New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

  • 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
Not open for further replies.

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
How about nothing at all, or something that would be simply just passed off as "GM Speak" - not the complete opposite of what one incompetent owner said.

I think it was party due to Jerry Jones saying Kroenke could do as he pleased. That somewhat forced him into making a statement, otherwise they looked weak. Same thing with the "Oh he didn't know what he was saying, he just lost a big playoff game" crap when Jones made the statement before his team was eliminated.

ol he doesn't also the most track record of success lately either - he still believes his salary cap dumping wasn't wrong (and unsurprisingly, the other owners not named snyder disagreed with him)

I think that was more in tune of a coach bitching about a call, he just bitched to bitch, rather than tried to take on the league.

It is true, but the ball is firmly in STL's court right now, but Stan's asking price is still high. I do believe Stan will come to the table once he truly believe he had bled STL all he can. The city and state aren't there yet so we have a ways to go. He does have to come to the table at some point to finalize the decision either way and to show good faith.

His demands are far less than what Spanos is asking from San Diego, I don't think him coming to the table is needed to excuse leaving, otherwise Spanos would qualify even less than Kroenke does. If the NFL were to block Stan with that reason, and then let Spanos go, it could open them up for a case.
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620
I think that was more in tune of a coach bitching about a call, he just bitched to bitch, rather than tried to take on the league.

uhh what? you do remember the redskins and cowboys salary cap dumping right?


His demands are far less than what Spanos is asking from San Diego, I don't think him coming to the table is needed to excuse leaving, otherwise Spanos would qualify even less than Kroenke does. If the NFL were to block Stan with that reason, and then let Spanos go, it could open them up for a case.

Spanos doesn't have a city trying to build a stadium and has been attempting much,much longer
 

RedAlice

UDFA
Joined
Feb 2, 2015
Messages
30
Name
Alice
I was in STl last week. I asked everyone I met the exact same questions that I ask the Charger fans.

Shane, Peackock. all......how come when I am IN STL and I ask the Random PERSON: none of them sound like those of you who post here?
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
It is true, but the ball is firmly in STL's court right now, but Stan's asking price is still high. I do believe Stan will come to the table once he truly believe he had bled STL all he can. The city and state aren't there yet so we have a ways to go. He does have to come to the table at some point to finalize the decision either way and to show good faith.
There is nothing STL can offer Stan that could rival what he will get in LA. Unless they magically make the value of the Rams go up from 32nd to top 10 maybe top 5. He will own the stadium in LA. Whatever event goes on there raging from the final four to motor cross Super Bowl college bowl games etc will go into the pocket of Stan. He's a business man that has invested 100 mil to buy the land and other 1.66 bill to build the thing. He will attract more free agents more prime time games etc. The prestige the pizzaz by owning a NFL team in LA. To say STL will offer him more then that is crazy. He has to give 250 mill not own the stadium and his team might still be worth 32nd in th league. The difference between Spanos and Davis is they keep on saying they want to stay in their city. Stan doesn't talk but doesn't answer phone calls. Kevin Demoff doest even say there no.1 priority is to stay in STL. He doesn't want to stay there. He is just keeping his option open by sending Demoff to talk with peacock just in case the chargers and raiders can't get a stadium and the NFL has no other choice to make him stay in STL assuming they get a stadium. The idea that Stan wants to stay in STL is crazy.
 
Last edited:

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,628
Name
Stu
View attachment 5737

I just believe this is a tremendous opportunity for STL to have a world class down town. The river is iconic, the arch is too, and then you have an incredibly unique stadium right on the river. It's too good to pass up. And the impact of not pulling the trigger on this would be a huge step back for the city. Like I said, I don't see the finances not coming on. It will get done. Only a complete lack of vision from the state, city, and citizens will end this project. And I do believe they will be more open minded when the team rocks this year.
Right on man. That is where it's at. I really do hope you are right because the whole thing looks bitchin with a few minor tweaks - hell.. even without them. If they could move the LA project to overlook the Pacific it might be better but - seriously... Waterfront - I'm there.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,628
Name
Stu
I think they vetoed two bills last year didn't they?
Don't know. I only Googled it and posted on the one that came up first that had both Nixon and veto override in common. I thought this one was specially pertinent in that it was on a gun issue where you rarely have that kind of overwhelming support. If they can put together an override on that issue, I'd have to think that virtually any other issue would be potentially easier. I can't see a veto standing through a unanimous vote if the bill I brought up was able to beat a veto.

You no doubt know me as a pro 2nd Amendment guy so I'm not gauging the support of gun rights in that area. I'm just looking at it as a situation where there is rarely that kind of support for a pro 2nd Amendment bill that has been vetoed by the Governor. If they can get around a veto on that issue, all bets are off on this one.
 

RamFan503

Grill and Brew Master
Moderator
Joined
Jun 24, 2010
Messages
34,628
Name
Stu
Yes and no. It is leverage to negotiate the best possible deal for his team but it is also a exit strategy if a deal can't get done. If the task group and the city stumble in its quest they might not get a second chance.
I agree. Don't expect a second chance. Get it done and don't stumble. The whole concept of the Arch and the riverfront looks too cool to let pass by.

You're correct 2/3. I thought the special session to over turn the Governs veto on open gun control was interesting.

In what way? I have to admit that I don't really get the politics of your region. Was there something glaring that the Governor didn't see when he vetoed the bill? Or was there some sort of statement he was making by vetoing it when maybe he knew it would pass anyway?

You can leave the gun issue totally out of it if you'd like as I don't want this to turn political. I'm more interested in the dynamics in MO in regards to overriding a veto.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
uhh what? you do remember the redskins and cowboys salary cap dumping right?

I'm likely misremembering, but I thought he complained about it and hinted about looking at legal options, but otherwise nothing really happened.

Don't know. I only Googled it and posted on the one that came up first that had both Nixon and veto override in common. I thought this one was specially pertinent in that it was on a gun issue where you rarely have that kind of overwhelming support. If they can put together an override on that issue, I'd have to think that virtually any other issue would be potentially easier. I can't see a veto standing through a unanimous vote if the bill I brought up was able to beat a veto.

You no doubt know me as a pro 2nd Amendment guy so I'm not gauging the support of gun rights in that area. I'm just looking at it as a situation where there is rarely that kind of support for a pro 2nd Amendment bill that has been vetoed by the Governor. If they can get around a veto on that issue, all bets are off on this one.


I think the other was an abortion bill, there was a veto of a bill that required longer wait times, and they overrode it at the same time as the gun bill. Also a pretty hot topic though.

Looking at an article, it says they beat the abortion bill 117-44 and 23-7 vote to stop a filibuster in the senate, and the gun law was 23-8 in the Senate and 117-39 in the house.

So the senate for this bill is already in better shape for any potential veto, it'll depend on how the house votes. If at least roughly 108 (going off the top of my head, if it's 163 members in the House) vote in favor, then I don't think Nixon would bother with a veto, because both have enough to override it.

Interesting to see how that shakes out. I think they would get the approval for the stadium via the public anyway though.
 

bluecoconuts

Legend
Joined
May 28, 2011
Messages
13,073
Was there something glaring that the Governor didn't see when he vetoed the bill? Or was there some sort of statement he was making by vetoing it when maybe he knew it would pass anyway?

I think it was just making a statement. The bill said that because Missouri state has said they're open carry, other local municipalities cannot ban open carry (some were talking about it), and the state law trumped them. Lowered the age for a CCW from 21 to 19, and finally allows people to carry on school as long as they have training. Typically speaking Missouri is pro-gun though, at least at the state level. One of few (or maybe the only one) where they accept a CCW from any other state (other than Vermont).
 

iced

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2013
Messages
6,620

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
I think it was party due to Jerry Jones saying Kroenke could do as he pleased. That somewhat forced him into making a statement, otherwise they looked weak. Same thing with the "Oh he didn't know what he was saying, he just lost a big playoff game" crap when Jones made the statement before his team was eliminated.



I think that was more in tune of a coach bitching about a call, he just bitched to bitch, rather than tried to take on the league.



His demands are far less than what Spanos is asking from San Diego, I don't think him coming to the table is needed to excuse leaving, otherwise Spanos would qualify even less than Kroenke does. If the NFL were to block Stan with that reason, and then let Spanos go, it could open them up for a case.

Stan hasn't made any demands as far as I know. I don't think the EJD arbitration can be considered a real offer, as neither side had any intention of continuing the lease. It's mutually beneficial for both sides for the Rams not to be there in the dome.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
You mean cuz he's lived there 67 years?
What? Lol we're taking about the stadium not where he wants to sleep at nights. Besides he has a house in Malibu and he tried to buy the Dogers a while ago. How do you know where he spends his time most of the time?.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
http://m.stltoday.com/news/opinion/...cle_04be6b80-d574-5b80-a954-87fa10d41ec5.html


Downtown stadium dreamin’ — again

It was inevitable. Sooner or later some consultant was going to come up with an estimate on what a great economic driver the new riverfront football stadium was going to be.

This time it turns out to be the Missouri Department of Economic Development. The department estimates a new stadium for the St. Louis Rams will produce a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.

Advertisement: Story Continues Below

Sorry. Been there. Done that.

Let’s go back to 1989, when the drive was on to build what is now called the Edward Jones Dome. John Ashcroft was the governor and the battleground was the Missouri Legislature, just as it is now.

The deal called for selling bonds to borrow $258 million to raise the money needed to build the stadium. The state pitches in $12 million a year for 30 years. The city of St. Louis gives $6 million a year for 30 years and St. Louis County also gives $6 million a year for 30 years. The total cost to retire the bonds will be $720 million when the last payment is made in 2021.

The St. Louis NFL Partnership was the organization running the lobbying campaign to get the money. It hired the consultants who produced the numbers showing how big a money maker the stadium would be for taxpayers.

Their charts showed that in the very first year of debt payments, the state, St. Louis and St. Louis County would realize $13,794,000 more in revenue than they paid in debt retirement.

By this year, 2015, according to their estimates, the state, St. Louis and St. Louis County are collecting $89,337,000 more than they are paying to retire the bonds. A 5 percent annual inflation rate was assumed in the calculations. Has anyone seen all this revenue?

There were many assumptions in the calculations. A key one is “the multiplier effect.” It goes like this: a beer vendor at the ballpark gets paid, and spends part of his money on rent. The landlord spends part of that money on a car. The car dealer spends part of that money to pay his salesmen. Each step generates tax revenue.

The multiplier used by the Edward Jones Dome consultants projected impressive results. But as one consultant said in his report: “These are forecasts that like all forecasts are well-informed guesses about what the future will bring. No analyst can guarantee that his or her forecast will prove out.”

When Ashcroft signed the subsidy bill on July 14, 1989, he said, “I have in the past expressed significant reservations about this bill, and some of those reservations remain.” But he signed anyway. An aide said “some very important people (read campaign contributors) wanted this, no matter what.”

There has never been a postmortem on the Edward Jones Dome guesswork to see how it checks out. But there is a record of what happened in the dome’s neighborhood in terms of economic development.

The Edward Jones Dome opened in 1995. The St. Louis Centre shopping mall was across the street from the America’s Center convention complex, which includes the dome. The mall closed in 2006 and was rebuilt with more taxpayer money as the Mercantile Exchange. Most of it is a parking garage.

Also across Washington Avenue from America’s Center is the Renaissance Grand Hotel, St. Louis’ premier convention hotel. It opened in 2002 with tens of million of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, but was sold at auction in 2009 to the people who bought the bonds to build it. It couldn’t generate enough income to pay the bond debt.

The only economic development in the Edward Jones Dome neighborhood is the Lumiere Place casino. But the Edward Jones Dome had nothing to do with that. The slots and poker tables were the economic drivers.

Now the promoters of the new stadium want a $350 million bond issue and think they can pay it off with the same $24 million a year. And the taxpayers will have to double up on payments for the Edward Jones Dome and the new stadium until the dome debt ends in 2021.

Sorry. Been there. Done that. Don’t want to get taken again.
 
Last edited:

blue4

Hall of Fame
Joined
Jun 25, 2014
Messages
3,126
Name
blue4
Downtown stadium dreamin’ — again
It was inevitable. Sooner or later some consultant was going to come up with an estimate on what a great economic driver the new riverfront football stadium was going to be.

This time it turns out to be the Missouri Department of Economic Development. The department estimates a new stadium for the St. Louis Rams will produce a cumulative net return to the state of $295 million over 30 years.

Advertisement: Story Continues Below

Sorry. Been there. Done that.

Let’s go back to 1989, when the drive was on to build what is now called the Edward Jones Dome. John Ashcroft was the governor and the battleground was the Missouri Legislature, just as it is now.

The deal called for selling bonds to borrow $258 million to raise the money needed to build the stadium. The state pitches in $12 million a year for 30 years. The city of St. Louis gives $6 million a year for 30 years and St. Louis County also gives $6 million a year for 30 years. The total cost to retire the bonds will be $720 million when the last payment is made in 2021.

The St. Louis NFL Partnership was the organization running the lobbying campaign to get the money. It hired the consultants who produced the numbers showing how big a money maker the stadium would be for taxpayers.

Their charts showed that in the very first year of debt payments, the state, St. Louis and St. Louis County would realize $13,794,000 more in revenue than they paid in debt retirement.

By this year, 2015, according to their estimates, the state, St. Louis and St. Louis County are collecting $89,337,000 more than they are paying to retire the bonds. A 5 percent annual inflation rate was assumed in the calculations. Has anyone seen all this revenue?

There were many assumptions in the calculations. A key one is “the multiplier effect.” It goes like this: a beer vendor at the ballpark gets paid, and spends part of his money on rent. The landlord spends part of that money on a car. The car dealer spends part of that money to pay his salesmen. Each step generates tax revenue.

The multiplier used by the Edward Jones Dome consultants projected impressive results. But as one consultant said in his report: “These are forecasts that like all forecasts are well-informed guesses about what the future will bring. No analyst can guarantee that his or her forecast will prove out.”

When Ashcroft signed the subsidy bill on July 14, 1989, he said, “I have in the past expressed significant reservations about this bill, and some of those reservations remain.” But he signed anyway. An aide said “some very important people (read campaign contributors) wanted this, no matter what.”

There has never been a postmortem on the Edward Jones Dome guesswork to see how it checks out. But there is a record of what happened in the dome’s neighborhood in terms of economic development.

The Edward Jones Dome opened in 1995. The St. Louis Centre shopping mall was across the street from the America’s Center convention complex, which includes the dome. The mall closed in 2006 and was rebuilt with more taxpayer money as the Mercantile Exchange. Most of it is a parking garage.

Also across Washington Avenue from America’s Center is the Renaissance Grand Hotel, St. Louis’ premier convention hotel. It opened in 2002 with tens of million of dollars of taxpayer subsidies, but was sold at auction in 2009 to the people who bought the bonds to build it. It couldn’t generate enough income to pay the bond debt.

The only economic development in the Edward Jones Dome neighborhood is the Lumiere Place casino. But the Edward Jones Dome had nothing to do with that. The slots and poker tables were the economic drivers.

Now the promoters of the new stadium want a $350 million bond issue and think they can pay it off with the same $24 million a year. And the taxpayers will have to double up on payments for the Edward Jones Dome and the new stadium until the dome debt ends in 2021.

Sorry. Been there. Done that. Don’t want to get taken again.

The fact that yesteryear was mismanaged by incompetent people no longer around should have no bearing on today's issues. Otherwise no one would do anything. I suppose the current blight in that location is preferable to that fellow? And what does that mean to the average taxpayer here? $3-4 a year maybe? I'm certainly willing to fork up $5 a year for 2-3 years of high paying jobs, blight removal, and a football plus maybe soccer team. It's my assertion these type people are critically short sighted on this issue. Most seem to try to fit it into their preexisting political beliefs instead of looking at it as a individual issue. At least that's how it seems to me.
 

BuiltRamTough

Pro Bowler
Joined
Nov 16, 2011
Messages
1,209
Name
Edmond
The fact that yesteryear was mismanaged by incompetent people no longer around should have no bearing on today's issues. Otherwise no one would do anything. I suppose the current blight in that location is preferable to that fellow? And what does that mean to the average taxpayer here? $3-4 a year maybe? I'm certainly willing to fork up $5 a year for 2-3 years of high paying jobs, blight removal, and a football plus maybe soccer team. It's my assertion these type people are critically short sighted on this issue. Most seem to try to fit it into their preexisting political beliefs instead of looking at it as a individual issue. At least that's how it seems to me.
I would pay 3-4 a year too. I think a football team is good for the city and its gives the people something to do on the weekends. Jefferson city raised their taxes what was it 400mill? To renovate arrowhead. Why doesn't STL just do the same and vote if it means so much to the ppl?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.