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
The Ripper
Starter
It's old and outdated, plus not from the NFL. You refuse to look at the way they are classifying the funding. What is happening in SD and what are they saying about the funding? That's how they are looking at it today. Minnesota is showing it from their pov not the NFL's
Last edited:
bluecoconuts
Legend
Oakland is looking for private contribution through other means than the Raiders (the A's, revenue from the surrounding land, etc) correct? That doesn't mean it's viable, but they're looking at other options to get a deal done. Of course it hinges on some pretty big potential issues, just like the other cities.
What about the 150 million from PSL licenses, that would bump up Kroenke's share to 600 million? San Diego has that going to the owner correct? So that would put San Diego and St Louis closer together than not in terms of team funding. If I recall correctly, owners typically see PSL money as their money.
That a pretty big issue. Even if the outcome comes out in favor of the city that guarantees nothing for the project. The project requires Kroenke to buy into it, and I'm willing to bet he's going to tell the other owners he's not going to rush out of that sweetheart lease anytime soon, and none of the other owners would be in a rush to leave it either. Which means that by the time the lease is up, and they can't extend the bonds through loopholes, then what happens? The project is no longer viable. You can't simply say "Well Kroenke should just take the deal" because that's the same as saying Spanos should just take the San Diego deal.
I've already posted the break down for SD - go back and look at my post for their financing break down. $242 in public money.
The Peacock statement is not outdated- nothing has changed since then.
And Vikings.com is the closest thing you're going to get to the NFL. The file is hosted on that website, which is linked directly to their team page on NFL.com. Just like http://www.stlouisrams.com/
Like it or lump it, its $400 million in public money. And its not like time is going to change the tax credits on any of those public funding deals. That's how the NFL views it, hence under public funding. There's no other way around it.
The Ripper
Starter
Sorry your not correct. The land sale is public money. You still refuse to look at what is being said in other markets now. Minnesota has no relevance to anything that is going on now. Goldman said about CSAG's proposal that the tax credits come from Chargers revenues and it's just like the 100 million tax on beer and hot dogs. Brownfields Tax Credits are environmental cleanup and NO ONE is saying that the bonds in Carson is public money for the stadium.
And you refuse to read what I posted - what I posted was not funding for the stadium, but all the stadiums they've covered during that time period. Those deals don't change over time; public funding is public funding, period. It's not coming from the NFL nor private investors, a lot is from taxes, which they clearly count as public funding.
Disagree as you may - they indicate otherwise
The Ripper
Starter
None of that matters. It's just about now. I have seen all that and I know how the other stadiums were funded. I see what your saying but in this all that matters is the funding for the proposals now. The Chargers/Goldman are saying rent the rent payed is owners financing when if you look at almost every other team they pay rent. Right now about 1/3 of the league has either a ticket/parking surcharge or a tax but now they say that it comes from owners revenues and they count it as the owners contribution in SD. It's not logical but that's what is happening now. The rules change but they will be the same in St Louis and San Diego.
Personally I think there's too much public money in both proposals and both cities are being taken advantage of by the NFL.
Last edited:
2/3 = 24 Owners??
32 teams?? That is only two, there will always be opposition even on votes for ending wars etc... but it will get passed.
There ya go! Makes sense Paul Allen would be the richest! lol
I hear yeah... rules for the rich are made to be broken... I see one way or another things are going to get thrown into his favor. I see him (Kronke) holding all the cards tbh.
As a fan? NO. Sometimes I wonder about what they are thinking though. The old axiom of any press even bad press is better than none at all comes to mind.
I get yuh man and I apologize for getting a bit chippy. I just want this whole thing to be done. I think it is wearing on all of us.
bluecoconuts
Legend
I don't know if Kroenke holds all the cards, but I think he holds a lot of them. Ultimately if he feels necessary, I wouldn't be shocked if played dirty. I also would say if he starts construction on the stadium, then the point of no return has been reached, and he's going. Which is why the NFL is smart to move up the relocation date, if you're gonna tell him no, you gotta do it before December.
Ultimately I think he'll do enough to woo Goodell to his side, which would bring over the vast majority of owners and give him the go ahead. It's not a done deal, but it is the best one on the table now. It's just harder to justify the Rams moving than the Chargers or Raiders. The NFL has already somewhat set themselves up to handle that, but its still not an easy a sell.
We'll see how it all goes down, I for one will be excited when it's all over. We're about halfway through now, and it feels like an eternity.
mr.stlouis
Legend
I get the grandstanding by the politicians suing the Governor but the clowns won't come forward and explain how they justify the loss of tax dollars that happens if the team leaves STL! For the most part, their constituents aren't being taxed at all! The bonds are being paid by the tourists that go to STL! Bigger picture view is needed by them! New stadium is a win-win for the state!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I've no doubt it is wearing on us. All they seem become for me lately is stress. I'm sure you can tell from my optimistic posts over the last couple of weeks. I can't really get excited about TC due to this. I think the worst thing it's done is pull the homer glasses off. Usually at this time I'm brimming with confidence and optimism over the draft. I've almost watched the off season this year like an outsider. I'm to the point now if ST Louis doesn't have a team (any team) in 2016 that's committed to St Louis and moving forward with the stadium and the fan base, I think I'm done with the NFL. Watching football is supposed to be about fun and entertainment, family and friends. This ain't that for sure. And I'm not going to play the year to year, will they won't they, game either. This year is going to be enough. It's a shame the NFL has allowed it to come to this, a damn free for all that will damage at least one fan base in the city that loses.
Oh and you weren't chippy. I think with the lack of any real proven true info our opinions actually get stronger. That's why we (definitely myself included there) keep returning to the same arguments every 25 pages or so, or how we can have long posts on finance options that we don't even know are on the table.
As much as I love seeing all the info and knowledge passed around on this, I think it might be time to close it to updates only. Nobody is getting anywhere on this. And I don't want to see people getting banned or leaving because of something they can't control. Just my opinion, of course.
Great post @bluecoconuts !!
The only wild card I can see tbh is Mrs Davis selling the interest of the Raiders to Kroenke and they get another owner for STL other than at this point I don't see a point of no return TBH. Stan is full steam ahead in owning a franchise in LA regardless who that is with a brand new stadium to hold SB's IMO. This wild card theory check marks everything, gets the Davis family out the NFL, NFL in LA with SB caliber stadium, new owner and team stays in STL where fan base is happy with new stadium and NFL gets maximum penetration. Out of the 3 cities I see Oakland losing out.
Unfortunately I agree with you man...
It's very obvious with the most likely scenario.
That's going to happen regardless with fans from one party or another I think which is sad to say in the near future. I don't envy the moderators job this upcoming year, it's going to be hard.
Pretty funny. I feel so sorry for him. Friggin dork.
What's funny about this is that I've heard from so many Chargers fans that they can't stand Spanos and his tactics in trying to hold the city hostage until they build him a stadium. The view has generally been that Spanos wants to invest next to nothing in SD. I just don't get how that meshes with putting up the whole nut in Carson. They mostly view him as a cheap bastard that only cares about money and not the team nor its fans. Sound familiar?
What I see here is what I have understood to be the case all along. Spanos is trying to get a stadium for as close to zero Spanos dollars as possible.
And if the NFL views the SD proposal as getting somewhere, there is every chance they tell Spanos that he needs to buck up and try to work things through.
Isn't $100 Million going toward paying off the dome? Also, everything is an estimate and is fluid in both cities. St Louis estimates the land cost and funding sources. SD estimates the land value and funding sources.
Not sure I feel like stopping it at this point. If members get too wrapped up in acting like they know everything or start lashing out at other posters, either I will deal with it or one of the other moderators will step in.
I was against having the thread to begin with but I am really quite pleased by how the members of ROD have conducted themselves with such a volatile issue.
- Status