New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[ChrisW]

There's no guarantee that the lawsuits wont delay the bond extension?

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.

 

[iced]

It's 250 from the bond extension that's all. Nothing else is counted as public money. Debate it all you want but that's the way it's classified according to the NFL

The land will sell easily. It will be surrounding an NFL stadium.

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

The St. Louis Rams, in order to justify moving to Los Angeles, have to make a case for the move despite a potential $400 million standing stadium offer on the table from Missouri. But it’s not such a far-fetched argument

http://kfwbam.com/2015/04/27/st-louis-stadium-task-force-members-remain-optimistic/

Nixon and the task force members believe the bonds paying for the dome could be extended to provide up to $400 million for the new open-air stadium. Kroenke and the NFL would be asked to help pay roughly $450 million, and seat licenses would provide up to $150 million.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...task-force-plans-shift-in-public-funding.html

Speaking at a Commercial Real Estate Women of St. Louis breakfast, Peacock, the former Anheuser-Busch president appointed by Gov. Jay Nixon to lead the stadium task force, said extending the city of St. Louis’ and state’s bonds would contribute $250 million to the stadium, $50 million less than was said Jan. 9, when he and Bob Blitz, task force attorney, unveiled plans for the development just north of downtown. Tax credits will account for about $150 million in public funding, up from $55 million, Peacock said Tuesday.

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.

 

[ChrisW]

You're not answering my question, why is the message going to not only not try, but refuse to work with the team, which again makes no sense, and not to offer up something that excites the owner/team?

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.

 

[OldSchool]

it's not even about that - it's as simple as the threat of moving to a larger market (Think Oakland to San antonio for example).

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.

 

[dbrooks25]

It's 250 from the bond extension that's all. Nothing else is counted as public money. Debate it all you want but that's the way it's classified according to the NFL

The land will sell easily. It will be surrounding an NFL stadium.

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.

 

[The Ripper]

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 owner will value that land.

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.

 

[dbrooks25]

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.

BOOM

 

[The Ripper]

Um, you're forgetting about the $150 million from the hotel/motel and car rental taxes. That plus the $250 million is how they arrived at $400 million of public money.

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.

 

[dbrooks25]

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 difference 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.

Nope, $250 million isn't it. Where are you getting this info?

 

[bluecoconuts]

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.

I still don't see how that answers the question. I'm not relating that to anything else that has happened in the past.

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.

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...

 

[iced]

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 difference 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.

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.

 

[iced]

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...

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]

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.

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.

 

[iced]

@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

 

[The Ripper]

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.

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

 

[iced]

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.

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]

@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

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.

 

[iced]

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]

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 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]

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.

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