STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Except, as we just established on the word of two current owners, he doesn't. And they oughta know. He had to inform the NFL because he bought a stadium-sized piece of land that he's considering putting a stadium on. We didn't really establish that at all. We have two pieces of conflicting information. We have two owners saying what their "understanding" is, and we have the commissioner saying what (he believes) the rule is. And we actually also have the Rams implying they reported it as part of a policy understanding as well. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I think there's great reason for them to think that way. St. Louis can no longer force them to stay in town after next year, and unless they get very, very creative I don't see how they spend the money necessary to entice the Rams to stay without the muscle of that lease. Still not sure why you feel this is such an impossible task for St. Louis. St. Louis wouldn't likely need to raise more than $400 million for a new stadium (and that's on the high end). They have at least 25% of that in reserves, maybe more. And the city and region has had no trouble passing tax increases. It's not a lock to happen, but I don't think it will take that much creativity. It probably won't deviate much from the path of any other city's stadium negotiations. Good on those LA fans, though. If St. Louis fans continue to check out, and the California groups make more and more noise, it eases the Rams' path. For what it's worth, A Save The St. Louis Rams page has been gaining about about 1,000 likes a week since the beginning of the year and is organizing a rally for the beginning of April that's been generating some media buzz and has former players set to attend. St. Louis isn't just going to let the Rams leave. And that's why they will ultimately probably stay. I don't expect funding to be an issue. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 OOOOHHH THE SOCIAL MEDIA WILL MAKE THE RAMS STAY.And at 1000 likes a week it would take you more than a year to hit the EJD's capacity. Quote On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evil G Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 For what it's worth, A Save The St. Louis Rams page has been gaining about about 1,000 likes a week since the beginning of the year and is organizing a rally for the beginning of April that's been generating some media buzz and has former players set to attend. St. Louis isn't just going to let the Rams leave.I'm guessing those are just people who want the team for the sake of having the team, and not people who actually care about the Rams. Quote Bruh check out my last.fm And my Rate Your Music Fantasy Teams: Seattle Spacemen (CFA) Signature credit to Silent Wind of Doom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Well that was in response to a point about the momentum of LA's Rams Facebook page. Obviously Facebook groups are essentially irrelevant in this situation. I didn't bring it up, just added to that discussion. But cool response. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Do past tax increases make it more likely or less likely that another one will pass? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 I don't think you can make much of an argument that LA isn't a top potential market. This isn't 20 years ago. The area has over 15 million people, it has 8 teams in the major leagues and all of them get tons of support with the exception of Chivas(for obvious reasons which are going to be rectified) and it has two shovel ready stadium projects with billionare backing on top of whatever other potential groups/stadium deals that have been discussed which we aren't privy to.In think the only issue is the availability of a team since the NFL doesn't seem to want expand domestically, and LA is used for other teams stadium leverage.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Do past tax increases make it more likely or less likely that another one will pass? I don't think either one really. I think if it goes to a citizen vote on tax increases it will be a relatively close vote decided on whether or not the issue gains traction as being a positive for the city/region. What I think the past (and very recent) increases show is that St. Louis isn't a city/region that is wholly against taxing itself. In fact, it will tax itself for non-essentials. It just needs to be convinced there is an upside. I'm not guaranteeing an increase would pass (though I THINK it would), I'm just unsure where the notion that St. Louis has no chance of taxing itself for a stadium comes from. I'd say in the current environment it's much more likely to pass than not pass (depending, of course, on the specifics). I also think it's important to think about all of the ways funds could be procured beyond a simple citizen tax. There's taxes of non-residents through items like hotel taxes. There's bonds. And there's the funds that already are sitting in reserves to maintain the current dome. At the end of the day, I just don't think funding is going to be a major issues in St. Louis. But neither side will want to pay more than they have to, so as we've seen in most markets, a deal isn't likely to be quick. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rams80 Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 *summons Grover Norquist* Quote On 8/1/2010 at 4:01 PM, winters in buffalo said: You manage to balance agitation with just enough salient points to keep things interesting. Kind of a low-rent DG_Now. On 1/2/2011 at 9:07 PM, Sodboy13 said: Today, we are all otaku. "The city of Peoria was once the site of the largest distillery in the world and later became the site for mass production of penicillin. So it is safe to assume that present-day Peorians are descended from syphilitic boozehounds."-Stephen Colbert POTD: February 15, 2010, June 20, 2010 The Glorious Bloom State Penguins (NCFAF) 2014: 2-9, 2015: 7-5 (L Pineapple Bowl), 2016: 1-0 (NCFAB) 2014-15: 10-8, 2015-16: 14-5 (SMC Champs, L 1st Round February Frenzy) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmic Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 Oh deity no, not hotel taxes. I don't know what they currently are in St. Louis, but they are downright antagonistic in some places. Bed taxes should be limited to the sales tax rate, and not a fraction of a penny more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 For what it's worth, the way the original Dome was funded was by creating an entity known as the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RCSCA). The state, city, and county all sold a series of bonds to fund the entity. It was that entity that then built the Dome. Payment of those bonds was the responsibility of the RCSCA, but the funding for that came from annual payments from the state, city, and county. Those payments are indirectly funded by a 3.5% sales tax on hotels that was passed. There is a separate 3.75% hotels tax that funds the Convention & Visitors Commission that operates the Dome. There is an excellent series of blog posts (and I can't wait until he gets the needed answers to post his next one) here: http://ramblingsofpaul.tumblr.com. This is my main source for this information, and I just want to give credit where it's due. Here's the key takeaways for those who don't want to click: • The 3.5% tax funding the RCSCA in order to pay off the bonds does not expire. Those bonds will be paid off in 2021. More bonds could then be sold to finance the new stadium. • Strong evidence suggests that the 3.5% tax is bringing more money than is needed to pay down the bonds. Voters passed that tax under the guise it was going towards the Dome. Whether or not the extra money is available in a fund somewhere is unclear (and probably doubtful). But it does potentially mean higher amounts bonds could be sold and paid down with the actual amount coming in from that tax. • Part of the money annual payments from the state, city, and county doesn't actually go to bond payments but instead to a "Preservation Fund" that helps maintain the Dome. Some of that has been used over the years, but in total the fund will have raised $120 million over 30 years. There's a good chance that a great deal of that remains. • The 3.75% tax that funds the CVC's budget also does not expire as the CVC exists to do more than just maintain the Dome. But they do have a budget and they do have money that can go towards the Dome. Some of that would be available as well. I really recommend you read those posts, there's a bit more to it and he explains it well. But the real point is that St. Louis may not need to pass any additional taxes to fund their part of the stadium. The needed ones very well may already exist. St. Louis probably needs to help broker a land deal and sell new bonds worth about $300-400 million (ironically the cost of the original Dome). Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 So if they can redirect those revenues to avoid passing any new taxes, where are the revenues going now? And will those recipients just roll over and accept losing their public funds? Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 So if they can redirect those revenues to avoid passing any new taxes, where are the revenues going now? And will those recipients just roll over and accept losing their public funds? That's the unanswered question right now. It appears they did it when they had to start funding a small portion of the Cardinals new stadium, though, so it could happen again. But even if none of that extra money is re-directed you could still fund new bond payments once the current ones expire in 2021. At this point it goes over my head, but I'm not sure if there's a way they could begin construction years before 2021 while delaying payments until then. I imagine there is SOME way to do it, but like I said, that's outside of my expertise. Although it's also not out of the question that they might take that long to begin building it. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If they don't start building a stadium until 2021, it won't be for the Rams. It'll be time to call Shad Khan. Thanks for the link - can't wait to read that blog. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
illwauk Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 The best thing would be for the Raiders to play in Santa Clara and represent Oakland only in spirit, then renovate the Coliseum once more to better host the A's (or build a new park in the parking lot, whichever is cheaper). I care about the A's more than the Raiders, to be honest.I know you're not the only one, but the Raiders are as much a part of Oakland's identity as the Packers are Green Bay's. If only one team can remain in Oakland, it should be them.PFFFFT! No they're definitely not. Not even close. Oakland is such a shell of what it used to be that it doesn't even have enough of an identity left to be that noteworthy. The Raiders came back to Oakland before I even was even really aware that pro football existed and I STILL associate them more with Los Angeles than I ever do Oakland. And I grew up going to Raiders games.What is Oakland associated with more than the Raiders besides poverty and crime? And even then, it wasn't so long ago that pretty much every city (that wasn't a sprawling hell in the sunbelt) was associated with poverty and crime. Somehow, I doubt its anything more than a matter of time before Oakland gentrifies like every other city in the Bay Area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 If they don't start building a stadium until 2021, it won't be for the Rams. I think that's a common assumption, but I don't think it's necessarily fact. I don't think any party wants to wait that long, though. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a long time for Kroenke to go year-to-year in an outdated and inadequate stadium, leaving millions on the table every year in the hopes that St. Louis eventually comes through. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STL FANATIC Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 That would be a long time for Kroenke to go year-to-year in an outdated and inadequate stadium, leaving millions on the table every year in the hopes that St. Louis eventually comes through. Oh, I agree with that. I would think there would have to be some sort of agreement in place already, although I'm not sure what that could be since you wouldn't want an outdated stadium when construction actually started. Worth noting that San Diego has been year to year since 2007. It does happen. Anyways, I don't think a resolution will take that long, either. Just wouldn't call it impossible. Quote JUSTIN STRIEBEL | PORTFOLIO | RESUME | CONTACT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gothamite Posted February 23, 2014 Share Posted February 23, 2014 True enough about San Diego, but the Chargers haven't recently bought a nice stadium-sized parcel of undeveloped land in a section of LA accustomed to sports facilities and eager to have a team there. Quote The Green Bay Packers Uniform Database! Now in a handy blog. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colortv Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 What's the general assessment of the Jacksonville situation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.