It's possible. But it's been said that Peacock knew this was coming, and prefers to have it happen now. I think he knows the timeline of the lawsuits, or pretty close to it.
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
It's possible. But it's been said that Peacock knew this was coming, and prefers to have it happen now. I think he knows the timeline of the lawsuits, or pretty close to it.
Might wanna take the blue pill and come back to reality
http://www.dailynews.com/sports/201...nots-about-teams-possible-move-to-los-angeles
http://kfwbam.com/2015/04/27/st-louis-stadium-task-force-members-remain-optimistic/
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...task-force-plans-shift-in-public-funding.html
And saying that land will sell at that price is a bit arrogant. You have no idea of how much another buyer will value that land.
Regardless, the NFL doesn't wanna wait to find a buyer and then go through the legal process of selling the land.
Last edited:
You can fall back to precedence and all that , but it was a different time when those teams moved. We really don't know what could happen if an anti-trust suit was started, even with the resolution G-4 that states the NFL entity controls the LA market.
Just for reference right now there are only 2 markets in the top 20 that don't have NFL teams. #18 Orlando and #20 Sacramento. Both are around 80 miles to current NFL teams and not likely, especially Orlando, to get a team unless those local markets leave. Perhaps they'd relocate the Raiders and Bucs to those two but then each of those would be moving to a smaller media market. Not bickering or anything just making a note I was curious about and looked up. The next outside of the top 20 are Portland, Raleigh, Hartford and Columbus. Portland of those 4 is the only one I've even heard hinted at as getting a team. Incidentally the study I read had Cincinnati as 1 spot below Milwaukee on the media size list. The two cities I've heard discussed other than Portland are San Antonio #33 and OKC #44. Even Birmingham at #43. Anyways done with off topic observations.
Um, you're forgetting about about a good portion of the $150 million will be coming from the hotel/motel and car rental taxes. That plus the $250 million is how they arrived at $400 million of public money.
Last edited:
The Ripper
Starter
Sorry it's 250 million that's it. The plan changed so use a different argument. The Brownfields Tax Credits are no different than the 50 million from the bonds in Carson for the environmental clean up and that's not counted as public money. The 100 million from tax on hot dogs and beer is no different than the surcharge on parking and tickets. Stop using old articles to justify your argument things have changed.
Arrogant it's simple business. Do you know anyone in San Diego that is involved in commercial real estate? It's prime property and will be surrounding an area attraction and will sell.
Last edited:
The Ripper
Starter
That's how they pay for the debt service not new funding. The 400 was from the 250 from the bond extension 100 million from the concessions tax and 50 Brrownfields Tax credits.
bluecoconuts
Legend
I still don't see how that answers the question. I'm not relating that to anything else that has happened in the past.
You seem to be pretty comfortable saying that it wont go near that price. If they do or don't, I'd say they probably have a better idea of what the land should sell for than anyone here...
May 12th isn't old - and those tax credits are public funding.That was the latest update from Peacock after his funding switch.
You may not View it as public funding, but tax payers and the NFL does.
I have no idea what it will ultimately sell for - but we all know negotiations don't end up where they start. More importantly, I don't think the NFL is gonna wait, and they want money that's there, not that might be there
Their plan isn't solid,nor does it have the same public money.
As to Carson, money is set aside for clean up. It does not involve stadium building at all; this has been covered so many times in the past. If you don't want to believe the numerous articles that is your prerogative, but it has been stated numerous times.
bluecoconuts
Legend
What the hell does Carson have to do with anything? I didn't even mention them.
I don't really know tons of details about San Diego, and I'd be shocked if that deal goes through, but I'm not going to pretend that the riverfront stadium doesn't have plenty of questions either, because it does. The plans put forward by San Diego, Oakland, and St Louis all have major issues that the deal hinges on, and to be honest they are all probably longshots to come to fruition.
@The Ripper
you are flat out wrong about tax credits and public taxing. Even this document from the Vikings that covers all previous renovations shows it on the right side under PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES
http://www.vikings.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf
you are flat out wrong about tax credits and public taxing. Even this document from the Vikings that covers all previous renovations shows it on the right side under PUBLIC FUNDING SOURCES
http://www.vikings.com/assets/docs/stadium/DES-recent-nfl-stadiums.pdf
The Ripper
Starter
It's old. The NFL does not. It's not counted in Carson or in the CSAG proposal. Peacock can say what he wants but the tax credits don't count in Carson for the environmental clean up and neither does the tax on owners revenues like in SD. St Louis is not treated differently than any other city so what applies for public funding in other markets is the same in St Louis
Oakland isn't going to fund their stadium, its not even close to viable.
It's already been said San Diego's stadium isn't going to be well received because of how much they're asking from the team (almost $500 million, and yes that includes rent because that is money out of their pockets, and $700 million if you want to include the G4 loan since you say Kroenke would have to pay $450 million in st.louis w/ g4 loan) as well as other issues
View: https://twitter.com/dkaplanSBJ/status/600306255450673153
The Riverfront stadium's only issue is the bonds - and depending on how you think the outcome will be in court really depends on how viable you think it is. I don't think it will be an issue since they lost before, and it only sounds like they're pumping their chest. Of course if the funds fail, then Kroenke is free to move and the stadium is non-viable.
The Ripper
Starter
Look at San Diego and that's how it is. You can't use Minnesota as a reference when they misrepresent the relocation guidelines and put them in the bylaws.
If you read the document clearly you would know I'm not talking about Minnesota when they're listing all the of the stadiums from 1995 to 2011
You're entitled to your opinion - but the NFL does not share your view at all on tax credits.
The Ripper
Starter
The PSL's are also the owners and the Riverfront proposal has them all going to funding the stadium and at least in SD they give 1/2 to the Chargers
The Ripper
Starter
Your're completely wrong. Minnesota is past history, San Diego is now so look at what they're saying. Stop using out of date and incorrect information
- Status