New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[RamFan503]

St.Louis is expecting less money from Stan - $250 million plus the g4 money.

I saw that but the SD plan calls for a split in PSLs whereas the St Louis plan does not. That is pretty much a wash. It seems that the terms of the lease may be a major part of the picture. In that same vein, it seems that SD's proposal is incomplete in that it doesn't account for how stadium maintenance is to be funded. I didn't read the entire SD proposal - I have only skimmed it thus far. Maybe it's in there.

One thing also to consider is the ESPN article is written by Nick Wagoner. Is there some bias here? Don't know. But he was pretty damn quick to offer up an article proclaiming the St Louis proposal a better deal. Maybe he is indeed correct there.

 

[blue4]

St.Louis is expecting less money from Stan - $250 million plus the g4 money.

That's like, a total hardship dude.

 

[Hacksaw]

I'm assuming he's using the 300M from the chargers and 173M from the rent to hit 473M. I'm not sure where he bumps it to 800M, though. Maybe with year-to-year upkeep?

Yeah Coles number seem off a bit.

 

[bluecoconuts]

I saw that but the SD plan calls for a split in PSLs whereas the St Louis plan does not. That is pretty much a wash. It seems that the terms of the lease may be a major part of the picture. In that same vein, it seems that SD's proposal is incomplete in that it doesn't account for how stadium maintenance is to be funded. I didn't read the entire SD proposal - I have only skimmed it thus far. Maybe it's in there.

One thing also to consider is the ESPN article is written by Nick Wagoner. Is there some bias here? Don't know. But he was pretty damn quick to offer up an article proclaiming the St Louis proposal a better deal. Maybe he is indeed correct there.

I think that in terms of financing St Louis is probably the better deal, but the details may show the San Diego stadium as more profitable, things to that nature. There's things that both financing plans don't discuss (who covers runoffs, who pays for maintenance, what happens if funding is cut off, etc) but you have to think that stuff gets hammered out at the table. San Diego's plan seems more complicated though, but there's plenty of questions about both plans that makes it hard to give either of them more than an incomplete at this point.

 

[RamFan503]

Maintenance funding for the SD project:

 

[blue4]

Agreed. I'm sure they might lose some but not the alleged 25% he's crying about. There are those who choose the city first, nickname second. That said, and speaking from experience, if you are a passionate fan of a team, you don't divorce them and suddenly fall in love with another that easily. Sure no team filled the void in LA but even if they had I'm certain I'd still be a Rams fan and only attend home LA games when the Rams came to town. Most everyone I know feels the same.
This is more about leverage and enrichment. Again IMO.

I'd have to disagree, most people I know are city first fans who like their team where they can see them. But I guess Charger fans can actually drive to the games so might be different there. Still I can see Spanos concern, even if it is exaggerated for posturing purposes.

 

[RamFan503]

Interesting that it shows some additional revenues to the Chargers ownership:

Naming rights go to Spanos. Still looking to see how game day parking is handled.

NM - it's in the original funding proposal

 

[Hacksaw]

One thing also to consider is the ESPN article is written by Nick Wagoner. Is there some bias here? Don't know. But he was pretty damn quick to offer up an article proclaiming the St Louis proposal a better deal. Maybe he is indeed correct there.

Good catch.

 

[RAMSinLA]

9 Aldermen say St Louis will have to hold a public vote for the financing and tax rates for a new stadium. This will take time and give Kroenke a sure chance of moving his team to LA. This explains his silence on the whole issue.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-stl-20150518-story.html

 

[blue4]

9 Aldermen say St Louis will have to hold a public vote for the financing and tax rates for a new stadium. This will take time and give Kroenke a sure chance of moving his team to LA. This explains his silence on the whole issue.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-stl-20150518-story.html

Sure chance? Hardly. I think that you're reaching there.

 

[RamFan503]

9 Aldermen say St Louis will have to hold a public vote for the financing and tax rates for a new stadium. This will take time and give Kroenke a sure chance of moving his team to LA. This explains his silence on the whole issue.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp-nfl-stadium-stl-20150518-story.html

I have to say that there is not only nothing new but several inaccuracies to how he is describing the chain of events.

 

[Hacksaw]

Sure chance? Hardly. I think that you're reaching there.

Gotta agree with you Blue about the silence. The vote thing not withstanding.

How many Aldermen does StL have? 9 out of 10 is something.. 9 out of 50 not so much..

 

[RAMSinLA]

Gotta agree with you Blue about the silence. The vote thing not withstanding.

How many Aldermen does StL have? 9 out of 10 is something.. 9 out of 50 not so much..

28 aldermen but 9 can force a vote of the citizens regarding any tax increase proposal. I'm just posting the link and telling you all what it says in the article.

 

[RamFan503]

28 aldermen but 9 can force a vote of the citizens regarding any tax increase proposal. I'm just posting the link and telling you all what it says in the article.

Are you sure about that? I don't see it in the article anywhere and 9 out of 28 seems like an odd ratio unless it calls for a minimum of 30% of the aldermen or something like that.

I also don't think pulling that wording out of the budget meant Nixon can authorize payments on the bonds - he can only extend the bonds.

 

[ChrisW]

That's one of the things I don't get yet. Is rent included in the amounts Peacock says they are expecting from Stan or would it be something like that figure in addition to the owner contribution?

Yea, I have no idea.

 

[tonyl711]

Agreed. I'm sure they might lose some but not the alleged 25% he's crying about. There are those who choose the city first, nickname second. That said, and speaking from experience, if you are a passionate fan of a team, you don't divorce them and suddenly fall in love with another that easily. Sure no team filled the void in LA but even if they had I'm certain I'd still be a Rams fan and only attend home LA games when the Rams came to town. Most everyone I know feels the same.
This is more about leverage and enrichment. Again IMO.

i began my love of football watching the football Cardinals, lived and died with the team, watched every game after they left town, couldnt imagine rooting for another team, then the Rams moved to town, by the time the 95 season started the Rams were my team, the Cardinals were an afterthought. you would be suprised how quickly a city adopts a team and how fast old alliegences crumble.

 

[Hacksaw]

StL's Shane Gray wrote a nice piece here. It's pro StL of course but he lays out the whole thing pretty well. As this thing unfolds enough pieces have come to focus and good arguments are there for all.
The funny part in all this banter is we may not have a clue what these guys really have in mind or what is most important to them.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...0/Gray-Rams-Remain-The-Task-Forces-Focus.aspx

 

[Hacksaw]

i began my love of football watching the football Cardinals, lived and died with the team, watched every game after they left town, couldnt imagine rooting for another team, then the Rams moved to town, by the time the 95 season started the Rams were my team, the Cardinals were an afterthought. you would be suprised how quickly a city adopts a team and how fast old alliegences crumble.

I'm sure for some that's true. Perhaps many. Not for others. It's a kin to the question 'will you still be a fan if they move to LA'?

 

[The Ripper]

St.Louis is expecting less money from Stan - $250 million plus the g4 money.

Not correct. Stan gives up all the PSL's and the Chargers get 1/2 making their contribution 240 million

 

[The Ripper]

I think that in terms of financing St Louis is probably the better deal, but the details may show the San Diego stadium as more profitable, things to that nature. There's things that both financing plans don't discuss (who covers runoffs, who pays for maintenance, what happens if funding is cut off, etc) but you have to think that stuff gets hammered out at the table. San Diego's plan seems more complicated though, but there's plenty of questions about both plans that makes it hard to give either of them more than an incomplete at this point.

Too early to tell what the revenues are but it looks like SD is giving more plus a better stadium and they give up 1/2 the PSL's.