New: Latest on Kroenke, Rams and NFL in STL

[blue4]

bluecoconuts: "I think Stan can point to the team before he took over and the team after he took over as to what he's done to improve his business. The Rams may not be over the hump yet, but they're a lot closer now than they were before he became the majority owner. Even with him seemingly having one foot out the door."

Exactly! Many seem to forget just how terribly this team was run by the previous regime. Everything from top to bottom seemed to be rotten. It was so bad, that it is taking extra time to turn things around. Does anyone even recall how many of our so called "starters" were completely out of football shortly after Stan took the reigns. 'Completely out of football'! That means nobody else wanted them. Stan was not the 'shot caller' before she died, and now he is relatively new at it. I will give him time, because I knew it would take extra time for ANY new owner to turn that mess around.

Also, just like that owner before Stan...., I couldn't care less if he makes a bunch of public statements or not. None. If he prefers to use a mouthpiece..., more power to him. I just don't really care about that. I do care about the product on the field. And I do see things changing for the better.

We haven't forgotten how bad the team was, but just saying we're not as bad as before doesn't change the fact that after last year's 6-10 we are still bad.

 

[RAMbler]

He can? 7-8-1, 7-9, 6-10 and an alienation of his money supply? You and I have a very different view of improving a business.

....seems like an improvement over 3-13, 2-14, 1-15 to me.... and yeah, that's taking a long time. But maybe catching lighting in a bottle (1999-2001) just doesn't happen very often.... Just got to remember what he inherited....

 

[OldSchool]

David Hunn Discuss Stadium Tax Revenue, City Hearing on Public

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...-Tax-Revenue-City-Hearing-on-Public-Vote.aspx


St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter David Hunn on Tuesday wrote that existing Edward Jones Dome tax revenues may not be enough to cover the city's share of a new stadium,

contradicting stadium backers who've argued city taxpayers won't have to pay new, additional taxes.

Hunn joined The Hollywood Casino Press Box to further discuss his piece and talk about the latest he's hearing on the stadium projects both in St. Louis and in the Los Angeles area.

We've transcribed most of the notable excerpts below. You can listen to the whole thing here:

When are we going to find out if the stadium project has to go to a public vote?

"I expect to hear something soon. The lawyers don't want to talk about it, the judge obviously won't. But generally, people think he's going to move quickly on this because he feels like he needs to move quickly, the process needs him to move quickly."

More on a possible city vote:

"The vote in the city matters a lot. If it has to go to a vote in the city's that's really going to be a new wrinkle in the stadium planners' game."

Can you try to explain your article and how the tax revenue works in paying for a new stadium?

"To make long story short, city leaders asked the city budget director to crunch the numbers. (They wanted to know) roughly what tax revenues do the Rams provide the city of St. Louis? And the answer was about $4.2 million a year. The debt service the city pays on the Edward Jones Dome is about $6 million a year. Just taking the Rams tax revenues into account, they come about $1.8 million short from paying down the annual debt on the Dome. The one thing that's not included...for instance, the St. Louis CVC, they go out and get conventions to come. About a dozen of those conventions wouldn't be able to come here if it wasn't for the Dome. The city makes a lot of tax money on those convention go-ers. This is a tough picture and it's really unclear if the Dome pays for itself or not."

Will these lawsuit verdicts have some appeals that could delay the stadium project?

"This is just my opinion...My understanding of this is that appeals wouldn't stop the project. They'd have to basically persuade a judge to stop work on a project and I don't think that's an easy thing to do. If they appeal...I think the work would just progress as normal."

What do you know about the NFL meetings in August?

"What they've said is they're going to hear options in Los Angeles. But now they may be taking a step back. I think the truthful answer is we don't know what's going to happen with those meetings."

How far along is the Carson project?

"I think (Rams owner Stan) Kroenke is more respected than people understand. He's a billionaire who's very successful. The other NFL owners want a team in LA and if they perceive that Kroenke gives them the best chance...I don't think they'll care if he's respected. But the Carson project is coming along nicely. People suggest it's catching up to Kroenke's project in Inglewood. We haven't heard from Kroenke in a while. I think it's foolish to think (his Inglewood) project is not making progress just because we haven't heard from him."

Doesn't it seem to make the most sense to go with the Carson project, since that would solve the Raiders' and Chargers' stadium issues and St. Louis has made the most progres with a new stadium?

"I think the wrinkle in that is Kroenke clearly wants to leave. That has to play some role. On top of that, there are problems with the Carson site. There were hurdles initially. If Carson and Inglewood are neck and neck, that puts the NFL in a really interesting spot. "

What is a possible stumbling block for Kroenke's Inglewood project?

"I think the one stumbling block would be can the NFL prevent him from moving there. The St. Louis plan is far, far along in comparison to the Raiders or San Diego. There really is no comparison. So that's the biggest stumbling block, St. Louis.

 

[RAMbler]

We haven't forgotten how bad the team was, but just saying we're not as bad as before doesn't change the fact that after last year's 6-10 we are still bad.

....but see, I do think we're getting better. I think we have a much more solid foundation to move forward with. I would take the current regime over the previous one.... over and over again.

 

[blue4]

Compared to 2-14, 1-15, etc? I'd say that's an improvement.

So we're still bad after 3 years and a multitude of high draft picks due to the Redskins stupidity and ineptitude.....Just not as bad.

Not going to agree on this issue either. 6-10 is bad. It just is.

 

[The Ripper]

The problem is the division that they play in. The last 2 years it's been the toughest in the NFL.

 

[blue4]

....but see, I do think we're getting better. I think we have a much more solid foundation to move forward with. I would take the current regime over the previous one.... over and over again.

You are talking from a fans perspective. I'm talking from another owner's perspective sitting across the table from Demoff who is trying to convince other teams that 6-10 represents improvement to his business. What I think is irrelevant. Personally, I think we have gotten better, but our offensive line is still shaping up to struggle. But that's irrelevant. What's relevant is that Stan has had many more premium draft pick than their teams and he still isn't seriously competing for the division or the playoffs.

 

[D L]

Compared to 2-14, 1-15, etc? I'd say that's an improvement.

You convienently ignored the Rams going 2-14 in 2011 under Stan's watch.

 

[drasconis]

The part that causes an issue is that CVC is actually in a better position by getting out of the clause because they're not responsible for the cost to keep the top tier standard. The Rams are in a worse position because if the NFL forces them to stay their only option is to stay in the Dome which no one wants or contribute to a stadium they might or might not want and will force them to cover a majority of the cost for a stadium that they won't control. The Rams will be a tenant. The wording was in there for there to be a cost to the CVC if they didn't comply.

The counter argument is that otherwise you tell teams - if you want to move and have a lease with any opt out (such as top teir standard) make a high end demand, when it isn't met claim that was your negotiation and leave once the lease is up...

I agree that the clause was STL mistake and they are paying for it by either losing the Rams or giving the Rams massive leverage in the negotiations.

The other issue that if the Rams move but SD/OAK are not allowed to what are you saying to the other owner....SD has been in a bad situation far longer....sorry but instead of trying to work with local communities you want to be the first to jump (screw the PR hit). Your basicly telling SD they should have stopped negotiations long ago and just moved. What do you tell the owner of Minn....sorry we made you fight it out for years, your own fault you should have jumped faster at LA options (how long were they or SD in stadium "they did not want"). Are you telling Cincy/Texans - if either of you want London/SA/MC get out fast and move , you won't be rewarded for "playing nice" and trying to make it work locally?

 

[blue4]

The problem is the division that they play in. The last 2 years it's been the toughest in the NFL.

Didn't seem to hold the cardinals back when faced with similar issues. Again, I'm looking at this not as a fan but as another owner. Getting a game worse than your last year every year is not improving. It just isn't. These are results orientated people. If excuses aren't thought to work for ST Louis and their case, why would they work for Stan?

 

[bluecoconuts]

So we're still bad after 3 years and a multitude of high draft picks due to the Redskins stupidity and ineptitude.....Just not as bad.

Not going to agree on this issue either. 6-10 is bad. It just is.

You convienently ignored the Rams going 2-14 in 2011 under Stan's watch.

So you guys don't think we've improved or that we're closer to being a good team now than we were before Stan started changing up the front office?

 

[Goose]

In response to the story headlined -- "Football tax revenues don't cover existing debt on Dome, says city budget director" -- stadium task force co-chair Dave Peacock issued a statement:

"The current discussion about the funding of the Dome from hotel taxes or not is not consequential to the RSA’s legal arguments. The RSA’s lawyers are not arguing that a vote is unnecessary because the voters already approved the hotel/motel tax. They are arguing that a vote would violate the RSA statute and the City Charter.

"We have said all along that the city's contribution to a new stadium would come from a combination of existing revenue streams, i.e. extending the $5-million debt service payments currently used for the Dome and the $1-million from the preservation fund payments once they expire in 2024 plus taxes generated by the game day experience.

"On the surface, I do believe the direct taxes from the Rams, the indirect taxes from game days, plus events in the Dome like tractor pulls, plus hotel/restaurant and other taxes generated by those convention goers resulting from having the Dome likely do cover the city Dome payments.

"As to whether that will be true in the new stadium, we don't know enough to say. We know the Dome will generate more revenue for our convention business with the Rams out of the building. We know the Rams exiting the Dome but staying in the market is better than having them leave altogether. We do know a new outdoor stadium positions the city better relative to attracting MLS soccer. We also know that redeveloping the North Riverfront is imperative.

"We have said for quite some time that the city's portion would come from the existing Dome payments being extended plus revenue generated by the game day experience.

"That has not changed. Bottom line, between the State and the City, we should be able to fund the public portion of the proposed new stadium without tax increases."

http://interact.stltoday.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1118127

 

[Goose]

 

[Rmfnlt]

So you guys don't think we've improved or that we're closer to being a good team now than we were before Stan started changing up the front office?

We have been more "tolerably bad" since Kroenke took total control.. of course, he had a voice during the worst of the worst... maybe he was too busy planning his escape strategy?

Being under .500 for five years isn't usually a recipe for filling the seats...

 

[dbrooks25]

Compared to 2-14, 1-15, etc? I'd say that's an improvement.

Yeah, I know someone whose credit score improved from 400 to 490. Guess what, it's still a shitty credit score.

 

[rick6fan]

The Rams are in a worse position because if the NFL forces them to stay their only option is to stay in the Dome which no one wants or contribute to a stadium they might or might not want and will force them to cover a majority of the cost for a stadium that they won't control.

Or Stan could spend his billions and build his own palace in St. Louis...

 

[Rmfnlt]

Yeah, I know someone whose credit score improved from 400 to 490. Guess what, it's still a crappy credit score.

Great analogy!

 

[The Ripper]

The counter argument is that otherwise you tell teams - if you want to move and have a lease with any opt out (such as top teir standard) make a high end demand, when it isn't met claim that was your negotiation and leave once the lease is up...

I agree that the clause was STL mistake and they are paying for it by either losing the Rams or giving the Rams massive leverage in the negotiations.

The other issue that if the Rams move but SD/OAK are not allowed to what are you saying to the other owner....SD has been in a bad situation far longer....sorry but instead of trying to work with local communities you want to be the first to jump (screw the PR hit). Your basicly telling SD they should have stopped negotiations long ago and just moved. What do you tell the owner of Minn....sorry we made you fight it out for years, your own fault you should have jumped faster at LA options (how long were they or SD in stadium "they did not want"). Are you telling Cincy/Texans - if either of you want London/SA/MC get out fast and move , you won't be rewarded for "playing nice" and trying to make it work locally?

CVC made the first proposal and if it was more substantial the arbitrators had the choice to chose either plan or come up with their own. Whether anyone thinks that the Rams the arbitrators chose the Rams proposal. The NFL has the choice to change future leases but not existing ones. For the record personally I think the structure of the Riverfront proposal has the basic framework for the way the deals should be done except for that the stadium would be controlled by the city. The city provide the infrastructure and the land. The owner should pay for the stadium.

Yes, but SD has had plenty of opportunity to change their situation but they haven't. All 3 current teams have been working with their communities for a long time and judging the process at the end is not a fair representation. The problems in SD aren't just from the community but Dean too. Minnesota was a complete different situation since LA was never a legitimate opportunity for them but yes the Chargers should have left SD a long time ago. When it comes the Bengals and Texans it's the owners call what they want to do with their own situation but the NFL doesn't want to weaken their leverage that they have with the negotiations.

 

[The Ripper]

Or Stan could spend his billions and build his own palace in St. Louis...

Yes, that's definitely something he could do.

 

[RamBill]

Bernie: One Year Delay to LA a San Diego Pipe Dream
Bernie Miklasz joined Kevin Wheeler to talk about the SD pipe dream of another year delay on the LA move. He said it was made up by the editors of a San Diego newspaper.

Listen to Bernie Talk LA Move Delay

Bernie Talks LA Delay at 8:35