New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[LesBaker]

Ya it'll be chaos if he straight up says the Rams are coming. He does say that the 2 party's involved in the carson project have not committed into playing in la Bc they're trying to get stadiums in their cities. If you read between the lines it means that the Rams aren't trying to get a stadium in STL and that Stan has committed into moving in the ingelwood project. Listen I ain't no expert into politics and such. It's just my opinion.

Mkay reading bewteen the lines that says they are using this as leverage LOL.

See what I did there?

 

[RhodyRams]

I haven't paid much attention to this in a week or so. Last I checked it looked like St Louis was getting their stadium and San Diego/Oakland were moving to LA. Is that still the vibe?

you got the right idea brother !!!

I was sitting here for 2 weeks trying to keep all the stories straight, and basically gave up. I think once golf season starts here I wont even be posting in this thread until an official announcement by the NFL is made.

 

[Goose]

Costello: What's the teams name in St. Louis
Abbott: No What's the teams name in Oakland

Costello: I'm not asking you Who's in Oakland
Abbott: Who's in St. Louis

Costello: I Don't Know
Abbott: That's the team in Los Angeles we aren't talking about them.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

The president is getting involved now lol

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...taxpayer-subsidized-sports-stadiums/24845355/



Is Obama proposal the end of taxpayer-subsidized sports stadiums?
If President Obama has his way, the nation's taxpayers would not help finance a new arena proposed for the Milwaukee Bucks professional basketball team.

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

The proposal comes as many team owners are pressing cities and states for new facilities, with some threatening to move elsewhere if they don't get them. State and local officials are wary of seeing pro teams depart, taking prestige and tax revenue with them. But they are also taxpayer-minded and budget-conscious.

Dennis Zimmerman, an economist who worked for the Congressional Budget Office and is now director of projects for the American Tax Policy Institute, is a longtime critic of the financing. He said the president is right in proposing to eliminate the subsidies that benefit often wealthy professional team owners.

"I'm glad he put it in the budget," Zimmerman said. "Tax-exempt bonds are supposed to be for state and local infrastructure" and not private business.

But politicians and pro-growth business advocates say stadium construction creates jobs, promotes economic development and boosts ancillary retail businesses, such as restaurants, which benefit from having a team in town. They say the teams generate income and sales tax revenue. For their part, team owners are more than happy to get the financial help.

In Wisconsin, Republican Gov. Scott Walker in January proposed funding a $470 million arena for the Bucks with the help of $220 million in state bonds as part of his budget plan.

Walker said that without a new arena, the Bucks would "likely leave Wisconsin in 2017, costing the state nearly $10 million per year in income tax collections alone."

The proposal is drawing criticism from conservatives such as the Wisconsin chapter of the free-market group Americans for Prosperity. State director David Fladeboe said the group is "disappointed that the (governor's) budget still plans to use public funds on the Milwaukee arena."

Laurel Patrick, Walker's spokeswoman, said that until Congress acts, the governor is undeterred.

"If the president's proposal is approved by Congress, we will review the proposal to determine if there is any impact on the Bucks' … arena plan," Patrick said.

OTHERS WANT NEW FACILITIES

Fearing it could lose the Rams or its designation as an NFL city, St. Louis is looking for a new facility that would meet the requirements the National Football League expects of stadiums its teams play in.

Dave Peacock, a former Anheuser Busch executive who is spearheading the drive to keep St. Louis an NFL city, regardless of whether the Rams stay, told a Missouri House committee earlier this month that building a new stadium is the key.

He told lawmakers that the NFL has made it clear that if there's public financing, a good location and land, and a stadium design that meets the league's criteria, "you control your own destiny.'' The implied threat is that if the city cannot assemble those elements, St. Louis will not have an NFL team.

Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat, has said losing the Rams would cost the state at least $10 million a year.

In California, state and Oakland city officials, along with economic development entities, are working on a plan designed to head off the potential defection of all three of Oakland's major professional teams: The NFL Raiders, Major League Baseball's Athletics and the NBA's Golden State Warriors.

The city is looking to construct "Coliseum City," with new sports facilities for all three teams and retail, residential, commercial and industrial components.

In Minneapolis, construction is underway for a new nearly $1 billion roofed football stadium that has been chosen to host the 2018 Super Bowl and the 2019 Final Four, the climax of the NCAA's annual men's basketball tournament. It's being financed with nearly $500 million from the city and state using federally tax-exempt bonds.

The city maintains that the new construction has also spurred construction of new office space, apartments and a medical clinic near the new stadium.

Michele Kelm-Helgen, chairwoman of the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority, said the benefits are already evident.

"We already have over $800 million in development in the few plots around the stadium," she said. "All of them have indicated the reason they are making the investment is that they want to be part of this stadium complex."

She said the development includes two office towers being built by Wells Fargo and a hotel project, along with other office buildings and a clinic.

"It's no longer speculation as to what kind of economic development has resulted from the stadium," she said. "It's actual proof."

UP TO CONGRESS

What Congress will do with the president's proposal to eliminate the tax exemption is uncertain. But tax writers have said that making comprehensive tax changes is not out of the question this year.

Obama has changed his mind on the issue. In a 2007 presidential primary debate, he was asked whether he made the right vote in the Illinois legislature to finance an upgrade of Chicago's Soldier Field, where the NFL Chicago Bears play.

"Absolutely, it was the right call because it put a whole bunch of Illinois folks to work, strong labor jobs were created in this stadium, and at the same time, we created an enormous opportunity for economic growth throughout the city of Chicago. And that's good for the state of Illinois," Obama responded.

But according to his budget, he now sees tax-free bond financing as setting up an unfair market.

"Allowing tax-exempt governmental bond financing of stadiums transfers the benefits of tax-exempt financing to private professional sports teams because these private parties benefit from significant use of the facilities," the U.S. Treasury's "Green Book" said in its explanation of the budget. "State and local governments subsidize that use with taxes or other governmental payments to enable the facilities to qualify for tax-exempt governmental bond financing."

The Bloomberg analysis found that in the past 25 years, some 22 NFL teams have played in stadiums that were built or renovated using tax-free public borrowing. Sixty-four other teams — baseball, hockey and basketball — also play in arenas constructed with similar financing.

Over the life of the $17 billion of exempt debt issued to build stadiums since 1986, Bloomberg said, taxpayer subsidies to bondholders will total $4 billion.

The tax-free bond provision dates to the 1986 Tax Reform Act. The authors of the bill actually sought to restrict the use of public subsidies for sports teams. The law said that no more than 10% of tax-exempt bonds' debt could be repaid by ticket sales or concession — a provision its authors thought would deter using them to finance stadiums because cities and states wouldn't want to obligate taxpayers to pay off the rest of the financing.

But it didn't work. The bonds became attractive to investors because states and cities got creative in the ways they paid off the rest of the bond obligations.

According to Zimmerman, they've often stuck tourists with the bill by imposing hotel and rental car taxes that raise "a whopping amount of money that's paying off a stadium." Or, he said, they're "sticking constituents with the tax bill."

Stateline is a nonpartisan, nonprofit news service of the Pew Charitable Trusts that provides daily reporting and analysis on trends in state policy.

 

[beej]

That's a good sign for Stl. If Obama hates it, our congress usually likes it. nothing changes a party platform faster. LOL

 

[den-the-coach]

That's a good sign for Stl. If Obama hates it, our congress usually likes it. nothing changes a party platform faster. LOL

If there ever was a time for Theodore "T.R." Roosevelt Jr., It is Now!

 

[rhinobean]

I'm of the mind that the bonds financed through taxes on hotel rooms/entertainment is the right way to do it! Think that this issue is not for the feds to decide! Too much big government in the wrong places! Better they should fix the infrascructure of the highway system and let states/locals decide on whats best for their area!

 

[BuiltRamTough]

That's why here in Cali man we vote on everything. If these billion dollar owners want a new stadium let them build it on their own dime.

 

[DaveFan'51]

That's why here in Cali man we vote on everything. If these billion dollar owners want a new stadium let them build it on their own dime.

I live in Calif. and I like the way we do it!! I thought it was this way in every state, If not it should be. Let the people vote on these bond issues, it's their Tax dollars that pay for it! The Feds should butt-out!

 

[BuiltRamTough]

I live in Calif. and I like the way we do it!! I thought it was this way in every state, If not it should be. Let the people vote on these bond issues, it's their Tax dollars that pay for it! The Feds should butt-out!

Exactly. That's is what that Ryan Silvey guy is saying. Just like in Jerfferson city when the loacal taxpayers voted and approved 400 mil on the arrowhead renovation project. If STL really is a football town I see no reason why a public vote won't pass.

 

[rdw]

 

[TSFH Fan]

Nor would taxpayer-financed, tax-free bonds be used to help finance a new stadium being discussed in St. Louis for the NFL Rams, or in Oakland for a new complex aimed at keeping the area's professional football, baseball and basketball franchises from leaving town.

An obscure item in the president's new budget would put an end to the long-standing practice of states and cities using tax-exempt bonds to finance professional sports arenas, a practice that costs the U.S. Treasury $146 million, according to a 2012 Bloomberg analysis.

the U.S. Treasury's "Green Book" said in its explanation of the budget.

Well, hold up now -- and this is directed at USA Today and not the poster. The Treasury's "Green Book" is linked via the word "said" above (http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/Documents/General-Explanations-FY2016.pdf). The bond stuff is on page 85 and ends with this line "The proposal would be effective for bonds issued after December 31, 2015."

Assuming StL. stadium is publically financed through an "extension" of existing bonds, then this Fed. bond proposal in the USA Today article would appear not to apply, no?

Again, I have no dispute with the poster, just the USA Today article.

 

[den-the-coach]

Stan Kroenke's silence raises questions about Rams' future

http://www.komu.com/news/st-louis-rams-stan-kroenke-jay-nixon-66971/

ST. LOUIS - State leaders are attempting to come up with a realistic way to keep St. Louis a NFL city and avoid a possible void in the presence of a professional football team. In this rapid process, however, Rams stakeholders seem to be on a different page.

Stan Kroenke, the owner of the St. Louis Rams, hasn't talked to the public since he introduced Jeff Fisher as head coach in 2012. Even Rams beat writer Jim Thomas, who used to get an exclusive interview with Kroenke every March, has been cut off from his source.

"It's been a minute, as the kids say, since Stan has talked to the media," Thomas said. "I've been shut down on that. I've gone back and forth on that many times with the people that are involved with Mr. Kroenke."

Even though he has been quiet, Kroenke made a substantial purchase in January 2014, when the Missouri billionaire bought a 60-acre lot in Inglewood, California. Thomas said the potential use of this land is obvious.

"You don't go through all that just for a leverage move," Thomas said. "He wants to move the Rams to L.A., to Inglewood. It's very clear now, whether he's enunciated that to anyone, public or not."

The Rams currently play in the Edward Jones Dome, which is run by the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission (CVC). The team pays the CVC $250,000 a year to rent eight regular season games in the dome.

Even before Kroenke's purchase, the Rams and the CVC had multiple discussions about upgrading the Dome. However, none of the talks resulted in substantial changes.

Tim McKernan of CBS Radio 920 in St. Louis said a key reason for the lack of progress is the CVC's $124 million proposal to upgrade the Dome.

"There was a very lackluster proposal put on the table by the CVC in St. Louis," McKernan said. "The Rams' standpoint was that was the time for St. Louis to act and there was no action."

Thomas said, "It was laughable."

The 30-year lease the team signed when the team moved from Anaheim, California to St. Louis in 1995 required the Dome to remain in the "first tier" of all NFL stadiums every 10 years. If not, the team is allowed to switch to year-to-year leasing.

"One hundred and twenty four million to reach top tier status? I don't know if your viewers have been to many of these stadiums, but they are palaces now. I'm not saying it's necessarily right, but it's just the cost of doing business in the NFL," Thomas said.

The Rams marked their 20th year in the Dome by notifying the CVC in January that the team would be shifting to a year-by-year lease agreement.

"With year-by-year, you can play that one year, and then once that year is over, you can move," Thomas said. "And that's where we're at now with the Rams."

Gov. Jay Nixon has been ramping up his actions despite Kroenke's silence. In December, the governor assembled a task force to look at the Rams situation. The task force consists of attorney Bob Blitz and former Anheuser Busch executive Dave Peacock. They are working to come up with a plan for a new St. Louis stadium and released renderings of the proposed stadium on March 2.

"The biggest frustration on the part of the Rams has been no activity from the state, the city and the county," McKernan said. "Well, now they have their activity. What did it take? It took Stan Kroenke announcing the Inglewood project."

Thomas said it's possible Kroenke is actually the instigator.

"There are some people, and I won't give you names, who would think that the Kroenke people found out about the St. Louis plan and they announced their Inglewood thing to kind of trump or to one up," Thomas said.

Former Rams Super Bowl Champion, running back Marshall Faulk, talked with CBS Radio 920 before this year's Super Bowl. He said, no matter who acted first, St. Louis stakeholders might be acting too late.

"I haven't spoke on this in this manner yet, but I'm going to say it," Faulk said. "I'm disappointed that the powers to be in the city of St. Louis waited until now to make a proposal."

As a part of the early proposal for the new stadium by the riverfront, Nixon talked with Ameren Missouri and the Terminal Railroad Association (TRRA) about relocating some of their infrastructure. Nixon said Ameren committed to moving two transmission towers and power lines while TRRA agreed to relocate tracks that intersect the land the stadium would be built on.

Nixon said the railroad changes would cost approximately $3 million, but TRRA's chief legal officer Asim Raza said, "We are very hesitant to give that number. Governor Nixon had said three million, but it could be more than that. We don't exactly know how much more."

Even though Nixon has said the proposed site is mostly full of vacant lots and vacant buildings, Al's Restaurant remains in the area and has plenty of St. Louis history behind it.

The restaurant opened in 1925 and is the oldest same-family and same-location restaurant in St. Louis. Pam Neal is the owner and said she is frustrated with the lack of communication.

"We really have not heard from anyone directly from the governor's office or from the regional sports authority," Neal said. "As small as we are, and as little as an impact we would have toward the stadium plan, it is our hopes that we can talk to someone and see about keeping us around. I would have hoped that they would have reached out to us since we have been here, we've been part of the St. Louis history and culture."

Caleb Rowden, the 44th District State Representative and Chair of the House Economic Development Committee, said, "There's any number of credits that could potentially be useful in this regard. So any of those bills would go through my committee, so that is kind of where my relevancy lies right now."

Rowden and Nixon had different predictions about how taxpayers will be impacted.

Rowden said, "The governor's going to have to be very creative and very intentional about making sure that at the end of the day that we're not throwing a bunch of new taxpayer dollars at this. He will need to find a way to do this to where there's not going to be a huge cost to the taxpayer."

Nixon said, "He's wrong. I don't know why I need to expand on somebody who is making up things. But the bottom line is I have laid out six principles. Protects taxpayers is one of those. No new additional tax burden."

Some Rams supporters call Kroenke "Silent Stan" and say he is driving much of the confusion and miscommunication.

"If Stan isn't going to tell us what he's going to do with the team, there's no commitment on his part," long-time Rams fan Dave King said. "In my professional life, if I would make that kind of decision, I would lose my job. I cannot support an owner that will not practice any type of ethics in his negotiations. I can buy tickets off StubHub for half what I pay Stan every year and still go to the game and get better seats."

Thomas said fans should not forget what comes before "Rams."

"When you own a sports franchise, a professional sports franchise, it's a public trust. When the Rams go out on the field, it doesn't say ‘Kroenke Rams.' You know, it doesn't say ‘Kroenke Enterprises' or ‘THF.' It says ‘St. Louis Rams.' And he's got a lot of money, but this market helped enrich him, too."

It is even unclear if Nixon has talked to Kroenke.

When asked about his communication with Kroenke during a teleconference in November of 2014, Nixon said, "We've remained in good communication throughout all of this, obviously, with everybody."

He said on February 24, "I've not talked to Stan."

Whatever the future holds for the Rams, McKernan said most people he talks to just want answers.

"Stan Kroenke just issuing a statement – anything – would be more valuable than a ten win-season because the people of this city are convinced that he's taking this team and moving it."

Rowden said the task force has to look into many different options with the proposed stadium.

"There's a scenario that the Rams leave and another football team comes," Rowden said. "Jacksonville is not necessarily solid. Carolina's not necessarily solid. San Diego and Oakland. There's a number of conversations that we have to engage in, and one is, you know, how realistic that we keep the Rams?"

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell told the league this past December he would not be accepting any relocation applications for the 2015 season. January 1, 2016 will be the first day teams can officially apply for relocation.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

Spanos out of hiding, now just waiting
Dean Spanos is going to have to be impressed.

That was what seemed most clear Monday as the Chargers president made his first public comments this year on his team's stadium quest.

The onus is on the Citizens Stadium Advisory Group to, essentially, make it feasible for the Chargers to remain in San Diego.

“I’m anxiously awaiting what the mayor and the task force come up with,” Spanos said at least four times during a 40-minute conversation Monday morning in the conference room adjacent to his Chargers Park office.

That was the only answer he would give to the question of whether he will be surprised if the task force presents a financing plan the team deems acceptable and also whether he is skeptical about that possibility, as many sources have indicated is the case.

“I’ve said we want to be here,” Spanos said. “We’ve tried to be here, but the nature of the deal is going to make the difference.”

Also evident from Spanos’ comments is that we will almost certainly know by the start of the NFL season whether there is a chance the Chargers remain in San Diego or plan to move to Los Angeles.

“Everybody is going to have a very good idea where this thing is going to go in the next few months,” he said.

Task force members have said they do not expect to submit a “perfect” ready-to-build plan, and the Chargers don’t expect to receive one.

“We’re going to take their proposal very seriously,” Spanos said. “I’m sure we’re going to have our consultants look at it. We’re going to take some time and look it over very thoroughly. In any type of proposal there is always negotiations that go on to get to a finalized deal.”

Spanos estimated that vetting and haggling process could take approximately two months after the task force submits its financing proposal for the development they announced last week would be in Mission Valley. That report is expected by May 20.

The task force, according to two sources, has a “significant amount of work done in terms of establishing a cost” for the stadium and believes that price tag will be around $1.2 billion. The group believes that would provide many, but definitely not all, of the amenities in other recently built stadiums.

Spanos said it was impossible to project whether that would be acceptable to the Chargers without seeing what is proposed.

“It has to be able to be competitive with the rest of the teams in the league and market sizes,” he said. “This is all about generating revenues and being competitive. You want to also have a stadium in this city to host Super Bowls. There is a lot of infrastructure that goes into those stadiums that can support a Super Bowl … This is about maintaining competitive balance, and stadiums are very important to that.”

Spanos said he is willing to stay in San Diego for less than what he’d make in Los Angeles – both in terms of premium seats and sponsorships and team value.

“I’m hoping there is a proposal and a deal that may not be as lucrative or have the upside L.A. has, but if it can keep us competitive,” he said. “… That’s the most important thing to me. We have to be able to acquire the layers, the front office personnel and run our business like the rest of the teams in the league. This is a big business. It gets back to survival. You don’t want to be 32nd in the league in terms of revenues and in terms of everything.”

Spanos said he isn’t concentrating on specific monetary details in Los Angeles or San Diego, which really meant he didn’t want to discuss them. The team has, after all, said it believes it can sell $500 million in personal seat licenses in Los Angeles, and investment banker Goldman Sachs two weeks ago presented to a committee of team owners a financing plan for the Chargers and Oakland Raiders’ proposed stadium in Carson.

Asked if he could provide any evidence to refute skeptics who believe that Carson is not a viable plan and simply a leverage play by the Chargers, Spanos confidently replied, “Just be patient.”

He referred to the team moving forward in Los Angeles as a contingency to protect its business.

“We’ve always said we wanted to be here, and we still do,” Spanos said. “… We have nothing (in San Diego) after 14 years, so we have to look at alternatives. There are no guarantees on anything. We are going to continue to work with the task force here, but at the end of the day we have to have an alternative, an option.”

Asked how much money he is willing to contribute to stadium construction in San Diego, Spanos said, “I’m not going to throw out any numbers. That’s not fair until I see what they have to say.”

It is believed, based on discussions over the years with Spanos and others, that the team’s maximum contribution would be around $200 million, plus a $200 million loan from the NFL. That would leave at least $800 million to be financed by the city, county, taxpayers and other sources.

“The task force is supposedly coming up with where the location is and I guess the size of the stadium and the cost of the stadium and the economics of the stadium,” Spanos said. “Until I see the proposal, I can’t answer that question. It’s really kind of going to be interesting, for sure. I’m anxiously waiting to see what the task force comes back with.”

It’s clear how important it is that we all are.

 

[RamFan503]

That's why here in Cali man we vote on everything. If these billion dollar owners want a new stadium let them build it on their own dime.

That's all great and I know you are not commenting on the situation in St Louis in particular but the Federal Gov't needs to but out when it comes to state taxes and in state expenditures.

 

[bluecoconuts]

That's all great and I know you are not commenting on the situation in St Louis in particular but the Federal Gov't needs to but out when it comes to state taxes and in state expenditures.

Plus most of the time the direct democracy in California sucks. It's really easy to get people to vote for that new school library, then when its time to gather signatures to pay for it.....

 

[RamBill]

Rams Owner Set On Moving Team To L.A.
ESPN The Magazine’s David Fleming talks about how far Rams owner Stan Kroenke will go in order to get his team to Los Angeles.

Watch Fleming Talk Kroenke

 

[Goose]

Rams Owner Set On Moving Team To L.A.
ESPN The Magazine’s David Fleming talks about how far Rams owner Stan Kroenke will go in order to get his team to Los Angeles.

Watch Fleming Talk Kroenke

I don't understand why columnist continue to regurgitate old news and try to make it new. No where in his comments did he talks about the Carson Project, the Task Forces efforts in any of the cities, or how Stan going to court would not only be the worse thing for the NFL but also for Stan. This board has more up to date information on it than ESPN apparently does.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I don't understand why columnist continue to regurgitate old news and try to make it new. No where in his comments did he talks about the Carson Project, the Task Forces efforts in any of the cities, or how Stan going to court would not only be the worse thing for the NFL but also for Stan. This board has more up to date information on it than ESPN apparently does.

How is court the worst thing for Stan?

 

[Legatron4]

How is court the worst thing for Stan?

From what I heard, Stan has to prove that St.Louis cannot support a team. He can't just move the team to make more money. If he goes to court I think it will just make him look bad and it will prolong any process. Idk, I'm probably wrong.