duma

NFL Merry-Go-Round: Relocation Roundelay

Recommended Posts

Bernie Miklasz with a follow-up report after talking to Governor Jay Nixon. This one is full of quotes. I recommend reading it all. It's all pretty relevant, so I don't want to bother trying to summarize it.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-nixon-has-faith-in-plan-to-keep-rams-here/article_0a858490-b7b8-5104-8e1a-92863cbbaece.html

There are I guess three key points that stick out to me.

1. Nixon believes the public funding can be found by renewing the bonds rather than creating new taxes. Basically they keep making payments like they've been making. Still costs public funds, but nothing that they're not used to, and it won't require a vote.

2. Nixon is insistent that this be part of a larger re-development of an area that needs it. That's huge for me if I'm going to support public funds. Because while publicly-funded stadiums are bad business, they can be part of a strong plan. On a related note, Nixon wants any plan to include a conversion future for the existing Dome, which is smart.

3. Nixon wants the new building to be publicly owned. Not owned by the Rams, and not owned by a private entity that is publicly funded (which is what the current set up is). While this sounds like a good idea to me if we're paying a significant amount on it, I'm curious how Kroenke will view that.

It's not unheard of. The stadium development that everyone, including the Rams, points to is the Lucas Oil Field in Indy, and that's owned by the public, not by Irsay. Still, I always figured the ability to own his own building without spending gobs of cash on it was one draw to staying in STL. That now can't be pointed to. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter if the NFL believes the offer is good, but that could be a tricky battle.

Anyways, we should see a proposal of some sort shortly after the season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Nixon wants the new building to be publicly owned. Not owned by the Rams, and not owned by a private entity that is publicly funded (which is what the current set up is). While this sounds like a good idea to me if we're paying a significant amount on it, I'm curious how Kroenke will view that.

This seems like it could be a deal breaker. Kroenke's business is real estate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought the plan was to give him land to develop for the stadium and other projects as the state's contribution. Can't imagine Stan would be particularly thrilled to play in somebody's else's building.

If the city is paying for it, and the city will own it, then the city should control all revenue sources. Can't imagine Stan would be particularly thrilled about that either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Nixon wants the new building to be publicly owned. Not owned by the Rams, and not owned by a private entity that is publicly funded (which is what the current set up is). While this sounds like a good idea to me if we're paying a significant amount on it, I'm curious how Kroenke will view that.

This seems like it could be a deal breaker. Kroenke's business is real estate.

Not really. It would depend on how rents and/or revenues would be allocated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3. Nixon wants the new building to be publicly owned. Not owned by the Rams, and not owned by a private entity that is publicly funded (which is what the current set up is). While this sounds like a good idea to me if we're paying a significant amount on it, I'm curious how Kroenke will view that.

This seems like it could be a deal breaker. Kroenke's business is real estate.

Not really. It would depend on how rents and/or revenues would be allocated.

Right. Stan doesn't own the current building, but he still takes in a massive amount of the gameday revenue. There's ways to structure that so that it can still be very team friendly, and I imagine it would be.

Still, it definitely seemed like Stan was/is the type that likes to own his buildings. So we'll see.

I'm not convinced it will be a deal-breaker though. Ultimately, aren't most NFL buildings owned by some sort of public or publicly-funded entity? Also, if this is a realistic proposal, I would think this buys St. Louis multiple years regardless. I don't see the NFL letting Stan walk away from a good proposal just because he doesn't get ownership of it.

Now, it's another story if they're asking Stan to pay for 90% of it and still not own or something. In that case, it's not such a realistic proposal.

Another possibility, also, is that Stan IS given land to develop. He's just not given the stadium. That wouldn't shock me at all. He might get to develop the surrounding land without owning the stadium. There's possibilities. We'll know more details before too long.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stadium development that everyone, including the Rams, points to is the Lucas Oil Field in Indy, and that's owned by the public, not by Irsay.

The terms of the lease are also such that Irsay gets tons of money from all the other events at the stadium. It's pretty bad for Indianapolis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The stadium development that everyone, including the Rams, points to is the Lucas Oil Field in Indy, and that's owned by the public, not by Irsay.

The terms of the lease are also such that Irsay gets tons of money from all the other events at the stadium. It's pretty bad for Indianapolis.

D@mn right it is bad for Indy.

The quasi-public holding company is the CIB (Capital Improvement Board). It's is still the Indy version of the St. Louis' CVC.

Not only do they oversee Lucas Oil Stadium, but also Victory Field, the convention center and most notably, Bankers Life Fieldhouse. Look up the mess they have been in terms of revenue which the Pacers were able to get for the last five or six years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The city or state could own the new stadium and let Stan run it or something (hopefully without the management fee that Indy and Glendale thought was a good idea). There's lots of ways to make that work. Lots of teams have de facto control of their buildings even though they don't own them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm Mark Davis, I file for relocation to Los Angeles for 2015 and force the league's hand. At the very least, by doing so you make it clear to Oakland that you're ready to go unless they're ready to deal. And there's always the possibility that such a move results in another lawsuit against the league for anti-trust practices.

If I'm Davis, and if San Antonio was more interested in my team than LA, I would leave the Raiders history behind in Oakland and start fresh in San Antonio.

If I'm Stan Kroenke, I would apply to move immediately. If the owners approve, break out the shovels for the new arena in Inglewood right away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Miklasz with a follow-up report after talking to Governor Jay Nixon. This one is full of quotes. I recommend reading it all. It's all pretty relevant, so I don't want to bother trying to summarize it.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/bernie-miklasz/bernie-nixon-has-faith-in-plan-to-keep-rams-here/article_0a858490-b7b8-5104-8e1a-92863cbbaece.html

There are I guess three key points that stick out to me.

1. Nixon believes the public funding can be found by renewing the bonds rather than creating new taxes. Basically they keep making payments like they've been making. Still costs public funds, but nothing that they're not used to, and it won't require a vote.

This sounds like something that would still need legislative approval and *glances at Missouri state legislature, sees that the magic of term limits, gerrymandering, and neophyte party ideologues have yielded conservative Republican supermajorities in both houses*.

Tell me, is Nixon required to wear maid cosplay and address the GOP leaders in both houses as Gokujin-sama when he makes legislative requests? Because it sounds like he probably is.

2. Nixon is insistent that this be part of a larger re-development of an area that needs it. That's huge for me if I'm going to support public funds. Because while publicly-funded stadiums are bad business, they can be part of a strong plan. On a related note, Nixon wants any plan to include a conversion future for the existing Dome, which is smart.

Hell, it only took the Cardinals 8 years to sort of fill in the grand glorious hole in the ground that was supposed to be used for commercial redevelopment next to Busch III. And remember folks, that's the team St. Louisans like and whose games they will attend.

3. Nixon wants the new building to be publicly owned. Not owned by the Rams, and not owned by a private entity that is publicly funded (which is what the current set up is). While this sounds like a good idea to me if we're paying a significant amount on it, I'm curious how Kroenke will view that.

It's not unheard of. The stadium development that everyone, including the Rams, points to is the Lucas Oil Field in Indy, and that's owned by the public, not by Irsay. Still, I always figured the ability to own his own building without spending gobs of cash on it was one draw to staying in STL. That now can't be pointed to. On the other hand, maybe it doesn't matter if the NFL believes the offer is good, but that could be a tricky battle.

"The St. Louis Rams have filed for relocation to Los Angeles."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm Mark Davis, I file for relocation to Los Angeles for 2015 and force the league's hand. At the very least, by doing so you make it clear to Oakland that you're ready to go unless they're ready to deal. And there's always the possibility that such a move results in another lawsuit against the league for anti-trust practices.

If I'm Davis, and if San Antonio was more interested in my team than LA, I would leave the Raiders history behind in Oakland and start fresh in San Antonio.

No, keep the Raiders history. The Raiders, despite their awfulness, are one of the few NFL franchises that truly has a national brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like something that would still need legislative approval

Possibly. I'm not sure about that. But I'd be willing to bet Missouri republicans like Stan Kroenke.

Hell, it only took the Cardinals 8 years to sort of fill in the grand glorious hole in the ground that was supposed to be used for commercial redevelopment next to Busch III. And remember folks, that's the team St. Louisans like and whose games they will attend.

That's really neither here nor there. The Cardinals oversold, then used some questionable tactics to sweeten their deal. They were never held to the agreement they entered into (but that's because "this is the team St. Louisans like," I suspect). As development seemed prime to happen we entered a recession. And more generally, the Cardinals are a conservatively run business who have partnered with a conservatively run developer in Cordish. That whole development has been slow played.

Meanwhile, in those 8 years, there's been a multitude of other developments and re-developments in St. Louis. You can't make Ballpark Village the single comparative development just because sports. I mean you can, but it's not a real discussion, it's just more sarcastic rhetoric. This will be much more dependent on the people involved in this development, and it's not going to be the Cardinals or Cordish.

"The St. Louis Rams have filed for relocation to Los Angeles."

Maybe someday. But as the immediate reaction, this is pretty doubtful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I'm Mark Davis, I file for relocation to Los Angeles for 2015 and force the league's hand. At the very least, by doing so you make it clear to Oakland that you're ready to go unless they're ready to deal. And there's always the possibility that such a move results in another lawsuit against the league for anti-trust practices.

If I'm Davis, and if San Antonio was more interested in my team than LA, I would leave the Raiders history behind in Oakland and start fresh in San Antonio.
No, keep the Raiders history. The Raiders, despite their awfulness, are one of the few NFL franchises that truly has a national brand.

The brand is also the only element of his franchise still worth anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like something that would still need legislative approval

Possibly. I'm not sure about that. But I'd be willing to bet Missouri republicans like Stan Kroenke.

So Missouri Republicans' zeal for slashing state revenues isn't a sincerely-held belief in smaller government, or a commitment to conservative political principles, but something that can be simply tossed aside if they like the billionaire getting the handout? Ho-kay...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds like something that would still need legislative approval

Possibly. I'm not sure about that. But I'd be willing to bet Missouri republicans like Stan Kroenke.

So Missouri Republicans' zeal for slashing state revenues isn't a sincerely-held belief in smaller government, or a commitment to conservative political principles, but something that can be simply tossed aside if they like the billionaire getting the handout? Ho-kay...

I'm not sure. Honestly.

But let's not pretend politicians of any kind compromising what appear to be all their principles to help someone they like would be anything approaching shocking. Certainly not republicans doing another republican billionaire a favor.

It's every bit as possible that the legislature will stick to their guns. Maybe some that remember how bad the original stadium deal was. Hard to say. I'm sure a lot depends on just what the funding split is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Missouri state legislature was willing to knowingly destroy their own economy on the altar of tax cuts. They're insane.

If that's not the act of true believers, it's the act of legislators afraid of conservative voters. Either way, it's hardly encouraging to those who want public subsidies for a man who can afford to build the whole stadium himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Missouri Republicans' zeal for slashing state revenues isn't a sincerely-held belief in smaller government, or a commitment to conservative political principles, but something that can be simply tossed aside if they like the billionaire getting the handout? Ho-kay...

That's the way it always goes. Stan's a Job Creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Missouri state legislature was willing to knowingly destroy their own economy on the altar of tax cuts. They're insane.

Yep. Thus, who knows WHAT they'll do.

If that's not the act of true believers, it's the act of legislators afraid of conservative voters. Either way, it's hardly encouraging to those who want public subsidies for a man who can afford to build the whole stadium himself.

I'm okay (and I've said this from the get go) with a reasonable amount of subsidy IF Stan's and the NFL are paying a bunch AND it's part of a re-development plan, and not just a stadium development. It matters to me that they make it part of a real positive project.

The talk from Nixon on that part sounds good. But... it could just be talk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, their policies being insane doesn't mean that they're themselves crazy. Just blind ideologues.

We'll see what Nixon comes up with. To his credit, he has been willing to stand up to them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.