not the other.

Inglewood had probably 90%+ approval for the project, a vote, frankly, would be a waste of money, so the city council just went ahead with a vote themselves to speed it up.

I'm not sure what the approval rating the St Louis project has among citizens, but if it's high enough (and I believe it is) where a vote is just a waste of time money, then yeah Nixon should be able to approve it as well, or at least the legislature. That's not to say I demand St Louis gets a vote, more that blanket statements don't really work when the details are so different, or at least different enough.

If the vast majority of Inglewood residents disapproved of the project, or it was closer to a 50/50 split, then I'd say the process was wrong, and it should have been a vote. Likewise if the approval of the St Louis project is overwhelmingly high, then they shouldn't need to waste time with votes. It's all about what the people want. The problem is figuring out what the cutoff is. 60% approval is probably too low, 80% approval is probably high enough, 75%? maybe? What's the general consensus from the people, not just the football fans? I'm assuming it's probably pretty high, isn't it? If it is, then build baby build.

and what is the approval rating in St Louis? and how are you coming up with 90% approval in Inglewood when there has been no vote? sounds to me like both cities are forgoing a vote, how is it a waste of time and money in Inglwood and not in St Louis? I could say St Louis has a 90 % approval but with out a vote how can I prove that?

 

[tonyl711]

Except that one has already done it - legally. And the other as of yet, has not. If Nixon does and it is all above board then great.

one has already done what? circumvented the voters? ok, I get that, now how is it ok for Inglewood to do that, but if St Louis does it its wrong?

 

[bluecoconuts]

and what is the approval rating in St Louis? and how are you coming up with 90% approval in Inglewood when there has been no vote? sounds to me like both cities are forgoing a vote, how is it a waste of time and money in Inglwood and not in St Louis? I could say St Louis has a 90 % approval but with out a vote how can I prove that?

I never said that it's not a waste of time and money if it's done in St Louis, I just think it depends on the support from the public.

There wasn't a vote , but the general consensus was all very positive from the citizens of Inglewood, the only real concerns were about increased traffic, not really about any funding. However it was a very small minority, otherwise the vast majority of people were all for it. You would have heard a lot more noise if there was enough concern from the public, but people were all talking about how excited they were for the project. Granted some of that is due to it being new and different, and there were other people that weren't from the city who made the trip in support, but you could just kind of tell they were all for it.

It's like porn, I can't define it for you, but I know it when I see it. You could see the support among those in Inglewood, hence why you heard very little opposition.

I have no idea what the support in St Louis is like, it sounds like it's pretty high, but with a larger city it's harder to get that read. If it's high as well, then I don't see why they shouldn't fast track things as well.

If there was a fuss in the city from a lot of citizens not being happy about the city council, I promise you St Louis would know about it, because anything that makes the Inglewood project seem less viable, is good for them. Similar to why there's not a lot of negative buzz from LA about the updated stadium plans, they're good plans.

 

[RamFan503]

one has already done what? circumvented the voters? ok, I get that, now how is it ok for Inglewood to do that, but if St Louis does it its wrong?

Do you even read the words you are arguing against? I'm done talking about this single issue you are trying to glom onto. It is clear you just want to argue. Yawn.

 

[8to12]

and what is the approval rating in St Louis? and how are you coming up with 90% approval in Inglewood when there has been no vote? sounds to me like both cities are forgoing a vote, how is it a waste of time and money in Inglwood and not in St Louis? I could say St Louis has a 90 % approval but with out a vote how can I prove that?

Out of a city population of approx 100,000, only 2 people showed up at the city council meeting to express opposition to the initiative. Yeah, I guess you're right. Some people in Iglewood are going to get screwed out of their say.

 

[blue4]

http://toastdispatch.com/st-louis-plans-welcome-raiders-new-stadium/

And BTW seeing the Raiders emblem on that Stadium really pissed me off. Sometimes you don't realize how you're going to react to something, but that truly bothered me, guess I have more Missouri in me than I thought!

The only thing that would have pissed me off is if there were no emblem. What would truly bother me is if there is no stadium, the area stays blighted, and we have no football team.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

• Raiders lease renewed for one year in Oakland: Three things to know

By John Breech / CBSSports.com

March 06, 2015 05:52 PM ET

Will Mark Davis move the Raiders? (USATSI)




The Raiders are officially staying in Oakland -- for at least one more year. The Joint Powers Authority, which operates O.co Coliseum, voted on Friday to extend the Raiders lease through the 2015 NFL season.

The team's lease had expired after 2014. The Raiders have been playing at O.co Coliseum under a series of one-year leases since the end of the 2012 season. Under the new lease, the Raiders will pay $400,000 in rent to play at O.co and $525,000 in rent to practice at the publicly owned training facility in Alameda County.

Now that the Raiders are locked into a one-year lease with Oakland, the question becomes: What happens after the lease expires?

In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News on Thursday, Raiders owner Mark Davis did his best to explain what's next for his team.

Here's three things to know about the future of the Raiders.

1. Mark Davis wants to keep the team in Oakland.

Davis has continuously said that he wants to keep the Raiders in Oakland and he again emphasized that point on Thursday.

"We are doing everything possible to stay in Oakland, California," Davis said. "We have the greatest fans in the world here and that's where we're at."

The only problem with staying in Oakland is that the Raiders have basically gotten nowhere trying to get a new stadium built. Back in 2013, Davis had hoped to be able to get a 50,000 seat, $800 million stadium built. Two years later, that still seems to be Davis' ultimate dream.

Floyd Kephart, a Southern California businessman who's contracted with the city of Oakland to help figure out a way to finance any new stadium, told the Mercury News on March 2 that Davis is still hoping for a smaller stadium.

"Mark Davis wants 55,000 seats," Kephart said. "For him, it's not about, 'can I build a football stadium that's a Taj Mahal.'"

Although the Raiders have announced a $1.7 billion stadium deal with the Chargers in Southern California, Davis says that the team's not going anywhere if constructive talks begin with the city of Oakland.

"If we can get something done here, that’s where we want to be," Davis said of Oakland.

2. What are the chances the Raiders move to Southern California?

When you listen to Mark Davis explain it, it almost sounds like the Carson, Calif. stadium plan is a last resort for the Raiders.

"We have to keep our options open in case we can't get something done [in Oakland]," Davis said when asked about the $1.7 billion stadium deal with the Chargers.

As a matter of fact, Davis explained that he was only told about the Carson plan in January and that the Chargers had been cooking it up for over 10 months.

"Within the past six weeks, [Chargers CEO] Dean Spanos and I myself got together and said, "Hey, let's see if we can put something together between the two of us,'" Davis said when asked how the Carson plan came together. "It came together very quickly. Dean had been working on the Carson site for a good 10 months. It's one of the sites that I’ve always felt is one of the better sites in Los Angeles."

If Spanos was working on the site for 10 months and didn't bring the Raiders in until six weeks ago, it almost feels like the Raiders were an afterthought.

3. If Los Angeles and Oakland don't work out for the Raiders, don't look for the team in St. Louis.

One of the theories that's been thrown around with the Raiders is that they could be the team that ends up playing in St. Louis.

If St. Louis builds a new stadium, only to watch the Rams leave for Los Angeles, then St. Louis will likely be looking for a team to replace the Rams. They probably shouldn't look at the Raiders though. According to Davis, St. Louis isn't a city that's even on his radar.

Davis was specifically asked on Thursday if there were any other cities where the Raiders might end up -- besides Los Angeles or Oakland -- and he pretty much only ruled out one city: St. Louis.

"There are [other cities where we might end up]," Davis said. "I wouldn't say St. Louis is one of them, but there are other cities."

If Davis doesn't think St. Louis is a good fit for 'Raider nation,' it's unlikley he'd move the team there. One of the reason Davis didn't want to share a stadium with the 49ers is because he didn't think Santa Clara was a good fit for Raiders fans.

Anyway, Davis also offered one other nugget: He said that he hasn't spoken with Rams owner Stan Kroenke. That's important because one of the big questions surrounding a possible Raiders move to Southern California is this: What happens if the Chargers get a deal done in San Diego and the Raiders are left to fend for themselves?

"I don't know whether we would do it as a single team or try and do two team thing with another team," Davis said. "I certainly haven't [talked to Kroenke]."

If the Raiders are having trouble putting together a $1 billion deal in Oakland, it's almost impossible that they'd be able to put a $1.7 billion deal together by themselves in Carson.

On the other hand, maybe it's possible the Raiders do end up in LA by themselves.

This is only a theory, but if St. Louis agrees to build a new stadium and Kroenke likes the deal, maybe he keeps the Rams in St. Louis and lets the Raiders play in his Inglewood, Calif. stadium. Kroenke is the second richest owner in the NFL for a reason and that reason is because he's knows a good deal when he sees one. If he's making money off a new stadium in St. Louis and making money by letting the Raiders use his stadium in Inglewood, he'll he making a lot of money.

 

[tonyl711]

Do you even read the words you are arguing against? I'm done talking about this single issue you are trying to glom onto. It is clear you just want to argue. Yawn.

YAWN, clearly you think one city has to do something the other doesn't im bored with you too, Yawn.

 

[tonyl711]

I never said that it's not a waste of time and money if it's done in St Louis, I just think it depends on the support from the public.

There wasn't a vote , but the general consensus was all very positive from the citizens of Inglewood, the only real concerns were about increased traffic, not really about any funding. However it was a very small minority, otherwise the vast majority of people were all for it. You would have heard a lot more noise if there was enough concern from the public, but people were all talking about how excited they were for the project. Granted some of that is due to it being new and different, and there were other people that weren't from the city who made the trip in support, but you could just kind of tell they were all for it.

It's like porn, I can't define it for you, but I know it when I see it. You could see the support among those in Inglewood, hence why you heard very little opposition.

I have no idea what the support in St Louis is like, it sounds like it's pretty high, but with a larger city it's harder to get that read. If it's high as well, then I don't see why they shouldn't fast track things as well.

If there was a fuss in the city from a lot of citizens not being happy about the city council, I promise you St Louis would know about it, because anything that makes the Inglewood project seem less viable, is good for them. Similar to why there's not a lot of negative buzz from LA about the updated stadium plans, they're good plans.

where are these articles that say St Louis citizens don't want a new stadium?

 

[den-the-coach]

The only thing that would have pissed me off is if there were no emblem. What would truly bother me is if there is no stadium, the area stays blighted, and we have no football team.

So are you posting you don't care who you dance with? I guess we are different there I am a Ram fan, but I want the Rams in that stadium. However, I did root for the Rams when they were in Los Angeles so for me it's all about the Horns, but IMO, it would be sad if the people of St. Louis had to root for another football team that is why Peacock continues to stipulate..."Our focus are the Rams."

 

[bluecoconuts]

where are these articles that say St Louis citizens don't want a new stadium?

.... I don't know? As far as I know the citizens do want one...

 

[blue4]

So are you posting you don't care who you dance with? I guess we are different there I am a Ram fan, but I want the Rams in that stadium. However, I did root for the Rams when they were in Los Angeles so for me it's all about the Horns, but IMO, it would be sad if the people of St. Louis had to root for another football team that is why Peacock continues to stipulate..."Our focus are the Rams."

Oh I've been clear from the beginning I'm a St Louis football fan. Started at 8 yrs old with the Cardinals. Certainly, I want the Rams to stay. I've been a big fan for 20 years. Watched every game. I wouldn't be posting on here at all hours if I didn't care.
But the local aspect of having a team is what makes sports fun for me. The sports bar filled with the same jerseys cheering at the same time. When I was in the military we had 20 people wearing 20 jerseys arguing about which games were going to be on. Usually the owners went with the big market teams. It's just pathetic as a sports experience, and after 2 teams not worth the effort if caring IMO. And of course, no game to attend, no tickets to get, no excitement that everyone gets. That's one reason, the most important one.

Second, using your dance analogy, I'm not going to sit on the sides crying while my team dances with someone else. Some people may think that unreasonable. But our situation isn't like the Raiders or the Chargers. Our current stadium, while certainly not flashy, isn't falling apart. Our fan base supports the team, arguably far beyond what the product on the field deserves. Stan is trying to move because he wants to, not because he needs to, to increase the value. The fact is the value of the franchise would be better if they hadn't had a tradition of losing. Many will disagree but for me there it is in a small nutshell.

 

[RhodyRams]

YAWN, clearly you think one city has to do something the other doesn't im bored with you too, Yawn.

Dude...let's continue to keep this discussion civil please

 

[den-the-coach]

But our situation isn't like the Raiders or the Chargers. Our current stadium, while certainly not flashy, isn't falling apart. Our fan base supports the team, arguably far beyond what the product on the field deserves. Stan is trying to move because he wants to, not because he needs to, to increase the value. The fact is the value of the franchise would be better if they hadn't had a tradition of losing. Many will disagree but for me there it is in a small nutshell.

Great points I remember those sport bars (was in the military too) however, because myself and five other Ram fans were first in line they always put on our games. I concur about the stadium issue, but many in Los Angeles would debate that is how the people of St. Louis got the Rams in the first place making a deal with the devil "John Shaw" who ensured to have the special clause in there to ensure they always had a top tier stadium.

I agree with you about the product, it's been abysmal and has challenged the most loyal of Ram faithful and I have always posted that St. Louis football fans get a bum wrap and the reason they do is because they are such great baseball fans, but the Cardinals are always in contention plus nobody debates their passion about their hockey team and the Blues have never truly won a thing.

In the end @blue4 most of us are on the same page, but you also have to understand the Southern California fans who felt there was never a reason for Georgia to leave back then and the product was bad too albeit only five straight losing seasons.