RamzFanz
Damnit
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,029
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
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 23,143
Which is exactly why I find it curious.
Why is there ever a difference? The business of the NFL is the Rams
MrMotes
Starter
- Joined
- May 6, 2014
- Messages
- 954
I think it's more like they're leaving that door open
Exactly. There's simply no reason to make any distinction unless losing the Rams but keeping St. Louis an NFL city is one of the things they're working towards...
Exactly. There's simply no reason to make any distinction unless losing the Rams but keeping St. Louis an NFL city is one of the things they're working towards...
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,772
Can someone clarify the current stadium financing? The stadium will cost approx. 1 billion. What percent of that does the bonds cover? What percent of that 1 billion does Peacock actually have in hand? How much are they asking from the NFL? Kroenke? And if Kroenke refuses to pony up, does Peacock have money to cover that lined up?
Listening to 980am here in LA and they are talking about the bonds. They are saying that there is hardly enough to pay off the Ed Jones Dome and its maintenance, and there will not be much left over to pay for the new stadium. Just wondering how much the bonds bring in every year and how much is already spoken for.
I have never seen an itemized list of just how much and where the money for the proposed stadium is coming from. Is there such a list and could someone post it?
Listening to 980am here in LA and they are talking about the bonds. They are saying that there is hardly enough to pay off the Ed Jones Dome and its maintenance, and there will not be much left over to pay for the new stadium. Just wondering how much the bonds bring in every year and how much is already spoken for.
I have never seen an itemized list of just how much and where the money for the proposed stadium is coming from. Is there such a list and could someone post it?
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
$400 in bonds, $250 from kroenke, $250 in G4, $150 in PSLs. And I think the last study on PSL's revealed they actually could get in the $150-200 range, as opposed to the original $100-$150 range.
- Joined
- Aug 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,772
Are they planning on selling more bonds then? Because the bonds in question ( as per Frawley's ruling) don't generate 400 million. My question is: how much do THOSE bonds generate, and how much will be left over for the stadium after they pay for the ED?
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
I think they're just extending the bonds.
http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/...task-force-plans-shift-in-public-funding.html
here's the $400 breakdown of where they come from
Will this ruling help give Kroenke what he's historically wanted, which is to fully own both the stadium and the land around it? Not likely, but perhaps it won't matter if the NFL steps in as some believe.
Also, I don't see Frawley's ruling today surviving judicial review in federal court, which is where I believe it'll ultimately end up.
RamzFanz
Damnit
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2013
- Messages
- 9,029
Where'd you get that idea? Last I heard, he only asked for improvements to the EJD.
ChrisW
Stating the obvious
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2013
- Messages
- 4,670
I should have said "apparently" instead of "historically," but I guess it's not really fair to say that since it's not like he owns that many sports franchises, but at least appearance-wise, he seems to want to own the land and stadium. I could be wrong but I don't believe that's an option that CVC would want happening.
V3
Hall of Fame
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 3,848
I like the original render a LOT more. I honestly don't really like the new one.
Doesn't look like the city is going to appeal.
Anyone with standing can bring suit.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33,953
- Name
- Stu
I don't think the city is required to appeal in order to qualify for defending their statutes. The city would have to appeal the decision and I really don't see that happening as it appears the city was not all that vigorous in the first trial and actually want the stadium.
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33,953
- Name
- Stu
Meh. Not too much. St Louis is wise to make the NFL its focal point. If it doesn't break their way with the Rams, they will still be able to lean on the fact that they billed this project as reinvigorating the city, cleaning up a blighted area, and all while maintaining the city as an NFL market.
Seems pretty smart to me. I still think the Rams stay but if not, the city will have their ducks in a row to be ready to roll for another NFL team.
iced
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2013
- Messages
- 6,620
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...cle_51c33b67-9b72-5055-ba56-94cc9e1b46e2.html
UPDATED at 5:30 p.m. with comments from Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, plus new details in the ruling.
ST. LOUIS • The construction of a riverfront stadium does not need voter approval here before spending city tax dollars, a judge ruled on Monday, knocking down yet another barrier in the race to keep the National Football League in St. Louis.
Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley declared invalid the city ordinance requiring a public vote, calling sections “too vague to be enforced.” The law has so many “uncertainties,” he wrote in his ruling, “their sum makes a task for us which at best could be only guesswork.”
Moreover, Frawley ruled, the placement of the new stadium, along the riverfront just north of downtown, does not break a state law requiring the building be “adjacent” to the convention center — it is close enough, he said.
“‘Adjacent,’” Frawley wrote, “has commonly been interpreted by Missouri courts to mean ‘near or close at hand,’” — and not necessarily, he continued, “touching each other.”
Proponents quietly promoted the new victory. Dave Peacock, one of Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force members, praised the legal team as “extraordinary,” and called for “everyone in the St. Louis region” to rally behind the effort.
“The court’s opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for the NFL in St. Louis and the continued rebirth of our downtown,” Peacock said in a statement.
“We can make it happen,” he continued.
Nixon lauded the task force for continued “solid progress.”
Mary Ellen Ponder, chief of staff to Mayor Francis Slay — who supports the stadium development — nevertheless called Frawley’s decision “very disappointing.”
She said in a statement that, by declaring the ordinance invalid, Frawley essentially barred the city from scheduling a vote as authorized by that law. Still, she committed the city to public meetings “and other opportunities for public participation” regarding stadium financing.
In addition, she said Slay’s office will ask the Board of Aldermen to “consider a new ordinance that requires a public vote for future projects and can survive a judicial challenge.”
Maggie Crane, the mayor’s communications director, said the city was still considering an appeal.
The news quickly drew outbursts from critics, who had long braced for a ruling against the ordinance.
St. Louis University Law Professor John Ammann, who has filed a separate suit to force a city vote, called it a “terrible day for democracy.”
Ammann’s clients moved to intervene in the suit, filed against the city in April. The public Edward Jones Dome authority, acting on behalf of Nixon’s task force, challenged the 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote before spending tax money on a new stadium.
But Frawley denied Ammann’s motion in a related ruling on Monday. Ammann said he was meeting his clients on Monday afternoon, and expected they’d want to appeal.
Fred Lindecke, who helped pass the city law, said he thought they followed the law on the initiative petition. “The people voted,” Lindecke said. “And now the judge has said forget all that. It makes me angry.
“The law is as clear and straightforward as you can get. It covers every kind of technique known to man for getting into the taxpayer’s pocket,” he continued. “And it says very clearly, without ambiguity, that people have a right to vote before any of their tax money is used to build a stadium. I would hope that someone in city government would be as upset as I am, and would try to do something about it.”
Regardless, the ruling represents another step toward a new football stadium, now expected to cost $998 million.
Nixon’s task force has recently outlined current financing estimates: It hopes for about $250 million from team ownership, a $200 million National Football League loan to the owners, $187 million in tax incentives, $201 million in state and city bond proceeds and $160 million in seat license sales.
It’s making progress on some of those pillars: The task force has recently applied to the state for tax incentives. It is lining up riverfront land. A recent NFL market study suggested the effort could sell $200 million in seat licenses.
And now the task force has a judge’s decision blocking a city vote.
NFL owners meet next week in Chicago to hear from teams interested in moving to Los Angeles. Representatives from the St. Louis Rams will present, for the first time, owner Stan Kroenke’s plans to build a stadium in Inglewood.
Frawley's ruling, however, will likely aid task force efforts to keep the Rams, or another NFL team, in St. Louis.
--------------------
@bubbaramfan for the bolded part
UPDATED at 5:30 p.m. with comments from Mayor Francis Slay's chief of staff, plus new details in the ruling.
ST. LOUIS • The construction of a riverfront stadium does not need voter approval here before spending city tax dollars, a judge ruled on Monday, knocking down yet another barrier in the race to keep the National Football League in St. Louis.
Circuit Court Judge Thomas Frawley declared invalid the city ordinance requiring a public vote, calling sections “too vague to be enforced.” The law has so many “uncertainties,” he wrote in his ruling, “their sum makes a task for us which at best could be only guesswork.”
Moreover, Frawley ruled, the placement of the new stadium, along the riverfront just north of downtown, does not break a state law requiring the building be “adjacent” to the convention center — it is close enough, he said.
“‘Adjacent,’” Frawley wrote, “has commonly been interpreted by Missouri courts to mean ‘near or close at hand,’” — and not necessarily, he continued, “touching each other.”
Proponents quietly promoted the new victory. Dave Peacock, one of Gov. Jay Nixon’s stadium task force members, praised the legal team as “extraordinary,” and called for “everyone in the St. Louis region” to rally behind the effort.
“The court’s opinion is a victory for a bold and promising future for the NFL in St. Louis and the continued rebirth of our downtown,” Peacock said in a statement.
“We can make it happen,” he continued.
Nixon lauded the task force for continued “solid progress.”
Mary Ellen Ponder, chief of staff to Mayor Francis Slay — who supports the stadium development — nevertheless called Frawley’s decision “very disappointing.”
She said in a statement that, by declaring the ordinance invalid, Frawley essentially barred the city from scheduling a vote as authorized by that law. Still, she committed the city to public meetings “and other opportunities for public participation” regarding stadium financing.
In addition, she said Slay’s office will ask the Board of Aldermen to “consider a new ordinance that requires a public vote for future projects and can survive a judicial challenge.”
Maggie Crane, the mayor’s communications director, said the city was still considering an appeal.
The news quickly drew outbursts from critics, who had long braced for a ruling against the ordinance.
St. Louis University Law Professor John Ammann, who has filed a separate suit to force a city vote, called it a “terrible day for democracy.”
Ammann’s clients moved to intervene in the suit, filed against the city in April. The public Edward Jones Dome authority, acting on behalf of Nixon’s task force, challenged the 2002 city ordinance requiring a public vote before spending tax money on a new stadium.
But Frawley denied Ammann’s motion in a related ruling on Monday. Ammann said he was meeting his clients on Monday afternoon, and expected they’d want to appeal.
Fred Lindecke, who helped pass the city law, said he thought they followed the law on the initiative petition. “The people voted,” Lindecke said. “And now the judge has said forget all that. It makes me angry.
“The law is as clear and straightforward as you can get. It covers every kind of technique known to man for getting into the taxpayer’s pocket,” he continued. “And it says very clearly, without ambiguity, that people have a right to vote before any of their tax money is used to build a stadium. I would hope that someone in city government would be as upset as I am, and would try to do something about it.”
Regardless, the ruling represents another step toward a new football stadium, now expected to cost $998 million.
Nixon’s task force has recently outlined current financing estimates: It hopes for about $250 million from team ownership, a $200 million National Football League loan to the owners, $187 million in tax incentives, $201 million in state and city bond proceeds and $160 million in seat license sales.
It’s making progress on some of those pillars: The task force has recently applied to the state for tax incentives. It is lining up riverfront land. A recent NFL market study suggested the effort could sell $200 million in seat licenses.
And now the task force has a judge’s decision blocking a city vote.
NFL owners meet next week in Chicago to hear from teams interested in moving to Los Angeles. Representatives from the St. Louis Rams will present, for the first time, owner Stan Kroenke’s plans to build a stadium in Inglewood.
Frawley's ruling, however, will likely aid task force efforts to keep the Rams, or another NFL team, in St. Louis.
--------------------
@bubbaramfan for the bolded part
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2010
- Messages
- 33,953
- Name
- Stu
What determines standing is what may potentially be appealed. Frawley's answer was essentially that not liking the bond and being a tax payer aren't enough to give you standing in this case. That may indeed be appealed but I really don't see the city helping in that appeal and I'm not sure how much others could afford to pursue it.
I don't even agree with what the judge said but I think it will be difficult to overturn him.
- Status