I believe the tax can only be used on the stadium per the bonds. And when the bonds disappear, so does the tax.
New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL
- Thread starter STL-Rams
- Start date
-
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
I believe the tax can only be used on the stadium per the bonds. And when the bonds disappear, so does the tax.
You act like Goldman Sachs isn't aware of this or has no experience in this area - they've done 30 stadium deals in the past 10 years. I think if there's a group that knows what they're doing here, its GS.
And everything you're speculating about goes directly against everything they've said. They're pledging $1.7 billion and covering all initial losses. I realize you don't like the Carson plan, but this constant attempt at trying to discredit Goldman Sachs as an investor is getting ridiculous. They haven't even released who their investors are - how can you theorize how they're going to act? Given everything they've said, they seem pretty dead intent on getting this project financed, and have a lot more Resources at their disposal.
By the way, the revenue returns for the investors are supposed to be pretty good
http://www.latimes.com/business/realestate/la-fi-stadium-goldman-20150524-story.html
Funding is a nonissue.
Carson having Goldman Sachs isn't a disadvantage - it's a leg up, financially. And they have a ton of experience building NFL stadiums, something Kroenke doesn't. They obviously know whats coming.
Last edited:
The suit states the plaintiffs "an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium in St. Louis with taxpayer money."
the plaintiffs have "no other remedies in the law to protect their rights and interests."
Unlike the suit brought at the state level, that one was brought by the RSA in an effort to allow the spending of city money also without a public vote.
Then you have the Native American archaeological thing.
This is no way to run an airline.
the plaintiffs have "no other remedies in the law to protect their rights and interests."
Unlike the suit brought at the state level, that one was brought by the RSA in an effort to allow the spending of city money also without a public vote.
Then you have the Native American archaeological thing.
This is no way to run an airline.
Legislators sue Nixon, calling stadium cash 'illegal'
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html
ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block funding of a new riverfront football stadium here.
The suit, led by Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, alleges that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally,” on “an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium.”
Co-plaintiffs include Reps. Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold; Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City; Mark Parkinson, R-St. Charles; Eric Burlison, R-Springfield; and Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette.
The suit attacks Nixon’s plans for a new $985 million arena just north of downtown. A governor-appointed task force has estimated it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and said that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.
The bond dollars are key to the stadium funding plan, and could help sway National Football League officials to keep the Rams in St. Louis, instead of sending the team to Los Angeles.
This is the second suit challenging the issue. The first was filed last month by the Dome authority itself. It asked a judge to rule on the legality of a city ordinance requiring a public vote on taxpayer spending for new stadiums.
Wednesday’s suit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court and assigned to Judge Patricia S. Joyce, argues that the task force’s proposal to extend state bonds is illegal.
Schaaf said lawmakers tried to resolve the problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed, but didn’t get anywhere.
“If they want to build a stadium, go ahead, but don’t expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt,” Schaaf said.
Or, he countered, send the matter to a public vote. “I always trust the people,” Schaaf said. “If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them.”
The legislators’ suit alleges that the laws written two decades ago to create the Dome authority — and finance about $300 million through bond sales to build the current stadium — don’t allow it to “extend” that debt. The Dome can only issue refunding bonds, the suit says, in the amount necessary to pay off the $100 million left.
Such an extension would stretch the bond issue beyond 50 years, something also barred by statute, the suit says.
The suit’s third and fourth counts pick at other issues: The legislators argue that the law written for the Dome essentially doesn’t work to build a new stadium on a different site. The law says the arena must be “adjacent to” the convention center. The new site is, instead, a half-mile away. They also allege that the 11-member Dome authority board cannot, by law, have more than six members of the same political party — and yet it has eight Democrats.
The suit’s last count argues that the $12 million sent from the state to the Dome authority in 2014 was only for “debt service and maintenance on the Edward Jones Dome project,” and not for the planning of a new stadium.
“It’s really disheartening that the governor would say, ‘Go ahead and do it,’ and it’s up to the Legislature to not pay the bill,” said Parkinson, the St. Charles representative.
Parkinson pushed for resolution during the session that ended May 15.
“It would be beneficial for taxpayers to look at the issue to see if the governor is following the letter and the spirit of the law,” he added.
Neither Nixon’s task force nor Nixon spokesman Scott Holste immediately responded to a request for comment.
• By David Hunn, Alex Stuckey
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_879fd7da-677d-5301-8f27-2ff1ff71a318.html
ST. LOUIS • Six state legislators have sued Gov. Jay Nixon and the public board that owns and operates the Edward Jones Dome to block funding of a new riverfront football stadium here.
The suit, led by Sen. Rob Schaaf, R-St. Joseph, alleges that taxpayer money is “in the process of being spent illegally,” on “an illegal construction of a new NFL stadium.”
Co-plaintiffs include Reps. Rob Vescovo, R-Arnold; Jay Barnes, R-Jefferson City; Mark Parkinson, R-St. Charles; Eric Burlison, R-Springfield; and Tracy McCreery, D-Olivette.
The suit attacks Nixon’s plans for a new $985 million arena just north of downtown. A governor-appointed task force has estimated it will take at least $250 million from the state and city of St. Louis, and said that money will come from an “extension” of the bonds used to build the Edward Jones Dome, where the St. Louis Rams now play.
The bond dollars are key to the stadium funding plan, and could help sway National Football League officials to keep the Rams in St. Louis, instead of sending the team to Los Angeles.
This is the second suit challenging the issue. The first was filed last month by the Dome authority itself. It asked a judge to rule on the legality of a city ordinance requiring a public vote on taxpayer spending for new stadiums.
Wednesday’s suit, filed in Cole County Circuit Court and assigned to Judge Patricia S. Joyce, argues that the task force’s proposal to extend state bonds is illegal.
Schaaf said lawmakers tried to resolve the problem while the Legislature was in session. Bills were filed, but didn’t get anywhere.
“If they want to build a stadium, go ahead, but don’t expect the state to pick up the tab unless they come to the Legislature and ask permission to go into debt,” Schaaf said.
Or, he countered, send the matter to a public vote. “I always trust the people,” Schaaf said. “If the people want to spend $300 million, more power to them.”
The legislators’ suit alleges that the laws written two decades ago to create the Dome authority — and finance about $300 million through bond sales to build the current stadium — don’t allow it to “extend” that debt. The Dome can only issue refunding bonds, the suit says, in the amount necessary to pay off the $100 million left.
Such an extension would stretch the bond issue beyond 50 years, something also barred by statute, the suit says.
The suit’s third and fourth counts pick at other issues: The legislators argue that the law written for the Dome essentially doesn’t work to build a new stadium on a different site. The law says the arena must be “adjacent to” the convention center. The new site is, instead, a half-mile away. They also allege that the 11-member Dome authority board cannot, by law, have more than six members of the same political party — and yet it has eight Democrats.
The suit’s last count argues that the $12 million sent from the state to the Dome authority in 2014 was only for “debt service and maintenance on the Edward Jones Dome project,” and not for the planning of a new stadium.
“It’s really disheartening that the governor would say, ‘Go ahead and do it,’ and it’s up to the Legislature to not pay the bill,” said Parkinson, the St. Charles representative.
Parkinson pushed for resolution during the session that ended May 15.
“It would be beneficial for taxpayers to look at the issue to see if the governor is following the letter and the spirit of the law,” he added.
Neither Nixon’s task force nor Nixon spokesman Scott Holste immediately responded to a request for comment.
bluecoconuts
Legend
You keep saying that I'm talking about stadium financing and I'm not. I'm not an idiot, I know that Goldman Sachs has experience, and I know they know what they're doing and what they're getting into. I've made this point probably 6 times already and you keep coming back to stadium financing and Goldman Sachs having more equity.
I'm saying that when people try to say "Well Goldman Sachs has more money, so they win." that's not how it works. They are an investment bank, meaning that they are lining up loans for the 1.7 billion or whatever for the construction of the stadium. That's what they're doing, that's what they do. If they need to suddenly increase that, then they need to adjust and line up new loans. They don't just open up and put in more money, they need to line those up, it's extra steps. If suddenly the costs go up, or 10 or 20 years down the line there's an issue, that's a competently different thing they need to do. Where Kroenke has an advantage is that he doesn't have to go through any middleman or things like that.
That doesn't mean that Goldman Sachs can't get it done, but it's extra steps that Kroenke doesn't have. It's not going to stop them from picking Carson, but it's an extra step.
Either way the entire thing came out of the Carson mayor saying that they have Goldman Sachs therefore they have more money, which is obviously not how it works. Goldman Sachs isn't going to invest 2, 3, 4 billion dollars into LA because I can't imagine it's going to be worth it in terms of returns. Maybe, but I don't see it. Kroenke doesn't need to get loans, so he could in theory invest that much. Would he? I doubt it, but he has that ability. Saying that Carson has Goldman Sachs 82 billion in equity is like saying Kroenke has the 81 billion of Walmart's equity. It doesn't work that way. Goldman Sachs has 1.7 billion dollars they're lining up, and probably the ability to get more. Kroenke has 6.3 billion and and additional 5.3 billion if he wants to tap into his wife. That is his money.
bluecoconuts
Legend
Federal trumps state most of the time. There's checks and balances. The governor, like the president, doesn't write bills (which become laws), the Legislative (house and senate) do. They also need to pass them and then he signs off on them.. He can veto those bills or sign them into law. If he veto's them, a 2/3rd over ride from the Legislative can overturn that veto. The Judiciary (courts, such as the Supreme Court on the federal level) determines if the laws passed are legal (by the constitution or other treaties or cases) and may overturn a law based on being constitutional.
Sometimes a president or governor can pass different things based on their executive powers. Sometimes the legislative will disagree and try to stop them by passing a law to stop them if they can, or asking the courts to intervene. Which is what they're trying to do here, the governor believes he has executive powers and wants to use them, some in the legislative want to stop them. The governor wants the courts to rule that he can do it, which means the only way the legislative stops it is if they pass a law with enough votes to override a veto.
NateTheRam
Rookie
DELETED
Knock off the absolutes. You don't have any inside information nor know anyone in the negotiations that would have told you anything all of us haven't already read. All this kind of assertion does is piss people off and that is something we haven't allowed in several hundred pages and won't be allowing now.
Last edited by a moderator:
I think it's fairly safe to assume both Kroenke and Goldman Sachs know what they are doing and are prepared to spend enough to make it to the finish line. Any speculation about how far each can stretch is probably going to be tough to do as both can stretch pretty far.
to act like GS doesnt know how these things work and have a pretty good idea of how much is needed and how it will be paid back and how long it will take to pay back is unbelievable IMO, this isnt thier first rodeo, you can bet your bottom dollar that a team was made up to study every angle of this before they commited to it, to believe otherwise is either wishfull thinking or just sticking your head in the sand.
you do realize that Stan is a developer right? that cleared land would be cleared regardless as you need it cleard to start any developement. when did Stan tell you that he is moving no matter what? wish the rest of us had his trust like you do since he tells you his plans, lol.
Last edited by a moderator:
what you keep overlooking is the fact that GS has said the will help with losses, that pretty much tells me that they expect there to be costs above and beyond the original number and have funding in place for whatever comes up.
The Ripper
Starter
So far it's all just talk. The financial plan that was analyzed by Carson was very lacking and the numbers that were provided show the revenues much less than what were talked about from Goldman and the Chargers. Goldman said that the project could work for one team which is true but it will take close to 30 years for it to work. The problem with the Carson project has been most of the rhetoric that has come from the Chargers has been incorrect so everything regarding the project is in question. The Chargers are working with the advisory side and they're paying Goldman for the work. They have been paid to come up with a financing proposal and to promote it that's it. The actual financing won't start for over a years so some what they're saying today will change significantly by the time the project would start. The numbers may work if everything goers perfectly but the assumptions used for PSL sales and the availability of G-4 loans may not be correct which would alter the numbers and potentially the viability of the financing.
been avoiding this but....
Stan is clearly getting loans (or his holding companies are). It just isn't public who through or with. He is worth 6.3 B but that does not mean he has 1.5B in cash laying around...heck 4-5B of that is his equity in sports teams and it is safe to assume that a large amount is equity in his construction company(s). If he is building the stadium using his own cash then he is selling off assets...large #s of them. He is clearly getting financing sources for his stadium they just aren't public since he isn't using public money to get it done or have any need to publicly declare his financing plan...
It doesn't really matter, does it? Because in the end Stan can just right the checks, it doesn't really matter where he gets the money because he can cover it.
He is also not doing this alone. He does have business partners in this.
Okay I'll come clean...I loaned Stan the money.
I think that's his point, that he probably can't just write a check and cover it. If you take both my properties and my retirement I'm worth a bunch, on paper. Right now I could write you a check for $385 if I didn't feel like eating until next Thursday. But I can get the money for much more than that to buy another property with credit that I have, 401k loans, etc and have no problem meeting those payments. I imagine it's the same for Stan, only on a far far larger scale.
The Ripper
Starter
Goldman and Kroenke will both be using similar funding mechanisms but the main difference is cost. Goldman will get paid and paid well to facilitate the financing. Grubman made an interesting comment in regards to Kroenke and Stockbridge and where their financing comes from, he mentioned both and said their investors. It sounds like the investors are already lined up and that they don't have go out to raise the funds because their using the same ones as they have for other projects.
- Status