- Joined
- Jun 3, 2014
- Messages
- 5,342
Regardless of the spinning of it, if it turns out that taxpayers of Inglewood get dinged, these "businessmen" deserve all the outrage they'd likely get.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
To unlock all of features of Rams On Demand please take a brief moment to register. Registering is not only quick and easy, it also allows you access to additional features such as live chat, private messaging, and a host of other apps exclusive to Rams On Demand.
- Status
Regardless of the spinning of it, if it turns out that taxpayers of Inglewood get dinged, these "businessmen" deserve all the outrage they'd likely get.
ZigZagRam
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,846
I'll tell you when you'll see the outrage. People are going to go nuts if it turns out they're not getting a stadium.
I would bet most of the people in Inglewood don't realize that's an option at this point.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,849
- Name
- Stu
Yep. I keep thinking about this. It is a very strong possibility and I would bet most of them just assume a stadium and NFL football is now on the horizon.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 23,002
- Name
- Dennis
Mayor Butts feels otherwise and has stated such, but I understand it's just politics.
The incomparable Mayor of Inglewood, James T. Butts, joined his favorite radio show for an entire hour and talked about the City of Champions project (which includes an NFL stadium to house Stan Kroenke’s Rams), did Roll Call, played a game of “Guess the Laugh”, and more! You can’t miss this hour of incredible radio with Fred Roggin and the mayor!
http://kfwbam.com/2015/03/04/inglewood-mayor-james-t-butts-in-studio-with-fred-roggin/
ZigZagRam
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,846
It would be very unbecoming if Butts came out this soon after a vote and said, "You know, it's possible we may not get a stadium."
That said, I don't think he's outright lying. I've heard Butts on several occasions, and I do believe he thinks he's getting an NFL team and stadium for Inglewood.
That said, I don't think he's outright lying. I've heard Butts on several occasions, and I do believe he thinks he's getting an NFL team and stadium for Inglewood.
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
Counting his chickens.....
He better hope that this goes thru. Can you say lame duck if it doesn't after all the talking?
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
No different from anyone else who's posturing for a new stadium in this. Any politician involved in this thing, for all cities, are at risk of public backlash if it falls through.
I don't think we'll hear any seed of doubt from the Mayor until he hears from Kroenke about maybe not funding it. Otherwise why say anything when you have the backing in place?
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,849
- Name
- Stu
Butts also denied that any team has said they were coming there. I think he is hopeful but being realistic. If he does know something, he seems smart enough to mind his tongue. I will say that the mayor is very well spoken and seems to be a very intelligent person. Kind of refreshing because intelligence is sorely missing from politics.
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2013
- Messages
- 23,002
- Name
- Dennis
I came away very impressed with Mayor Butts too...Former San Bernardino police chief and LAX security head quite impressive results in everything he's been assoicated with including turning around the city of Inglewood..I concur with you sir politics would be better served with more men like him.
Goose
GoosesGanders
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2015
- Messages
- 363
- Name
- Goose
Study: State would see payoff from building stadium for Rams
By Virginia Young
JEFFERSON CITY • A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly, even if taxpayers took on debt to help build the project, a state analysis projects.
The study, by the Missouri Department of Economic Development, predicts a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.
The biggest chunk of the money would come from personal income taxes paid by football players, staff and coaches. They will pump an estimated $9.6 million into state coffers this year, an amount that is projected to grow by at least 3 percent a year and probably, “significantly” more.
“I was very conservative on these estimates, and I think it shows a pretty good return” for the state, said Mike Downing, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development.
Downing, who presented the study to a House committee, said the analysis took into account only the direct benefits of building a new stadium and keeping an NFL team in St. Louis. He said there were “too many unknowns and variables” to calculate the project’s indirect benefits, such as money that players, coaches, stadium workers and fans would spend in the region.
The study drew polite but skeptical reviews from the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee. Some legislators questioned the premise for subsidizing a sports stadium.
“Why are we involved in this at all, rather than just letting private industry compete for it?” asked Rep. Tom Hurst, R-St. Thomas.
Dave Peacock, part of a two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to try to keep the Rams in St. Louis, said subsidies have become commonplace and “some level of public financing is going to be very important” to make the project happen.
Peacock said planners have received no guarantees from the NFL that St. Louis will continue to have a football team.
“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.
The Rams were bound by the team’s lease at the Edward Jones Dome to stay in St. Louis until 2025. But local officials failed to keep the dome in the “top tier” of NFL stadiums, as required by the lease, allowing the Rams to go year-to-year.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has announced plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles area. Under NFL relocation guidelines, teams must exhaust all efforts to settle stadium issues in their current markets before being allowed to move to other cities.
To keep the Rams in St. Louis, Peacock’s planning team has proposed a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on 90 acres along the Mississippi River, just north of downtown. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.
Benefits to the state would include upgrading the area and maintaining the tax base, Peacock said.
“It’s redeveloping an area that has been kind of ignored for years, for the most part,” he said.
Most of the public money would come from extending payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. Of that, the state pays $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep.
The Nixon administration contends the current stadium bonds could be extended without a vote of the Legislature. Some legislators oppose that approach and have filed bills to prevent Nixon from proceeding on his own.
The project also might be eligible for a total of about $50 million in tax credits from the Missouri Development Finance Board and the state’s brownfield program, which covers the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. Those subsidies are not counted in Downing’s analysis.
Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, asked the committee to examine the project’s costs and benefits. Committee Chairman Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said the panel would not try to determine whether the governor had the legal authority to extend the bonds.
In a statement she submitted, social welfare advocate Jeanette Mott Oxford of Empower Missouri cited studies that suggest the rate of return on investing in a stadium is extremely low — or even negative.
Tom Sullivan of University City attended the hearing on behalf of a group called the Coalition Against Public Financing for Stadiums. He said that because of local ordinances pushed by the coalition, any decision to extend the current stadium bonds would require voter approval in St. Louis and St. Louis County.
Talk of the governor extending the bonds on his own, Sullivan said, “should not be taken seriously.”
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html#.VP43M_CtHCI.twitter
By Virginia Young
JEFFERSON CITY • A new riverfront stadium for the St. Louis Rams would generate a net benefit for the state relatively quickly, even if taxpayers took on debt to help build the project, a state analysis projects.
The study, by the Missouri Department of Economic Development, predicts a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.
The biggest chunk of the money would come from personal income taxes paid by football players, staff and coaches. They will pump an estimated $9.6 million into state coffers this year, an amount that is projected to grow by at least 3 percent a year and probably, “significantly” more.
“I was very conservative on these estimates, and I think it shows a pretty good return” for the state, said Mike Downing, director of the Missouri Department of Economic Development.
Downing, who presented the study to a House committee, said the analysis took into account only the direct benefits of building a new stadium and keeping an NFL team in St. Louis. He said there were “too many unknowns and variables” to calculate the project’s indirect benefits, such as money that players, coaches, stadium workers and fans would spend in the region.
The study drew polite but skeptical reviews from the House Government Oversight and Accountability Committee. Some legislators questioned the premise for subsidizing a sports stadium.
“Why are we involved in this at all, rather than just letting private industry compete for it?” asked Rep. Tom Hurst, R-St. Thomas.
Dave Peacock, part of a two-man team appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to try to keep the Rams in St. Louis, said subsidies have become commonplace and “some level of public financing is going to be very important” to make the project happen.
Peacock said planners have received no guarantees from the NFL that St. Louis will continue to have a football team.
“What we have been told from the (National Football) League is, if you accomplish financing your portion and you can demonstrate you’ve got the property, the land and a design that works ... you will, quote, control your own destiny as it relates to an NFL team,” Peacock said.
The Rams were bound by the team’s lease at the Edward Jones Dome to stay in St. Louis until 2025. But local officials failed to keep the dome in the “top tier” of NFL stadiums, as required by the lease, allowing the Rams to go year-to-year.
Rams owner Stan Kroenke has announced plans to build an 80,000-seat stadium in the Los Angeles area. Under NFL relocation guidelines, teams must exhaust all efforts to settle stadium issues in their current markets before being allowed to move to other cities.
To keep the Rams in St. Louis, Peacock’s planning team has proposed a 64,000-seat, open-air stadium on 90 acres along the Mississippi River, just north of downtown. The new stadium would cost nearly $1 billion, with as much as $405 million paid by taxpayers.
Benefits to the state would include upgrading the area and maintaining the tax base, Peacock said.
“It’s redeveloping an area that has been kind of ignored for years, for the most part,” he said.
Most of the public money would come from extending payments that now go to pay off debt on the Edward Jones Dome. Of that, the state pays $12 million a year for Dome debt and upkeep.
The Nixon administration contends the current stadium bonds could be extended without a vote of the Legislature. Some legislators oppose that approach and have filed bills to prevent Nixon from proceeding on his own.
The project also might be eligible for a total of about $50 million in tax credits from the Missouri Development Finance Board and the state’s brownfield program, which covers the cost of cleaning up contaminated sites. Those subsidies are not counted in Downing’s analysis.
Speaker John Diehl, R-Town and Country, asked the committee to examine the project’s costs and benefits. Committee Chairman Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City, said the panel would not try to determine whether the governor had the legal authority to extend the bonds.
In a statement she submitted, social welfare advocate Jeanette Mott Oxford of Empower Missouri cited studies that suggest the rate of return on investing in a stadium is extremely low — or even negative.
Tom Sullivan of University City attended the hearing on behalf of a group called the Coalition Against Public Financing for Stadiums. He said that because of local ordinances pushed by the coalition, any decision to extend the current stadium bonds would require voter approval in St. Louis and St. Louis County.
Talk of the governor extending the bonds on his own, Sullivan said, “should not be taken seriously.”
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...e-9078-bb1ddb554da1.html#.VP43M_CtHCI.twitter
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2011
- Messages
- 1,209
- Name
- Edmond
lRelated
After investing five years and at least $50 million in an attempt to return the NFL to Los Angeles, AEG is abandoning plans for a downtown stadium.
The sports and entertainment conglomerate is no longer in discussions with the NFL or any teams about the Farmers Field project, company officials told The Times on Monday. AEG was the onetime front-runner in the competition to bring professional football back to the nation’s second-largest market.
“I think it’s fair to say we have turned our attention to proceeding with an alternative development,” AEG Vice Chairman Ted Fikre said.
Fikre said that AEG has informed city officials that it will not seek an extension of an April 17 deadline to secure a team. The deadline was previously extended six months.
Although some NFL owners and executives long favored the site and AEG spent millions to gain the needed entitlements for a stadium, the company ultimately failed to generate sufficient interest from any teams.
Eric Grubman, NFL executive vice president and point man for the league on L.A., said the league has been "very interested" in the downtown site and has spent significant time with senior members of AEG. “We would always prefer to have an excellent site in the mix, but we recognize that it is not in our control.”
Rival concepts in Inglewood and Carson, both backed by NFL owners, have overshadowed Farmers Field this year.
Last month, the Inglewood City Council approved an 80,000-seat stadium, whose developers include St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, at the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack. Meanwhile, supporters of a proposed stadium bankrolled by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders on a former landfill in Carson plan to start gathering signatures this week for a ballot initiative to move forward with the project.
Come back to latimes.com for updates on this story
Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
After investing five years and at least $50 million in an attempt to return the NFL to Los Angeles, AEG is abandoning plans for a downtown stadium.
The sports and entertainment conglomerate is no longer in discussions with the NFL or any teams about the Farmers Field project, company officials told The Times on Monday. AEG was the onetime front-runner in the competition to bring professional football back to the nation’s second-largest market.
“I think it’s fair to say we have turned our attention to proceeding with an alternative development,” AEG Vice Chairman Ted Fikre said.
Fikre said that AEG has informed city officials that it will not seek an extension of an April 17 deadline to secure a team. The deadline was previously extended six months.
Although some NFL owners and executives long favored the site and AEG spent millions to gain the needed entitlements for a stadium, the company ultimately failed to generate sufficient interest from any teams.
Eric Grubman, NFL executive vice president and point man for the league on L.A., said the league has been "very interested" in the downtown site and has spent significant time with senior members of AEG. “We would always prefer to have an excellent site in the mix, but we recognize that it is not in our control.”
Rival concepts in Inglewood and Carson, both backed by NFL owners, have overshadowed Farmers Field this year.
Last month, the Inglewood City Council approved an 80,000-seat stadium, whose developers include St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke, at the site of the old Hollywood Park racetrack. Meanwhile, supporters of a proposed stadium bankrolled by the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders on a former landfill in Carson plan to start gathering signatures this week for a ballot initiative to move forward with the project.
Come back to latimes.com for updates on this story
Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times
blue4
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2014
- Messages
- 3,126
- Name
- blue4
I assumed since the post I quoted said "talked about the City of Champions which includes a stadium to house Stan Kroenke’s Rams" that he would be talking about Stan Kroenke’s Rams coming to LA. Which to me seemed to be counting chickens. Again, being too lazy to use blue font for an off hand half joking remark...
Seriously though, the state of MO and the city of St Louis are probably not going to hold any politician accountable unless they register a vote against funding the stadium. We're pretty much aware that when your owner is planning to build in another city without offering any plan to you that it's an uphill battle. I mean, we've spent how many pages talking about whether or not the bylaws can hold him here, even with a stadium plan?
Seriously though, the state of MO and the city of St Louis are probably not going to hold any politician accountable unless they register a vote against funding the stadium. We're pretty much aware that when your owner is planning to build in another city without offering any plan to you that it's an uphill battle. I mean, we've spent how many pages talking about whether or not the bylaws can hold him here, even with a stadium plan?
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Interesting development with AEG pulling the downtown option off the table. Speaks volumes about the Inglewood/Carson projects. At least one of them is a big enough threat.
RAMbler
UDFA
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2014
- Messages
- 75
Yup. I think the writing was on the wall for AEG the minute SK purchased a football stadium sized piece of land in Inglewood.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,849
- Name
- Stu
Something I don't understand in extending the bonds and I assume I am just missing some information.
The debt service on the bonds is a shade under $5 million per year. The bonds expire in August of 2021. Am I wrong in assuming then that maintenance and upkeep costs roughly $7 million? I read an article that said it would be between $7 and 9 million from 2015 on.
I'm assuming maintenance needs won't go away just because the Rams leave the dome. Does the CVC then pick up that maintenance cost?
If the bonds don't expire for 6 1/2 more years, what will they be using up to that point to pay for construction? Do they have to pay Stan back for their portion? If not - are they essentially refinancing the bonds and rolling the left over $34 million into the new bond?
Being that the original bond was financing approx. $240 million in debt, where would the Governor get the other funds to finance the remaining $165 million? I don't know where the Governor's power to extend begins and ends. Can he extend them and increase them too? Do they have to come up with the other monies somewhere else? I see where they may be eligible for $50 million in Brownfield grants. What are the other funds they could get to fund construction? Anyone have an idea how much they are talking about for naming rights?
I just am not seeing how these numbers add up. It would appear that the Governor would still need to garner additional funding even if the CVC is able to pay for upkeep of the Dome through additional events once the Rams leave for the new venue.
Has anyone seen the actual financing plan? Should be excruciatingly boring reading but have some good info in it.
The debt service on the bonds is a shade under $5 million per year. The bonds expire in August of 2021. Am I wrong in assuming then that maintenance and upkeep costs roughly $7 million? I read an article that said it would be between $7 and 9 million from 2015 on.
I'm assuming maintenance needs won't go away just because the Rams leave the dome. Does the CVC then pick up that maintenance cost?
If the bonds don't expire for 6 1/2 more years, what will they be using up to that point to pay for construction? Do they have to pay Stan back for their portion? If not - are they essentially refinancing the bonds and rolling the left over $34 million into the new bond?
Being that the original bond was financing approx. $240 million in debt, where would the Governor get the other funds to finance the remaining $165 million? I don't know where the Governor's power to extend begins and ends. Can he extend them and increase them too? Do they have to come up with the other monies somewhere else? I see where they may be eligible for $50 million in Brownfield grants. What are the other funds they could get to fund construction? Anyone have an idea how much they are talking about for naming rights?
I just am not seeing how these numbers add up. It would appear that the Governor would still need to garner additional funding even if the CVC is able to pay for upkeep of the Dome through additional events once the Rams leave for the new venue.
Has anyone seen the actual financing plan? Should be excruciatingly boring reading but have some good info in it.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,849
- Name
- Stu
Funny they would take a few shots across the bow first at the Inglewood project. If I were a betting man, I'd say one of two things lead to that. Either the Inglewood project blew AEG out of the running and they were pissed or they are possibly trying to partner up on the Carson project - maybe both.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 34,849
- Name
- Stu
These numbers are way off according to the bizjournals website. Apparently there is still $100 million in unpaid debt on the construction of the Ed that cost $256 million to build. http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...-of-intention-to-play-in-edward.html?page=all
Is this $100 million part of the projected $985 million for building the new stadium? I'm just not following how this all adds up. I'm sure the Governor has a plan. Does anyone know any details?
bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
It could also be because if the Inglewood project were to get done it's more of a threat to LA Live than if the Carson project is the one that gets built.
TSFH Fan
Epic Music Guy
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2014
- Messages
- 1,483
Farmers Insurance had a 30 year $600M naming rights deal with AEG. Looks like Farmers now gets to plant its name elsewhere.
Sponsoring the Inglewood stadium while rolling out a new line of Terrorism Risk Insurance would be nice.
RIP Farmers Field:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFyFCuBgRTA
ZigZagRam
Pro Bowler
- Joined
- May 12, 2014
- Messages
- 1,846
Here's a lengthy interview with the Chargers' stadium point-man Mark Fabiani:
http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/mark-fabiani-39-with-scott-and-br/
A few things to take away:
- Nobody has come up with an idea they hadn't already entertained.
- They will be at the owners meetings to update their stadium progress.
- No way to avoid the 2/3 vote.
- Creating an infrastructure district would not solve financing issues for the stadium itself.
Not promising if you're a Chargers fan. Promising if you're a fan of the Chargers relocating to Los Angeles.
http://www.mighty1090.com/episode/mark-fabiani-39-with-scott-and-br/
A few things to take away:
- Nobody has come up with an idea they hadn't already entertained.
- They will be at the owners meetings to update their stadium progress.
- No way to avoid the 2/3 vote.
- Creating an infrastructure district would not solve financing issues for the stadium itself.
Not promising if you're a Chargers fan. Promising if you're a fan of the Chargers relocating to Los Angeles.
- Status