New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[OldSchool]

You got me to thinking...

"Value"... as in asset value... as in... not recognised until you sell the asset.

I have read many here point out that Kroenke never sells his sports franchises.

He doesn't sell things, but I will add this. IMHO it's about raising the value of the Rams to where it's an even swap for the Broncos. That alleviates the dual ownership problems.

 

[Rmfnlt]

He doesn't sell things, but I will add this. IMHO it's about raising the value of the Rams to where it's an even swap for the Broncos. That alleviates the dual ownership problems.

So you believe that's his end game... obtain the Denver Broncos?

 

[WillasDad]

Just thinking about what would civic leaders have to offer SK in order for him to really want to stay in St. Louis. The present offer of the Riverfront stadium, even with the financing all wrapped up, isn't likely to float his boat. Right now, just thinking off the top of my head, the benefits of going to LA....

- purchase value of team likely doubles
- SK owns/controls the land that the Rams play on
- ticket sale and tv contract proceeds post-distribution not having to be shared with anyone other than perhaps his partner landowners
- BIG ONE HERE....value of land purchased in Inglewood doubles/triples/more (?) in value due to land/economic demographic/public service upgrade. Some places in Inglewood have already almost doubled in value in the last year because of the prospects of the Rams moving in. Maybe he can do for Inglewood what LA Live did for downtown LA.
- Just by having a local presence, SK will also have so many more business opportunities through new contacts in the political world. Downtown LA is exploding right now with unprecedented development opportunities.
- International awareness: There is a giant international media presence in Los Angeles. Asia, particularly China, Japan, and Korea, and the Central and South American markets could potentially serve as new NFL television markets with the proper cultural and logistical know-how, which LA provides, more so than any other city in the United States. Just a note: some of you guys had some fun with the guy's name earlier this year, but David Wang, the free agent center picked up by the Rams, if he gets a spot, jersey sales could potentially go through the roof in China. Just a nice little benefit for SK if he thinks in those terms.

I'm sure there's so much more, but those are the only things I could think of off the top of my head. St. Louis would have their work cut out for themselves.

 

[snackdaddy]

Just thinking about what would civic leaders have to offer SK in order for him to really want to stay in St. Louis. The present offer of the Riverfront stadium, even with the financing all wrapped up, isn't likely to float his boat. Right now, just thinking off the top of my head, the benefits of going to LA....

- purchase value of team likely doubles
- SK owns/controls the land that the Rams play on
- ticket sale and tv contract proceeds post-distribution not having to be shared with anyone other than perhaps his partner landowners
- BIG ONE HERE....value of land purchased in Inglewood doubles/triples/more (?) in value due to land/economic demographic/public service upgrade. Some places in Inglewood have already almost doubled in value in the last year because of the prospects of the Rams moving in. Maybe he can do for Inglewood what LA Live did for downtown LA.
- Just by having a local presence, SK will also have so many more business opportunities through new contacts in the political world. Downtown LA is exploding right now with unprecedented development opportunities.
- International awareness: There is a giant international media presence in Los Angeles. Asia, particularly China, Japan, and Korea, and the Central and South American markets could potentially serve as new NFL television markets with the proper cultural and logistical know-how, which LA provides, more so than any other city in the United States. Just a note: some of you guys had some fun with the guy's name earlier this year, but David Wang, the free agent center picked up by the Rams, if he gets a spot, jersey sales could potentially go through the roof in China. Just a nice little benefit for SK if he thinks in those terms.

I'm sure there's so much more, but those are the only things I could think of off the top of my head. St. Louis would have their work cut out for themselves.

The international thing would be something in LA's favor. I imagine it would be easier to attract international fans with the Los Angeles Rams. St. Louis just doesn't have the kind of exposure LA has. Then again, winning is the best way to attract those fans.

 

[Rmfnlt]

Just thinking about what would civic leaders have to offer SK in order for him to really want to stay in St. Louis. The present offer of the Riverfront stadium, even with the financing all wrapped up, isn't likely to float his boat. Right now, just thinking off the top of my head, the benefits of going to LA....

- purchase value of team likely doubles
- SK owns/controls the land that the Rams play on
- ticket sale and tv contract proceeds post-distribution not having to be shared with anyone other than perhaps his partner landowners
- BIG ONE HERE....value of land purchased in Inglewood doubles/triples/more (?) in value due to land/economic demographic/public service upgrade. Some places in Inglewood have already almost doubled in value in the last year because of the prospects of the Rams moving in. Maybe he can do for Inglewood what LA Live did for downtown LA.
- Just by having a local presence, SK will also have so many more business opportunities through new contacts in the political world. Downtown LA is exploding right now with unprecedented development opportunities.
- International awareness: There is a giant international media presence in Los Angeles. Asia, particularly China, Japan, and Korea, and the Central and South American markets could potentially serve as new NFL television markets with the proper cultural and logistical know-how, which LA provides, more so than any other city in the United States. Just a note: some of you guys had some fun with the guy's name earlier this year, but David Wang, the free agent center picked up by the Rams, if he gets a spot, jersey sales could potentially go through the roof in China. Just a nice little benefit for SK if he thinks in those terms.

I'm sure there's so much more, but those are the only things I could think of off the top of my head. St. Louis would have their work cut out for themselves.

Pretty compelling reasons... for sure.

Only reasons to stay in St. Louis were those words he uttered when he took ownership... and that rule that says you can't up and move solely because it makes you more money.

But, yeah, the reasons are impressive.

 

[OldSchool]

So you believe that's his end game... obtain the Denver Broncos?

I think that is more likely than him just selling the team after the value goes up with a move to LA. With people as wealthy as him, that built it up themselves, I think it's a game to see how much they can increase that number. So I don't think he sells the team but a franchise swap could happen.

 

[drasconis]

It was.

"In the event [that] the Facilities and each Component thereof is not First Tier [by] March 1, 2005, or March 1, 2015, the RAMS may by written notice to CVC convert the term of this Amended Lease to an annual tenancy from the date of notice ... with the RAMS having successive unilateral [sic] annual renewal options thereafter until then end of the original term of this Amended Lease.

the RAMS will then be entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate from [the Edward Jones Dome] as of the end of any year of the lease period."

While that would hold true to the CVC/city with regard to the Rams moving that isn't the question, the question is if it meets the NFL requirements? No one is saying that city has a legal case to keep the Rams from moving, the question is if the NFL does based on their rules/requirement? (Note that, yes there is a question if the courts would uphold those rules, but then there is a question if the Kroenke is willing to take it that far).

 

[tahoe]

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...ains-Voluntary-Long-Term-Option-for-Rams.aspx

At this stage of a St. Louis Rams stadium chase that I began covering prior to the initiation of the Edward Jones Dome-related arbitration case, many fans and media alike insist that if the franchise is to remain in the Gateway City, it will be through involuntary means.

While that currently looks to be a very reasonable and sound assertion, it is nonetheless not necessarily correct.

At least not according to a trusted, well-connected source.

According to the aforementioned individual, St. Louis continues to be a long-term consideration for the Rams -- and not just in the case that they are unapproved to move to Los Angeles.

To further clarify, St. Louis remains a prospective voluntary option for the Rams -- but with a couple of caveats of sorts:

- One, as myself and others have tirelessly reiterated, there remain yet-to-be determined details relative to the broader stadium situation that must be clarified before anyone will know with certainty what the potential scope of options for the Rams would include -- regardless of whether one is speaking of L.A. or St. Louis.

- Two, a possible decision by the Rams to remain would most likely involve more than just the realization of public financing by Governor Jay Nixon's St. Louis Stadium Task Force, but also be based upon other unspecified factors.

What, though, might those other unnamed considerations include?

Of course, the Rams -- like any franchise who would contemplate agreeing to a prospective new stadium lease -- would want to secure optimal revenue splits in and around the venue. Obviously, this would include all Rams-related functions, but would also almost certainly involve hammering out details regarding other events at the complex as well.

Along the same lines, you can be confident that the Rams would want assurances of a certain level of long-term corporate support and corresponding suite sales with respect to a new St. Louis stadium lease. This is a topic that the Task Force looks to have taken preemptive steps to address, however.

Beyond those obvious considerations, some other factors that might be negotiated before the Rams might potentially select the St. Louis alternative could include the following:

-The Rams might desire the ability to utilize some of the land around a new Riverfront Stadium to generate additional year-round profits or bolster the game day experience. Other NFL owners, like Robert Kraft of the New England Patriots, have procured property around their venues to enhance revenues. Options for development might include retail space, a tourism generating anchor tenant like a Bass Pro, entertainment options, hotels, dining or a number of other alternatives.

- Rams owner Stan Kroenke could attempt to obtain a cross-ownership exemption as part of an agreement to voluntarily stay in St. Louis. Kroenke has resisted cross-ownership compliance for quite some time, but eventually, this issue must be satisfactorily remedied.

- A possible endgame where Kroenke ends up with the Denver Broncos while local ownership takes control of the Rams is not out of the realm of possibility. That said, this scenarios' potential viability is contingent upon a number of variable factors.

- MLS options could ultimately be a point of negotiation, as a professional soccer franchise within a new Riverfront stadium could generate additional profits for the Rams -- via one means or another.

While I could continue with more theoretic Rams stadium deliberations, you can bet if the organization is ultimately going to commit to remaining in St. Louis by choice, certain things will need to be ironed out that extend beyond the securing of public financing for a new Missouri home.

In short, according to the aforementioned source, the Rams are said to be cultivating their options -- which is understandable and wise from a long-range business perspective yet confusing, problematic and worrisome in the short-term for a fractured fan base.

As I continue to caution, the St. Louis stadium situation and the interrelated NFL to L.A. drama has a ways to go before being solved. There are many moving parts -- no pun intended -- that have yet to be solidified.

In the meantime, the local Task Force will continue to plug away and make progress. They are out in front of other home market efforts in San Diego and Oakland.

Working in conjunction with the NFL throughout the process, they have attained significant confidence from the league while building momentum towards keeping the Rams.All that said, there is still a long way to go before we know how things ultimately play out in St. Louis, San Diego, Oakland, Carson and Inglewood.

Specifically in St. Louis, there is much to be decided before we truly know whether the Rams follow through and attempt to move, are essentially forced to stay in St. Louis or voluntarily elect to permanently establish roots beneath the iconic shadows of the Gateway Arch.

Stay tuned...

 

[OldSchool]

While that would hold true to the CVC/city with regard to the Rams moving that isn't the question, the question is if it meets the NFL requirements? No one is saying that city has a legal case to keep the Rams from moving, the question is if the NFL does based on their rules/requirement? (Note that, yes there is a question if the courts would uphold those rules, but then there is a question if the Kroenke is willing to take it that far).

One thing to keep in mind when asking these questions is that bylaws and their interpretations can be amended and open for debate. Have the Rams met the requirement for the relocation bylaws? Will the owners change the bylaws to fit the situation? I wouldn't get so attached to the relocation bylaws, or any of the NFL's bylaws to be honest.

 

[bluecoconuts]

Pretty compelling reasons... for sure.

Only reasons to stay in St. Louis were those words he uttered when he took ownership... and that rule that says you can't up and move solely because it makes you more money.

But, yeah, the reasons are impressive.

That's why Georgia moved, isn't it? NFL owners voiced their displeasure with it in fact.

 

[The Ripper]

It was.

"In the event [that] the Facilities and each Component thereof is not First Tier [by] March 1, 2005, or March 1, 2015, the RAMS may by written notice to CVC convert the term of this Amended Lease to an annual tenancy from the date of notice ... with the RAMS having successive unilateral [sic] annual renewal options thereafter until then end of the original term of this Amended Lease.

the RAMS will then be entitled to negotiate and execute a lease with any person or entity and to relocate from [the Edward Jones Dome] as of the end of any year of the lease period."

While that would hold true to the CVC/city with regard to the Rams moving that isn't the question, the question is if it meets the NFL requirements? No one is saying that city has a legal case to keep the Rams from moving, the question is if the NFL does based on their rules/requirement? (Note that, yes there is a question if the courts would uphold those rules, but then there is a question if the Kroenke is willing to take it that far).

The NFL must approve all team leases and they have done that at least twice so if the NFL had an issue with it they would have had the Rams remove it.

 

[RamBill]

Warner: Would Be A Travesty for STL Not to Have a Team

Former Rams quarterback Kurt Warner joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box on Monday to discuss several topics, including the Greatest Show Era, his return to St. Louis for an event being held soon at Busch stadium. Warner: I think it would be a travesty for St. Louis not to have a team.

Listen to Warner Interview



Have you been following the Rams' possible relocation saga?

"Of course I am. (My heart is so much) in St. Louis and (I want) to see the team stay there. My history with the Rams is all about St. Louis. With us having a number of guys in that finalist group for the Hall of Fame, those guys primarily played the bulk of their career - if not all - in St. Louis. It's a special place and a place that means so much to me, that I think a travesty for St. Louis not to have a team. I understand the pull to LA. I understand the league wants a team in LA. I believe St. Louis should have a team. I want that team to always be the Rams because a huge part of who I am and my career will always be synanomous with the St. Louis Rams."

 

[OldSchool]

Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_eedfbcd9-d7fc-5440-9cab-4da38cad28e7.html


ST. LOUIS • A pillar of the financing package pushed by new stadium backers may not produce as much available revenue as they have represented in court.

For months, planners of the riverfront stadium have argued, as they arrange finances for a new arena, that city taxpayers will shoulder no new burden. The same taxes that are paying down debt on the Edward Jones Dome will fund the new stadium too, they say.

But according to records obtained by the Post-Dispatch, the $8.5 million raised yearly by the city’s hotel-motel tax is already spoken for. It’s pledged to the $17.7 million annual debt payments for the nearly 25-year-old south wing of the city’s convention center — not to the Dome.


Moreover, wrote Budget Director Paul Payne in one of multiple emails to key mayoral staffers, the St. Louis Rams aren’t producing enough tax money — from tickets sales, payroll, concessions, etc. — to directly cover the debts associated with construction of the Edward Jones Dome.

Collectively, the new information casts doubt on the premise that both sources of revenue could underwrite a future project — when in fact they do not support debts on projects already built.

“If we were starting from scratch, that plan would look great,” Payne said last week in an interview with the Post-Dispatch. “But we're not starting from scratch.”

A rosier picture was presented to Judge Thomas Frawley by attorneys pushing the new riverfront stadium. They argued repeatedly in court on Thursday that the hotel tax more than covers the city’s annual $6 million payments toward Dome debt and upkeep.

The attorneys were representing the public board that manages the Dome. The board is suing the city to block a citywide vote on the use of city tax dollars to help build the proposed $985 million stadium.

Frawley asked several questions about the funding source for the Dome debt. Attorneys for the Dome, including general counsel Bob Blitz, a member of Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium task force, answered consistently that the hotel tax covers the bill.

But, according to the documents, budget director Payne wrote to City Counselor Winston Calvert early on Friday seeking to clarify the record.

Payne had read news accounts of the hearing, including “arguments from opposing counsel … that the hotel tax approved by voters is the current source of funding for payments on the dome,” he wrote to Calvert.

“I have heard this contention before,” Payne’s email continued, “and it is certainly not the case.”

Hotel tax revenues are directed, by law, to first cover convention center debt, Payne said. Any leftover would go to pay the Dome debt, he continued. But there isn’t any.

Annual convention center and Dome debt payments together add up to about $23.5 million.

The two taxes dedicated to servicing that debt — the 3.5 percent hotel tax plus the city’s 1 percent restaurant tax — together produce less than $15 million, Payne said.

Blitz, contacted on Friday, said he wasn’t an expert on the issue, and passed questions to Thompson Coburn bond attorney Michael Lause. Lause, who argued on behalf of the Dome authority on Thursday, did not return a call seeking comment.

Calvert, the city attorney, said he heard the Dome attorneys in court, but decided not to jump into the fray. “I wasn't there to talk about the legal mechanics,” he said on Friday. “We've not been involved in what the financing plan would be.”

“A lot of legal issues will need to be worked out over time,” he said.

Mary Ellen Ponder, chief of staff to Mayor Francis Slay, said that the city still hasn’t received a formal financial proposal from Nixon’s task force. “How can I analyze a proposal I don't have?” she asked on Friday.

Still, she noted, it isn’t fair to gauge Dome revenues by Rams games alone; it creates some additional revenue through convention usage.

 

[WillasDad]

The international thing would be something in LA's favor. I imagine it would be easier to attract international fans with the Los Angeles Rams. St. Louis just doesn't have the kind of exposure LA has. Then again, winning is the best way to attract those fans.

Best way to attract those fans, at least in the early stages, is playing a beloved player from that area a la Yao Ming and China. Rather than force feeding it to countries who have very little reason to adopt the sport (WLAF), I see growth and success coming more by cultivating organic growth through interest in a player, much like Yao Ming was for the the Rockets and the NBA, and Hideo Nomo, Chan Ho Park and Fernando Valenzuela for the Dodgers and MLB, each of whom brought familiarity and ultimately love for the sport to their respective countries. Football is still a relatively unknown sports throughout the rest of the world. Having a forward-thinking ownership/management in a city where the world pays attention to could make the sport explode worldwide.

 

[blue4]

The international thing would be something in LA's favor. I imagine it would be easier to attract international fans with the Los Angeles Rams. St. Louis just doesn't have the kind of exposure LA has. Then again, winning is the best way to attract those fans.

I don't know about that. Nobody overseas gave a crap about the Los Angeles Rams the first time around. LA may be an international city, but who really follows an overseas team without some sort of continued live exposure? The Des Moines Cornstalks could get a following if they played once or twice year in an overseas country. Plus, the big plus here, they actually have to win games. No move to LA magically fixes that. One could also argue that a run first football team compared to a passing team wouldn't fair well drawing fans with limited understanding of the game. Berlin is a international city, but I don't follow anything they do. It's not on tv, it's not here. Stan may be a billionaire, but that doesn't mean he can get his team on international tv.
Not to mention when one thinks of American football it's the Cowboys and the Packers.

This international angle to me is one of those things that looks good on paper, but would actually require a whole lot of work to make good. Starting with a team that can win football games, and do it in a way that unfamiliar people want to watch. Being from LA or St Louis doesn't mean squat.

 

[blue4]

Best way to attract those fans, at least in the early stages, is playing a beloved player from that area a la Yao Ming and China. Rather than force feeding it to countries who have very little reason to adopt the sport (WLAF), I see growth and success coming more by cultivating organic growth through interest in a player, much like Yao Ming was for the the Rockets and the NBA, and Hideo Nomo, Chan Ho Park and Fernando Valenzuela for the Dodgers and MLB, each of whom brought familiarity and ultimately love for the sport to their respective countries. Football is still a relatively unknown sports throughout the rest of the world. Having a forward-thinking ownership/management in a city where the world pays attention to could make the sport explode worldwide.

But you don't need LA to make this strategy work. It will work anywhere. Wasn't Ming in Houston? The world doesn't hang on every thing LA does. It's a mistake to think otherwise, I think.

 

[ChrisW]

Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_eedfbcd9-d7fc-5440-9cab-4da38cad28e7.html


ST. LOUIS • A pillar of the financing package pushed by new stadium backers may not produce as much available revenue as they have represented in court.

For months, planners of the riverfront stadium have argued, as they arrange finances for a new arena, that city taxpayers will shoulder no new burden. The same taxes that are paying down debt on the Edward Jones Dome will fund the new stadium too, they say.

But according to records obtained by the Post-Dispatch, the $8.5 million raised yearly by the city’s hotel-motel tax is already spoken for. It’s pledged to the $17.7 million annual debt payments for the nearly 25-year-old south wing of the city’s convention center — not to the Dome.


Moreover, wrote Budget Director Paul Payne in one of multiple emails to key mayoral staffers, the St. Louis Rams aren’t producing enough tax money — from tickets sales, payroll, concessions, etc. — to directly cover the debts associated with construction of the Edward Jones Dome.

Collectively, the new information casts doubt on the premise that both sources of revenue could underwrite a future project — when in fact they do not support debts on projects already built.

“If we were starting from scratch, that plan would look great,” Payne said last week in an interview with the Post-Dispatch. “But we're not starting from scratch.”

A rosier picture was presented to Judge Thomas Frawley by attorneys pushing the new riverfront stadium. They argued repeatedly in court on Thursday that the hotel tax more than covers the city’s annual $6 million payments toward Dome debt and upkeep.

The attorneys were representing the public board that manages the Dome. The board is suing the city to block a citywide vote on the use of city tax dollars to help build the proposed $985 million stadium.

Frawley asked several questions about the funding source for the Dome debt. Attorneys for the Dome, including general counsel Bob Blitz, a member of Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man stadium task force, answered consistently that the hotel tax covers the bill.

But, according to the documents, budget director Payne wrote to City Counselor Winston Calvert early on Friday seeking to clarify the record.

Payne had read news accounts of the hearing, including “arguments from opposing counsel … that the hotel tax approved by voters is the current source of funding for payments on the dome,” he wrote to Calvert.

“I have heard this contention before,” Payne’s email continued, “and it is certainly not the case.”

Hotel tax revenues are directed, by law, to first cover convention center debt, Payne said. Any leftover would go to pay the Dome debt, he continued. But there isn’t any.

Annual convention center and Dome debt payments together add up to about $23.5 million.

The two taxes dedicated to servicing that debt — the 3.5 percent hotel tax plus the city’s 1 percent restaurant tax — together produce less than $15 million, Payne said.

Blitz, contacted on Friday, said he wasn’t an expert on the issue, and passed questions to Thompson Coburn bond attorney Michael Lause. Lause, who argued on behalf of the Dome authority on Thursday, did not return a call seeking comment.

Calvert, the city attorney, said he heard the Dome attorneys in court, but decided not to jump into the fray. “I wasn't there to talk about the legal mechanics,” he said on Friday. “We've not been involved in what the financing plan would be.”

“A lot of legal issues will need to be worked out over time,” he said.

Mary Ellen Ponder, chief of staff to Mayor Francis Slay, said that the city still hasn’t received a formal financial proposal from Nixon’s task force. “How can I analyze a proposal I don't have?” she asked on Friday.

Still, she noted, it isn’t fair to gauge Dome revenues by Rams games alone; it creates some additional revenue through convention usage.

This is just the city's portion they are talking about, right? Or that's what I'm getting. Why is there no mention of the county still paying off the debt or the state either?

Also, the idea is to extend the bonds. So pay off the dome first, then pay off the new stadium. That's the purpose of extending them another 20 years. Or am I wrong on that?

The line at the end talks about additional revenue from conventions. With the building being opened up from August to January when the Rams move out...how much additional revenue would be generated? Would it cover the shortfalls?

 

[OldSchool]

This is just the city's portion they are talking about, right? Or that's what I'm getting. Why is there no mention of the county still paying off the debt or the state either?

Also, the idea is to extend the bonds. So pay off the dome first, then pay off the new stadium. That's the purpose of extending them another 20 years. Or am I wrong on that?

The line at the end talks about additional revenue from conventions. With the building being opened up from August to January when the Rams move out...how much additional revenue would be generated? Would it cover the shortfalls?

The way I read it was the Budget Director for the City did a study and found two things.

1) The hotel tax that the Peacock/Blizz want to use for the new stadium isn't generating as much money as they say in their proposal.

2) The money they're wanting to assign from that tax can't be touched for 25 years because it is budgeted to go to paying the Dome.

This is Mayor Fraye(did I get St Louis' mayors name right?) appointed guy or is it an elected official? In other words is this a guy appointed by the Mayor who's a backer of the stadium giving a bad report? Or is this another political obstacle being thrown out there. I'm curious on St Louis' elections. Here the budget director is appointed by the Mayor and approved by the city council. So he's a political appointee/pawn so to speak. Either way this looks like yet another financing hurdle to get over, the degree of which would be decided by the politics of the office imo.

 

[tonyl711]

Given that the taskforce has made changes based on Rams suggestions, that either means that Demoff has some say in how things go either personally or via proxy, or they've been negotiating with Stan. Which one would you like to pick?



Earned or not earned, the simple fact is that the Rams could be playing that game and they're not, they've decided to be professional. Doing a camp in Oxnard is a little bit of a dick move, but playing preseason games? Since when did teams decide where they're playing their games?

Tell me which you would rather be doing, negotiating with someone that whatever you do other than bend over and listen to their every demand, is going to trash you publicly, or someone who's just going to essentially going to let you do your thing and let you know privately if he likes it or not?

I have a hard time believing that anyone on this forum, regardless of what side they're on, would rather negotiate with the first person.

i have a hard time believing that anyone on this forum would be happy negotiating with someone who wont even answer a phone call,

 

[OldSchool]

This is just the city's portion they are talking about, right? Or that's what I'm getting. Why is there no mention of the county still paying off the debt or the state either?

Yeah the way I'm reading it is this is only about the St Louis hotel tax and how much it generates and how it's used.