New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[The Ripper]

Yeah I get that, I'm just not sure how it all works. Then someone was talking about beer and hotdogs.. I'm not an economist, so I'm a bit lost. Does someone have to pay and then they get that money back? Who pays?

Yes, they pay first and get reimbursements back out of the tax money. Inglewood is a good example in how it works the developer is paying for streets and other city services and they get paid back by the tax revenue over 25 million. In St Louis they don't have the money upfront so they will borrow it. The tax generated from the hot dog sales and beer along with a ticket surcharge may be how they pay back the loan.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Yes, they pay first and get reimbursements back out of the tax money. Inglewood is a good example in how it works the developer is paying for streets and other city services and they get paid back by the tax revenue over 25 million. In St Louis they don't have the money upfront so they will borrow it. The tax generated from the hot dog sales and beer along with a ticket surcharge may be how they pay back the loan.

So they're borrowing from the state, and then paying it back via taxes? Or does the owner pay an extra 150 million initially, but gets that money back over time? I'm assuming the former... That's why they're looking to increase the hotdog/beer tax though, which makes sense to me.

 

[bluecoconuts]

With Rams eyeing Los Angeles, their game-plan comes into focus
Posted on May 13, 2015 by Vincent Bonsignore

As we continue to sort through potential Los Angeles NFL relocation, one of the most persistent questions is how St. Louis Rams owner Stan Kroenke can justify a move a proposed Inglewood stadium should state leaders in Missouri come up with $400 million in public money to help build him a brand new stadium along the banks of the Mississippi River.

It’s a valid question on a couple of different levels, especially when you factor in the needs of the San Diego Chargers and Oakland Raiders, who have joined forces to build a stadium in Carson as a back-up plan if stadium deals don’t materialize in their local markets.

If, say, Missouri comes up with the money and San Diego and Oakland don’t deliver stadium plans for the Chargers and Raiders, how can Kroenke show cause to fellow NFL owners for relation?

Any eventual move to Los Angeles will come down to a vote by NFL owners, who will use the L.A. NFL relocation guidelines as a compass. Should Kroenke or anyone else file or relocation, they’ll need 24 yes votes from the league’s 32 owners.

After poking around St. Louis last week, the Rams case for relocation began coming into focus. I have to stress there doesn’t appear to be a final decision yet made by the Rams, who will likely wait until Missouri leaders present their stadium plan before deciding what they will do.

However, if relocation is the decision, expect the Rams to stake their case on two arguments, which I wrote about today after spending a few days in St. Louis.

Their plan will rely heavily on part of the premise upon which they left Los Angeles for St. Louis 20 years ago – the lease clause that allowed them to become free agents after the 2015 season if the Edward Jones Dome wasn’t among the top-tier stadiums in the NFL.

Thanks to that out-clause – and St. Louis opting not to pay the $700 million an arbitrator ruled was needed to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome – the Rams are legally free agents no longer bound to a specific market.

Therefor, they aren’t just free to compare any deal from St. Louis with the stadium they are contemplating in Inglewood, they are free to pick one over the other.

The argument is strengthened by stressing the importance of the NFL nailing a gold-medal landing upon returning to Los Angeles.

And what better way to ensure success than making a seamless transition in which the Rams return to the city they called home for 49 years to play in a sparkling new stadium financed by a multi-billionaire owner?

In addition, their Inglewood stadium has provisions to add another team. So, if one of the Chargers or Raiders need a new home, the Rams can tell the NFL they can help the league achieve two objectives.

Help Insure a successful return to Los Angeles while also offering a new, financially vibrant home to a team in need.

Again, it’s important to stress the Rams have not yet decided on a final game-plan and that NFL owners will ultimately decided where all this ends up.

But if you are wondering how the Rams can make a case for turning down $400 million in public money to move to Los Angeles, that will be the crux of their argument.

http://www.insidesocal.com/nfl/2015...los-angeles-their-game-plan-comes-into-focus/

 

[The Ripper]

So they're borrowing from the state, and then paying it back via taxes? Or does the owner pay an extra 150 million initially, but gets that money back over time? I'm assuming the former... That's why they're looking to increase the hotdog/beer tax though, which makes sense to me.

The owner is the RSA but they could borrow it from the state or just borrow it from issuance of short term bonds or use another type of short term financing. It's just a shell game.

Sorry, I thought about it more in the "Normal" situation the team owner would be the one that would provide the money

 

[Goose]

Thanks to that out-clause – and St. Louis opting not to pay the $700 million an arbitrator ruled was needed to upgrade the Edward Jones Dome – the Rams are legally free agents no longer bound to a specific market.

Therefor, they aren’t just free to compare any deal from St. Louis with the stadium they are contemplating in Inglewood, they are free to pick one over the other.

For me that is the real question as to what does the lease stipulate. I understand that the lease was with the Dome but does that include the city and the market. If they are true free agents why is there a relocation process? Why can't team just move once the lease is up?

 

[The Ripper]

For me that is the real question as to what does the lease stipulate. I understand that the lease was with the Dome but does that include the city and the market. If they are true free agents why is there a relocation process? Why can't team just move once the lease is up?

It's not just the lease, there was a relocation agreement before the lease existed. That contained expenses for the move, Kroenke buying the minority share and the demands for the lease. When the negotiations first started 3rd parties had control of the dome so that had to be worked before the lease was created.

 

[Goose]

It's not just the lease, there was a relocation agreement before the lease existed. That contained expenses for the move, Kroenke buying the minority share and the demands for the lease. When the negotiations first started 3rd parties had control of the dome so that had to be worked before the lease was created.

It is the lease. The lease stipulates that they Dome needed to be a top 25% facility or the lease could be terminated.

 

[The Ripper]

It is the lease. The lease stipulates that they Dome needed to be a top 25% facility or the lease could be terminated.

Yes, the lease for the dome but the relocation agreement spelled out the terms for the move and the requirements for a stadium. The details were leaked to the press on February 18, 1995 but I can't find the information online.

Look at it this way you take a job they send you an offer letter. That contains your benefits, salary, your job title and other things. The job itself has another document which is the what the employment contract. Job offer is the relocation agreement. The employment contract is the lease.

 

[Goose]

Yes, the lease for the dome but the relocation agreement spelled out the terms for the move and the requirements for a stadium. The details were leaked to the press on February 18, 1995 but I can't find the information online.

Look at it this way you take a job they send you an offer letter. That contains your benefits, salary, your job title and other things. The job itself has another document which is the what the position actual is. Job offer is the relocation agreement. The job description is the lease.

I am not sure I agree with your comparison but I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is what the other 31 owners will have to decide. Do they agree with that argument or not?

 

[The Ripper]

I am not sure I agree with your comparison but I understand what you are saying. Perhaps that is what the other 31 owners will have to decide. Do they agree with that argument or not?

My line of work has non-compete contracts so if someone leaves on their own they can't work in that market for a period of time but if the company breaks the contract the person can leave and go anywhere they want. When it comes to a decision by the owners no one will know the real reason, the story will fit the decision.

 

[Hacksaw]

Mo. House Speaker John Diehl Jr. resigns after sexting scandal

Diehl's full resignation statement:

“In my time in the General Assembly, I’m proud of my long legislative legacy that was built upon being honest with members and doing what is in the best interest of our caucus and this body. I am proud to have led us to the largest Republican majority in state history, the first income tax cut in nearly one hundred years, and an override of the governor’s veto of Missouri’s congressional redistricting map."

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/house-...gn=KMBC 9 News Kansas City&Content Type=Story

 

[iced]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...t-Louis-Stadium-Project-on-The-Press-Box.aspx

Brendan Marks posted on May 14, 2015 11:47
insideSTL.com's Shane Gray, who for several months has been covering the topic of relocation and the Rams, popped in on The Hollywood Casino Press Box Thursday to discuss the St.Louis stadium situation and the city's future regarding professional football.

Below you'll find some of the major talking points. You can listen to the complete interview underneath the excerpts:

Can the government extend the bonds on the dome to help pay for the stadium project without a public vote?

"At the state level, I believe the answer is yes because the budget was passed without any restrictions towards those bonds. That budget goes into effect on July 1. Speaking with legislators on both sides of the aisle, they don't believe there would be the strength to get the two-thirds vote to veto anything by the governor. Basically the only thing that could eventually stop state funding...would be for the legislature not to end up paying the bonds on an annual basis. That would jeopardize the state's credit rating. Considering the budget that was passed...it appears the state side has a strong chance of going forward."

Dave Peacock this week said the project would need $100 million less in public funding than originally thought. What do you know about this?

"It's $100 million less in terms of using bond money at the city and state level. They want to make up for that with the use of state tax credits at about $150 million in total towards the new venue rather than $50 million in state tax credits. While they're looking to be $100 million short on the bonds in total. They want to make up for that and believe they can...with the tax credits."

What's the task force's greatest hurdle the task force has yet to clear?

"I believe right now it's just getting the formal implementation of the funding in place and finalized. As far as retaining the Rams, which Peacock has maintained repeatedly is the emphasis of the task force...the main thing is to convince eight of the 32 owners to vote to not approve Stan Kroenke for a move to Los Angeles if he does go forward and apply to move."

Give an insight on how quickly we could have the financing finalized:

"As early as the fall...in the October timeframe we should have a good idea of how the funding is looking at all levels...The task force has a good chance of knowing where they stand on that funding at the very least by that October range."

What's the most likely endgame in your opinion for professional football in St. Louis?

"As of the moment, I would say the most likely scenario is that the Rams stay but without Stan Kroenke...There's a long way to go in finalizing this process and many possible endgames. I believe the best bet still remains that the Rams are here. The only people I would rule their opinions out at this stage are the one's that would say the Rams are a definitive bet to move or the Rams are absolutely staying because neither has been finalized and neither has been set in stone at this point."

Audio Link: http://www.insidestlaudio.com/Pressbox/051415-4PB.mp3

 

[den-the-coach]

For me that is the real question as to what does the lease stipulate. I understand that the lease was with the Dome but does that include the city and the market. If they are true free agents why is there a relocation process? Why can't team just move once the lease is up?

That is within NFL bylaws has nothing to do with the current lease the team is under I think.

 

[Hacksaw]

What's the most likely endgame in your opinion for professional football in St. Louis?

"As of the moment, I would say the most likely scenario is that the Rams stay but without Stan Kroenke...

Now he is saying what Peacock was saying. This is either a very bold assumption or perhaps there is something going on behind the scenes we aren't privy to.

 

[blue4]

Mo. House Speaker John Diehl Jr. resigns after sexting scandal

Diehl's full resignation statement:

“In my time in the General Assembly, I’m proud of my long legislative legacy that was built upon being honest with members and doing what is in the best interest of our caucus and this body. I am proud to have led us to the largest Republican majority in state history, the first income tax cut in nearly one hundred years, and an override of the governor’s veto of Missouri’s congressional redistricting map."

http://www.kmbc.com/politics/house-speaker-john-diehl-jr-resigns-after-sexting-scandal/33024678?utm_source=Social&utm_medium=FBPAGE&utm_campaign=KMBC 9 News Kansas City&Content Type=Story

Good riddance. His proudest accomplishment is gerrymandering? Don't let the door knock you on your ass on the way out. Missouri should be exhibit A on the perils of having one party control too much.

 

[iced]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...Talks-Peacocks-Comment-on-Rams-Ownership.aspx

St. Louis Business Journal's Brian Feldt Talks Peacock's
Comment on Rams Ownership
Brendan Marks posted on May 14, 2015 09:10

Dave Peacock, Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon's stadium task force chief, on Tuesday said it's possible the Rams could have different ownership because he believes "(Kroenke) is really committed to Los Angeles," according to Brian Feldt of the St. Louis Business Journal.

Feldt joined The Ryan Kelley Morning After on Thursday to elaborate on Peacock's comments and discuss the latest on the St. Louis stadium situation.

We typed out some excerpts from the interview. Listen to the whole thing below.

Peacock's statements have gotten some attention. Thoughts on that?

"It was interesting. That was the first time I've ever heard him acknowledge Kroenke's commitment to the Los Angeles market. He said, with that in mind, there's three scenarios. Either the Rams stay in St. Louis as is. The Rams move to LA (and St. Louis possibly gets a new team)...and the third is the Rams get different ownership. It was a very interesting topic he brought up and something I've never heard him say before."

More on Peacock's statement:

"He didn't share any other thoughts...like whether he had discussions of the NFL. He's been very frank in saying if St. Louis....can build the stadium, the NFL would have a hard time justifying the Rams leaving St. Louis...or the NFL leaving St. Louis."

You wrote about the possibility of Dave Peacock being part of an ownership group if MLS came to St. Louis:

"The Major League Soccer commissioner will be in town next Tuesday...to gauge interest on how well MLS would do in ST. Louis. I'm sure behind the scenes they will be having discussions on what makes sense for Major League Soccer...what they would want in a stadium. (Somebody asked Peacock) if he would want to be part of owning an MLS team and he said maybe. Usually when someone is asked a question like that and they don't give a firm no, it has the appearance that the door is open."

More on ownership topic surrounding the Rams:

"Any NFL owner that would be setting up shop in St. Louis would be on the hook for $250 million...so whether or not it's the Rams, whether or not it's a new team...Dave is under the impression that if St. Louis builds a new stadium, the NFL can't move a team. That's their bylaws, (but we don't know if the NFL will follow them)."

Audio: http://www.insidestlaudio.com/ITD_Audio/051415-3TMA.mp3

 

[The Ripper]

Now he is saying what Peacock was saying. This is either a very bold assumption or perhaps there is something going on behind the scenes we aren't privy to.

Whether it's a possibility or not, it's something that shouldn't be said in public. I could see comments like that upsetting some owners.

 

[beej]

He said, with that in mind, there's three scenarios. Either the Rams stay in St. Louis as is. The Rams move to LA (and St. Louis possibly gets a new team)...and the third is the Rams get different ownership. It was a very interesting topic he brought up and something I've never heard him say before."

that comes across a lot different that the way it was framed in the business journal

 

[MrMotes]

Whether it's a possibility or not, it's something that shouldn't be said in public. I could see comments like that upsetting some owners.

It's getting a little adversarial, isn't it...

 

[Hacksaw]

Good riddance. His proudest accomplishment is gerrymandering? Don't let the door knock you on your ass on the way out. Missouri should be exhibit A on the perils of having one party control too much.

I wouldn't know him from Adam, but he's the guy who shut down Silveys attempt to get that bill into the new budget. So he may have helped you guys get the funding situation resolved. That seems significant in and of itself.