Agreed....Cardinals/Rams the stadium that Bill Bidwill never got! There is no water in Arizona it's a desert and Bidwill is on a horse with no name.
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
Has the league created three lame duck NFL franchises in its handling of the Los Angeles stadium deal? 101ESPN's Kevin Wheeler discusses a recent report on the topic.
Listen to LA Stadium Discussion
Listen to LA Stadium Discussion
bluecoconuts
Legend
I thought I was being clear, but I guess not.
I don't give a fuck about public money being used for a stadium.
If a city wants to do that then good for them. As long as they don't put others on the hook then I don't care one bit, and as long as they want it then cool.
As far as a I know St Louis doesn't put others on the hook, so I don't care. I assume most of the city supports it as well. Inglewood certainly did, overwhelmingly so. If they were against it then I'd say it wasn't right to pass it. Not because of any tax reasons, but because if they don't want the stadium then it shouldn't be forced on them.
That being said, my point was and continues to be that the Inglewood project is different. They are taking only profits and only after a certain threshold is made. It means that taxes don't come the individual person. They're not seeing their taxes rise any.
And again they're paying for city infrastructure upgrades that typically the city needs to pay for. Sewage, water, power, etc. When stadiums are built those aren't usually factored into the cost and thus the city take money from elsewhere and uses it for those upgrades. Kroenke is paying for them upfront and asking the city to reimburse him using only the profits that the project gets.
Its money that the city would otherwise get, but its not tax dollars from each citizen. The money could have been funded into different projects or even put away for a rainy day fund or something, who knows.
But it is different from what St Louis is doing, and when people get to equate the two they're incorrect to do so.
But again, so I'm clear, I don't give a single fuck about how the stadiums get funded. If the funding is there then its there. I wont be paying for it either way.
*Edit* also this "you're either with us or against us" black and white argument is a really poor one. Life is never black and white, things always change situation to situation.
BuiltRamTough
Pro Bowler
Silvey seeks to restrict Nixon’s authority to bond Rams stadium
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — As St. Louis and Gov. Jay Nixon continue to slog through the process of negotiating a new NFL stadium to keep the Rams from shipping west to California, a lingering question about just who will pay, and how, is beginning to get an answer.
A few weeks ago Nixon indicated that while the NFL and Rams owner Stan Kroenke would be expected to contribute to a new stadium, the state of Missouri may potentially foot at least part of the bill as well. Nixon told lawmakers and the press that he may exercise his bonding authority to help pay for part of the cost of a new stadium.
Sen. Silvey
Some lawmakers immediately raised concerns. In the upper chamber, Sen. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City Republican, flatly rejected Nixon’s assertion of his authority. Silvey says that any bonding of this magnitude needs either legislative approval, or an affirmative vote of the people. He and several of his Republican colleagues asked for a legal opinion from Attorney General Chris Koster, one they have not yet received.
In the meantime, Silvey has filed SB460, which adds a single line to state statute that would clarify that such bonding measures need approval of state lawmakers or Missouri voters. The bill is scheduled for a hearing next week, and is already gaining support.
“Either make your case to the legislature and let us vote for it, or make your case to the people and let them vote for it,” Silvey said. “But the point is that the governor has taken the position that he has unilateral authority to extend bonds without asking permission from anyone.”
Silvey was in the House in 2005 when the Kansas City Chiefs looked to the state legislature to increase funding for sports stadiums to fund renovations. Silvey, along with 83 other lawmakers, signed a letter penned by then-House Budget Chairman Brad Lager that was delivered to then-House Speaker Rod Jetton. The letter rejected increased funding for the stadiums, and called on the legislature instead to prioritize education and programs for the poor, while inviting Jackson County residents to pay for their own sports team.
Silvey says the move worked. The legislature never gave the Chiefs any money, and Jackson County voters ultimately passed their own tax increase for the stadium. Silvey is now distributing copies of the letter, now almost a decade old, to potential naysayers or critics claiming his latest bill is a regional war with the St. Louis side of the state.
Silvey says that he doesn’t believe the legislature or the voters will necessarily reject new bonds for the Rams stadium, but says the full and complete plan must be made available first so everyone makes “an informed decision.”
“The state constitution gives the legislature the power of the purse,” Silvey said. “The appropriations process comes through us. For the governor to unilaterally have the authority to come in and issue debt makes the appropriation decision for us…His answer to me is, well you could just not appropriate it. But that’s not practical. If we don’t pay our debt, then we violate the constitution, and we are the ones who tank the bond rating because we didn’t make the debt payment.”
A new Rams stadium is likely to cost upwards of $900 million, and roughly half the funds are set to come from the NFL and the Rams organization. No NFL team has ever left a city that made a concrete proposal for a pricier venue.
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — As St. Louis and Gov. Jay Nixon continue to slog through the process of negotiating a new NFL stadium to keep the Rams from shipping west to California, a lingering question about just who will pay, and how, is beginning to get an answer.
A few weeks ago Nixon indicated that while the NFL and Rams owner Stan Kroenke would be expected to contribute to a new stadium, the state of Missouri may potentially foot at least part of the bill as well. Nixon told lawmakers and the press that he may exercise his bonding authority to help pay for part of the cost of a new stadium.
Sen. Silvey
Some lawmakers immediately raised concerns. In the upper chamber, Sen. Ryan Silvey, a Kansas City Republican, flatly rejected Nixon’s assertion of his authority. Silvey says that any bonding of this magnitude needs either legislative approval, or an affirmative vote of the people. He and several of his Republican colleagues asked for a legal opinion from Attorney General Chris Koster, one they have not yet received.
In the meantime, Silvey has filed SB460, which adds a single line to state statute that would clarify that such bonding measures need approval of state lawmakers or Missouri voters. The bill is scheduled for a hearing next week, and is already gaining support.
“Either make your case to the legislature and let us vote for it, or make your case to the people and let them vote for it,” Silvey said. “But the point is that the governor has taken the position that he has unilateral authority to extend bonds without asking permission from anyone.”
Silvey was in the House in 2005 when the Kansas City Chiefs looked to the state legislature to increase funding for sports stadiums to fund renovations. Silvey, along with 83 other lawmakers, signed a letter penned by then-House Budget Chairman Brad Lager that was delivered to then-House Speaker Rod Jetton. The letter rejected increased funding for the stadiums, and called on the legislature instead to prioritize education and programs for the poor, while inviting Jackson County residents to pay for their own sports team.
Silvey says the move worked. The legislature never gave the Chiefs any money, and Jackson County voters ultimately passed their own tax increase for the stadium. Silvey is now distributing copies of the letter, now almost a decade old, to potential naysayers or critics claiming his latest bill is a regional war with the St. Louis side of the state.
Silvey says that he doesn’t believe the legislature or the voters will necessarily reject new bonds for the Rams stadium, but says the full and complete plan must be made available first so everyone makes “an informed decision.”
“The state constitution gives the legislature the power of the purse,” Silvey said. “The appropriations process comes through us. For the governor to unilaterally have the authority to come in and issue debt makes the appropriation decision for us…His answer to me is, well you could just not appropriate it. But that’s not practical. If we don’t pay our debt, then we violate the constitution, and we are the ones who tank the bond rating because we didn’t make the debt payment.”
A new Rams stadium is likely to cost upwards of $900 million, and roughly half the funds are set to come from the NFL and the Rams organization. No NFL team has ever left a city that made a concrete proposal for a pricier venue.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.co...-carson-stadium-will-be-purchased-this-month/
Land for Carson stadium will be purchased this month
Posted by Mike Florio on March 5, 2015
Regardless of whether the Chargers and Raiders move to a new stadium to be built in Carson, California, the Chargers will own a large piece of land there.
According to Nathan Fenno and Tim Logan of the Los Angeles Times, the Chargers already have agreed to purchase from Starwood Capital Group the property on which the stadium would be built.
“There are no contingencies, there is no option,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani told the Times. “We have to buy it. Starwood has to sell it.”
Meanwhile, an effort has been launched to secure 8,041 signatures, which would result in a ballot initiative landing in the lap of the Carson City Council. If the members of the council approve the effort, the public would then vote on the plan.
The initiative would create a public authority that would own the team and lease it to the Chargers and Raiders. Despite the public ownership of the venue, no tax money would be spent on the project. Goldman Sachs and others have loaned $850 million to the effort, with the money being repaid from stadium revenues.
The Carson project currently is competing with a project in Inglewood for the privilege of building an NFL stadium. AEG still hopes to build a stadium in downtown L.A.
Land for Carson stadium will be purchased this month
Posted by Mike Florio on March 5, 2015
Regardless of whether the Chargers and Raiders move to a new stadium to be built in Carson, California, the Chargers will own a large piece of land there.
According to Nathan Fenno and Tim Logan of the Los Angeles Times, the Chargers already have agreed to purchase from Starwood Capital Group the property on which the stadium would be built.
“There are no contingencies, there is no option,” Chargers special counsel Mark Fabiani told the Times. “We have to buy it. Starwood has to sell it.”
Meanwhile, an effort has been launched to secure 8,041 signatures, which would result in a ballot initiative landing in the lap of the Carson City Council. If the members of the council approve the effort, the public would then vote on the plan.
The initiative would create a public authority that would own the team and lease it to the Chargers and Raiders. Despite the public ownership of the venue, no tax money would be spent on the project. Goldman Sachs and others have loaned $850 million to the effort, with the money being repaid from stadium revenues.
The Carson project currently is competing with a project in Inglewood for the privilege of building an NFL stadium. AEG still hopes to build a stadium in downtown L.A.
First of all, they went to the voters and got far more signatures from them than would have been needed to pass it. Second, the mayor didn't just rubber stamp it. The city council (see representatives) voted unanimously as a result of the overwhelming support.
Apples to Oranges but if that was sufficient to get the funding passed for the St Louis stadium, are you saying you wouldn't take it - GLADLY?
In reality, they did hear form the citizens. They collected the signatures in VERY short order from the voters. Isn't that hearing from the citizens?
That I will agree with. But I don't think it will be a problem if Stan decides to go that route - at least in regards to the building of the stadium. Moving the team has its own set of issues that will be decided when the time comes. But I would agree with most in St Louis that if they have the funding and all their other ducks in a row and have plans for a top flight stadium, the Rams stay put.
my point was that if St Louis is doing thing wrong by not having the public vote, Inglewood should do the same.
You mean if it wasn't there? That city is playing in the red. This money is money they only get if this project goes forward. 25% of nothing is still nothing.
No.... if St Louis is doing things wrong then they are doing things wrong. If Inglewood is doing things wrong then they are doing things wrong. If the two entities have different rules then there is no parallel. But that doesn't mean St Louis (the Governor - I suppose in reality)should have to do anything it/he is not obligated to do. This is not a tit for tat. Inglewood representatives did what was required of them. If your assembly votes to restrict Nixon's powers - that is completely unrelated to anything that happened in Inglewood.
The point being that the funding in St Louis could be affected by your representatives pushing for a vote. The funding in Inglewood is not an issue.
The rest of the Stockbridge development would've brought a lot of money to that community.
And? So you are saying that they would receive the same or more revenue with no stadium? And though you might be partially correct, I believe the mechanisms would put the revenues to the state and county first whereas the city will actually get some of the revenue streams from the stadium, the concert venue, and the Forum (already are) without them being divvied up by other entities. In the long run, by my understanding, the stadium is a huge boon to the Inglewood economy and gov't coffers. Again, I reserve the right to be dead wrong.
The Denver angle isn't new, several of the people posting on this site and others have brought it up.
How nice of Bernie (LOL) to glean from message boards on the web and then rephrase things and call it his own hahaha.
I think we can all agree a new stadium would benefit both cities regardless of who's playing in them. I think the point of the conversation isn't the merits of the stadium but the fact that the media portrays the Inglewood plan as totally private financing. It's really only totally private in the initial stages, then the repayment starts. I don't think anyone doubts that it'll be good for Inglewood
bluecoconuts
Legend
The money for the infrastructure upgrades is already being spent, stadium or no stadium. It's an entirely separate thing really, its upgrades to the city infrastructure for the entire 300 acre project, not just the stadium, and thus the reimbursement is from the entire 300 acre project, not just what comes from the stadium.
A stadium just makes it faster and easier to make up the money they spent.
- Status