bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Seems like a pretty dang important aspect of the project. Wouldn't this tell the city/state how much in revenues they are going to be dealing with? Not sure how you factor spending and ROI without knowing how much of the revenue pie you will be receiving.
Ive always assumed that they've been operating on the assumption that they'll have what they have, and whatever they don't is on Kroenke. When they took the county out, that was one of the suggestions, that Kroenke, or whichever owner is there, cover that portion of the bill. Therefore they can continue to push forward, and try to sell the NFL with "We're coming up with this much money, we're hoping to get this from PSL's, the rest is on them, but we did all we could in your timeframe." And they can sell the public as well, without going into detail.
That's why I'm a bit pessimistic in Stan staying, unless he wants to stay. While the public is an easier sell, and the NFL may be impressed/happy with what they were able to do, I don't think it's an easy sell to say "Well we know we have this much, we hope to get this much more, but if we don't its on him, and if we go over on budget its on him, and he will have to pay more than 50% including your loan, and we want you to force him to accept."
I just don't know if that flies with the owners. Especially if attendance slips to a certain point, or market studies aren't as favorable. If they do approve the December timeline, it may have doomed the task force in forcing the Rams to stay. If Stan wants to stay there then they're okay.
We'll have to see how things develop as they move along though, it'll be interesting. I remain pessimistic that the Rams stay in St Louis, but more optimistic that the NFL will look to keep St Louis an NFL city (as they should). As much as I don't like it, I think the Raiders are the most likely to call the riverfront stadium home.