Rams can keep Rams Park for $1.

[jrry32]

I won't take that bet. Billionaires don't become billionaires by walking away from a $19M investment opportunity off of a dollar buy-in. Let me ask you though. Does the other party bear no responsibility for giving him this provision when they lured the Rams over there? Are they scrupulous for trying to back out of something they offered and were willing to lose, no questions asked?

I'm assuming this was part of the original deal with Georgia. I doubt the city believed the team would be leaving them when they made the deal. Was it stupid and short-sighted? Absolutely. But you're not sticking it to the same people that made that deal. And when you stick it to the politicians of the city, you're actually sticking it to the taxpayers of the city. The people that paid what they had to come out and support the team over the past 20 years. I can't support something as repugnant as that.

 

[RamzFanz]

I won't take that bet. Billionaires don't become billionaires by walking away from a $19M investment opportunity off of a dollar buy-in. Let me ask you though. Does the other party bear no responsibility for giving him this provision when they lured the Rams over there? Are they scrupulous for trying to back out of something they offered and were willing to lose, no questions asked?

I agree with you X, they made a deal they could never live up to. Assigning intent is not accurate as far as any of us know.

When arbitration came they couldn't spend $700,000,000. It was never going to happen in a struggling city just exiting a recession. They did offer $450,000,000 for a new stadium, so they did try. Too little, too late, but it is a shit ton of money on a silver platter for what was recently the worst NFL team in history. They did make an offer to a man who made many millions off of them, refused to even speak to them, and made a promise he never even attempted to keep.

I'm pretty sure $700,000,000 is more than any city has ever spent on a stadium renovation or is at least near the top. Did they foresee this amount for renovations when they signed the lease? I don't know.

Honestly, in reflection, I'm satisfied with the city losing. They were throwing good money after bad and trying to do yet another deal with a snake. Hopefully we will get an expansion team or a team not being supported by their city with an honest and upstanding owner who loves football.

 

[RamzFanz]

It looks to me like the deal was basically a lease to own loan. We'll build it, you pay on a lease that pays off the facility, and then you can have it.

This deal, in my mind, speaks to the intent of the city to live up to their obligations when they signed the stadium lease.

 

[-X-]

I'm assuming this was part of the original deal with Georgia. I doubt the city believed the team would be leaving them when they made the deal. Was it stupid and short-sighted? Absolutely. But you're not sticking it to the same people that made that deal. And when you stick it to the politicians of the city, you're actually sticking it to the taxpayers of the city. The people that paid what they had to come out and support the team over the past 20 years. I can't support something as repugnant as that.

Fair enough. I'm kind of on the fence about the legal/moral conundrum, but I do think he should just walk away from it for the reasons you stated. I've dealt with a lot of contracts and have been a mediator in a lot of disputes. Multi-million dollar contract disputes. Parties do generally make grandiose gestures in contracts to sweeten the pot, but they do it because they really anticipate no situation where the other party will come calling for the payout. They count on a budding and mutually beneficial relationship to keep those provisions buried. That's probably what happened in the original agreement. They likely never envisioned that the Rams would leave LA, come to St Louis and then leave for LA again in two decades. So why not throw everything into the pot and promise the world to get them there in the first place? Hell, they probably had every intention of letting the Rams buy that land for a dollar 30 years later. It's a small price to pay for the economic injection an NFL Franchise gives the community. They probably would have parted with that without fighting it when the time came around.

But at the same time, STL has no right to cry foul here. If they already wrote it off as a lost asset, then really write it off. Don't promise the world if you have no intention of delivering it. Don't say you'll eventually provide a stadium that keeps pace with the top stadiums in the Country if you really had no intention of doing so. And don't use your piss-poor negotiating techniques as an excuse for the predicament in which you now find yourselves.

Bottom line: Both parties made promises they didn't keep, so find an amicable solution and put it behind you.

 

[-X-]

I agree with you X, they made a deal they could never live up to. Assigning intent is not accurate as far as any of us know.

When arbitration came they couldn't spend $700,000,000. It was never going to happen in a struggling city just exiting a recession. They did offer $450,000,000 for a new stadium, so they did try. Too little, too late, but it is a crap ton of money on a silver platter for what was recently the worst NFL team in history. They did make an offer to a man who made many millions off of them, refused to even speak to them, and made a promise he never even attempted to keep.

I'm pretty sure $700,000,000 is more than any city has ever spent on a stadium renovation or is at least near the top. Did they foresee this amount for renovations when they signed the lease? I don't know.

I was talking about the land offer. Not the promise of a top-tier stadium.

 

[Akrasian]

I agree with you X, they made a deal they could never live up to. Assigning intent is not accurate as far as any of us know.

When arbitration came they couldn't spend $700,000,000. It was never going to happen in a struggling city just exiting a recession. They did offer $450,000,000 for a new stadium, so they did try. Too little, too late, but it is a crap ton of money on a silver platter for what was recently the worst NFL team in history. They did make an offer to a man who made many millions off of them, refused to even speak to them, and made a promise he never even attempted to keep.

I'm pretty sure $700,000,000 is more than any city has ever spent on a stadium renovation or is at least near the top. Did they foresee this amount for renovations when they signed the lease? I don't know.

Honestly, in reflection, I'm satisfied with the city losing. They were throwing good money after bad and trying to do yet another deal with a snake. Hopefully we will get an expansion team or a team not being supported by their city with an honest and upstanding owner who loves football.

Government support for sport stadiums is virtually always a money loser. About the only one I can think of that MIGHT have made sense ignoring any non money benefits for having the team is the financing of spring training facilities in Arizona. Cheap by stadium standards, and probably gets 100,000 hotel nights a year for the county, plus other revenue - not just during spring training, but year round training, AND it gets a bunch of millionaires to decide to make Arizona home while their income comes from other states.

But even $450 million, like the final St Louis offer, was going to take tax dollars from some and give it to the team. There may be times to subsidize certain businesses, but subsidizing sports teams means that you are taking money from everybody to support the entertainment of part of the population. Because except for the small front staff and of course the players who mostly live elsewhere, most of the employees are close to minimum wage, and likely part time.

 

[RamzFanz]

I was talking about the land offer. Not the promise of a top-tier stadium.

Fair enough.

Does the other party bear no responsibility for giving him this provision when they lured the Rams over there? Are they scrupulous for trying to back out of something they offered and were willing to lose, no questions asked?

Yes, they bear responsibility, but no, it's not unscrupulous to legally address a bad deal that was executed with the understanding there would be long term benefits to both parties by signing. It's not just the words in the document, it's also the spirit of the agreement. Contracts that do not fairly benefit both parties or where one party did not act in good faith are thrown out by courts all the time.

The NFL, by violating their own guidelines while also manipulating the vote, and Kroenke, by making a promise to the taxpayer fans who would enrich him and not living up to it in any way, are unscrupulous. Both parties clearly acted in bad faith even if they had the legal right to do so.

 

[OldSchool]

I can't help but notice the people who are the most morally outraged by this seem to be the same people who supported the Peacock stadium effort the loudest. Clearly it would be wrong if Stan exercised his option and bought this land and robbed the people of $19 million (potentially). But it was perfectly alright to rob the people of $450 million in building a new stadium for Stan, without their vote.

 

[-X-]

Yes, they bear responsibility, but no, it's not unscrupulous to legally address a bad deal that was executed with the understanding there would be long term benefits to both parties by signing. It's not just the words in the document, it's also the spirit of the agreement. Contracts that do not fairly benefit both parties or where one party did not act in good faith are thrown out by courts all the time.

I agree with that -- mostly.
I just wanted to see where you stood on it.

Both parties clearly acted in bad faith.

Yep. And that's why they have to try and reach an amicable resolution.
I don't think the burden should be solely on Kroenke to do what's right, but he can be the bigger man.

 

[RamzFanz]

Government support for sport stadiums is virtually always a money loser. About the only one I can think of that MIGHT have made sense ignoring any non money benefits for having the team is the financing of spring training facilities in Arizona. Cheap by stadium standards, and probably gets 100,000 hotel nights a year for the county, plus other revenue - not just during spring training, but year round training, AND it gets a bunch of millionaires to decide to make Arizona home while their income comes from other states.

But even $450 million, like the final St Louis offer, was going to take tax dollars from some and give it to the team. There may be times to subsidize certain businesses, but subsidizing sports teams means that you are taking money from everybody to support the entertainment of part of the population. Because except for the small front staff and of course the players who mostly live elsewhere, most of the employees are close to minimum wage, and likely part time.

Yeah, they are mostly bad deals, but they don't have to be. Most studies I've seen from both sides of this argument seem more agenda driven than accurate and many neglect a lot of the ancillary benefits.

You'll notice most of the anti-stadium studies only discuss "game day" revenue. When I fly or drive to any city for a game, I always make a long weekend of it. I've spent many thousands on non-game days even though the game is what brought me there. Why is none of that counted?

I also pay taxes on airline tickets or gas, use taxis or Uber, use convenience stores, buy souvenirs for the kids, go to local attractions, etc., and most studies neglect all of that benefit.

There are sensible ways to resolve the downside and the taxpayers can actually benefit greatly in the long run. Multiple use facilities, dual team facilities, mandatory residency or taxation of players and staff or ensuring the counties where they will live are paying their share, adjoining city owned entertainment complexes, city owned paid parking, etc. Stadiums could fund themselves and pay into the tax base if the deals were fair and the politicians not stupid and corrupt.

I'm not a fan of museums but I have to pay for many. There are also societal benefits to having sports, art, zoos, aquariums, and symphonies, even when only a portion of the population uses them.

Unfortunately, the Dome and the new stadium were not good deals at all.

 

[RamzFanz]

I agree with that -- mostly.
I just wanted to see where you stood on it.

Yep. And that's why they have to try and reach an amicable resolution.
I don't think the burden should be solely on Kroenke to do what's right, but he can be the bigger man.

If I were the city, before I sued, I would initially offer a million, with three million as a limit, for the option. They sell the property for nineteen and are whole again or use it as a public facility and Kroenke gets a chance to be fair.

 

[Akrasian]

If I were the city, before I sued, I would initially offer a million, with three million as a limit, for the option. They sell the property for nineteen and are whole again or use it as a public facility and Kroenke gets a chance to be fair.

As I've said previously, find out what type of charity Kroenke or his wife likes, and see if some deal can be made where a portion of the profits go to them.

Heck, maybe part of the land go to a Bud Walton Park with playing fields for the poor. Don't just expect Kroenke to give up $19 million or more to be nice, especially after a certain amount of badmouthing of him by the commission. Have part of the land be resold to fund the park, part resold for the city, and part as the actual land for the park. That way he is giving up what is most likely his legally as a present to his wife, to honor her father.

 

[RamzFanz]

I can't help but notice the people who are the most morally outraged by this seem to be the same people who supported the Peacock stadium effort the loudest. Clearly it would be wrong if Stan exercised his option and bought this land and robbed the people of $19 million (potentially). But it was perfectly alright to rob the people of $450 million in building a new stadium for Stan, without their vote.

Do you know what we will spend the $450 million on now? Parks? Schools? Roads?

Nope, nothing. We don't have $450 million because that was projected income from keeping the Rams.

While I don't believe it's entirely accurate, the plans stated the taxpayers would have been out somewhere between nothing and a few million. Of course, if we had also attracted a pro soccer team as intended, that could have changed into a profit for the taxpayers.

We just built a really nice new bridge here. We have one of the nation's best zoos. We have a science center, many museums, and an Arch monument you may have heard of. I never got to vote on any of it.

The problem isn't a vote on a public project, we're not a true democracy which is why we elect representatives, the problem is politicians are not good stewards of our money, which STL just proved in spades.

Honestly, the reason I didn't want it to go to a vote at the time, is solely because the opposition was blatantly lying about the costs and benefits. They were saying things like they were being robbed of $450 million. If there were honesty in the debate, I would always choose a public vote.

Even if it were a money loser, let's say $10,000,000 over 20 years, it would be 100% worth it in my mind to tear down a blighted warehouse district that is a haven for violent criminals, improve the STL skyline, and add all of the public park space and facilities like the skate park they were including.

 

[jrry32]

I can't help but notice the people who are the most morally outraged by this seem to be the same people who supported the Peacock stadium effort the loudest. Clearly it would be wrong if Stan exercised his option and bought this land and robbed the people of $19 million (potentially). But it was perfectly alright to rob the people of $450 million in building a new stadium for Stan, without their vote.

I supported the move to LA and thought the STL stadium deal was terrible for both the Rams and the people of St. Louis. Yet, I'm "morally outraged" here so...

 

[Akrasian]

Do you know what we will spend the $450 million on now? Parks? Schools? Roads?

Nope, nothing. We don't have $450 million because that was projected income from keeping the Rams.

While I don't believe it's entirely accurate, the plans stated the taxpayers would have been out somewhere between nothing and a few million. Of course, if we had also attracted a pro soccer team as intended, that could have changed into a profit for the taxpayers.

We just built a really nice new bridge here. We have one of the nation's best zoos. We have a science center, many museums, and an Arch monument you may have heard of. I never got to vote on any of it.

The problem isn't a vote on a public project, we're not a true democracy which is why we elect representatives, the problem is politicians are not good stewards of our money, which STL just proved in spades.

Honestly, the reason I didn't want it to go to a vote at the time, is solely because the opposition was blatantly lying about the costs and benefits. They were saying things like they were being robbed of $450 million. If there were honesty in the debate, I would always choose a public vote.

Even if it were a money loser, let's say $10,000,000 over 20 years, it would be 100% worth it in my mind to tear down a blighted warehouse district that is a haven for violent criminals, improve the STL skyline, and add all of the public park space and facilities like the skate park they were including.

Unfortunately, the economics you are citing don't actually match that of any independent economist.

The $450 million you are citing from keeping the Rams is accurate only if locals spending money on the Rams would instead just tear up their money once the Rams are gone. But in fact, if a local family is figuring on spending $300 on the Rams - and can't because the Rams moved - they still spend the $300, almost entirely locally. They eat out, with most of that money staying in town. They shop at local stores. Even if some money goes out of town, it's less than goes out of town with a sports team. On average, far more of the money stays local than giving the money to a billionaire owned team with approximately half the revenue going to players who send much of the money out of state. Yes, some people come in from out of town and spend money - but percentage-wise that is small.

By far the best investment for a community is education. That has the highest long term return - and it's not even close. But it's not glamorous. And the return is long term, not short term. Better to spend $450 million hoping to keep the the football team for a few more years, in terms of politicians keeping their jobs.

 

[RamzFanz]

Unfortunately, the economics you are citing don't actually match that of any independent economist.

The $450 million you are citing from keeping the Rams is accurate only if locals spending money on the Rams would instead just tear up their money once the Rams are gone. But in fact, if a local family is figuring on spending $300 on the Rams - and can't because the Rams moved - they still spend the $300, almost entirely locally. They eat out, with most of that money staying in town. They shop at local stores. Even if some money goes out of town, it's less than goes out of town with a sports team. On average, far more of the money stays local than giving the money to a billionaire owned team with approximately half the revenue going to players who send much of the money out of state. Yes, some people come in from out of town and spend money - but percentage-wise that is small.

By far the best investment for a community is education. That has the highest long term return - and it's not even close. But it's not glamorous. And the return is long term, not short term. Better to spend $450 million hoping to keep the the football team for a few more years, in terms of politicians keeping their jobs.

That's one of the many fallacies contained in most of the anti-stadium studies and also what the opponents were saying in ads. I spent hundreds on game days downtown and it's almost the ONLY reason I spend money down there. Well, and an occasional baseball game, hockey game, or concert. No stadiums means no money from me.

The vast majority of the money in STL is outside of the city and the vast majority of us only go downtown for events. It's not an either or like they say, it's an either or not at all.

In fact, out of everyone I know in the STL area, neighbors, friends, and family, I don't know a single one who goes downtown other than to events.

Sadly, STL city proper is mostly poor. The money they spend on any stadium hosted event is probably a tiny fraction of what the out of town and suburbanites do.

STL is centrally located between many major cities and, being a low cost of living area, we get flocked with out of town sports fans, so I'm not buying the "low percentage" claim at all. I know for a fact as an occasional Uber driver down there, many of them stay for several days and spend at local attractions and/or attend other sports games while here. One fan I was talking to bought a hockey ticket, a rams ticket, and stayed in a hotel for 3 nights for less than what he could get a hockey ticket for in Chicago.

Also as an Uber driver, I can tell you for a fact I almost never get a rider going downtown from the suburbs other than to events. There's nothing down there that doesn't exist much closer to home.

None of this is considered in the biased studies.

Also, on schools, throwing money at them is not an answer. As Americans we already spend more than any other nation, last I looked, and our education results are terrible. Money doesn't educate, commitment by parents and students does.

 

[Akrasian]

That's one of the many fallacies contained in most of the anti-stadium studies and also what the opponents were saying in ads. I spent hundreds on game days downtown and it's almost the ONLY reason I spend money down there. Well, and an occasional baseball game, hockey game, or concert. No stadiums means no money from me.

The vast majority of the money in STL is outside of the city and the vast majority of us only go downtown for events. It's not an either or like they say, it's an either or not at all.

In fact, out of everyone I know in the STL area, neighbors, friends, and family, I don't know a single one who goes downtown other than to events.

Sadly, STL city proper is mostly poor. The money they spend on any stadium hosted event is probably a tiny fraction of what the out of town and suburbanites do.

STL is centrally located between many major cities and, being a low cost of living area, we get flocked with out of town sports fans, so I'm not buying the "low percentage" claim at all. I know for a fact as an occasional Uber driver down there, many of them stay for several days and spend at local attractions and/or attend other sports games while here. One fan I was talking to bought a hockey ticket, a rams ticket, and stayed in a hotel for 3 nights for less than what he could get a hockey ticket for in Chicago.

Also as an Uber driver, I can tell you for a fact I almost never get a rider going downtown from the suburbs other than to events. There's nothing down there that doesn't exist much closer to home.

None of this is considered in the biased studies.

Also, on schools, throwing money at them is not an answer. As Americans we already spend more than any other nation, last I looked, and our education results are terrible. Money doesn't educate, commitment by parents and students does.

So people wont' spend the money, and will just tear it up, or will they spend much of that money locally?

Cause by far most of the money spent on football tickets, even factoring in out of town spending, is done by locals. And yes, if you read the studies, that includes the entire spent on trips from out of town.

So, as a Uber driver, are your passengers not just spending the money if they aren't going to downtown, or are they spending the money locally - say going to locally owned restaurants?

The economic studies overwhelmingly say the money is still spent locally, btw - and more efficiently for local economics than spending where much of the money goes out of town like on a sports stadium.

Is the funding from the stadium only from the city, btw? My understanding is that 2/3 was from OUTSIDE of the city. Oh, and while you may not get a lot of traffic as a Uber driver from where you live - in fact, there are significant portions of the city that are decent.

 

[BuiltRamTough]

John Shaw made the deal.

and Georgia signed off on it.

 

[RamzFanz]

So people wont' spend the money, and will just tear it up, or will they spend much of that money locally?

Cause by far most of the money spent on football tickets, even factoring in out of town spending, is done by locals. And yes, if you read the studies, that includes the entire spent on trips from out of town.

So, as a Uber driver, are your passengers not just spending the money if they aren't going to downtown, or are they spending the money locally - say going to locally owned restaurants?

The economic studies overwhelmingly say the money is still spent locally, btw - and more efficiently for local economics than spending where much of the money goes out of town like on a sports stadium.

Studies and stadium opponents like to do a St Louis City and Saint Louis Metropolitan Area bait and switch in their arguments.

The question is if it's worth it for Saint Louis City to invest in the stadium or will the money be spent there anyways.

The city being paid back for its investment in a stadium is based on spending from the lure of game days within the city limits. That spending will not happen within city limits now.

My money will now be spent in my town which is thriving. Our schools are well funded and have very good outcomes. We have plenty of jobs. Saint Louis City has none of these things and now, just because they didn't build a new stadium, they are not magically going to have hundreds of millions to spend on schools and infrastructure to lure businesses that create jobs. The money is gone.

What they do get is a rundown crime ridden hundred year old warehouse district from a different era blighting the skyline. No skate parks, no green belt, no NFL team luring out of town weekend visitors for all of the local businesses, nothing. And now, every single business that fed off of NFL fans will have to employ less people.

Even if it's a break even proposition building the stadium, it revitalises an abandoned area, creates new public parks and facilities, creates new business opportunities, and adds to the prestige and quality of life of the city that lures new business. There is no downside of having a nicer city at no cost to the taxpayers. And if you do it right, like the city did with the baseball Cardinals, it's a clear money maker for the city.

With Saint Louis being a state border city, an NFL team and all of the other sports teams also bring in money from Illinois, local fans of our teams who would otherwise pay no taxes to the city, county, or state bringing their money here. Did your study factor that in? Almost certainly not.

If you have a study that contains tax revenue from the entire out of town stay and not just game day revenue, I would gladly read it.

 

[jrry32]

So people wont' spend the money, and will just tear it up, or will they spend much of that money locally?

Cause by far most of the money spent on football tickets, even factoring in out of town spending, is done by locals. And yes, if you read the studies, that includes the entire spent on trips from out of town.

So, as a Uber driver, are your passengers not just spending the money if they aren't going to downtown, or are they spending the money locally - say going to locally owned restaurants?

The economic studies overwhelmingly say the money is still spent locally, btw - and more efficiently for local economics than spending where much of the money goes out of town like on a sports stadium.

Is the funding from the stadium only from the city, btw? My understanding is that 2/3 was from OUTSIDE of the city. Oh, and while you may not get a lot of traffic as a Uber driver from where you live - in fact, there are significant portions of the city that are decent.

From my recollection of the economic studies, there is a statistically significant financial benefit to having a team vs. not having a team in town. However, there is not a financial benefit when it comes to building a new stadium for a team you already have.