Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This has been my idea for some time: let the Rams move to LA, and have the Jaguars move to St. Louis. The Jaguars can still play in the AFC South (St. Louis, Nashville, Houston, and Indianapolis would make a great division), and the LA Rams would be perfect for the NFC West.
This one would make sense ta me. My team is safe and secure in Seattle. But I could see the Rams going ta L.A. and playing in the NFC West. Didn't know the Raiders want out of Oakland and their owner wants ta move them to L.A., too. I could kinda see that but it would make sense that the Rams are on their way ta L.A. I have a hard time thinking that L.A. does not have a NFL team, not that it's such a great football city but because it's such a huge market. Doesn't always meet with success but if they field a competitive team I could see the city folk clinging to them eventually and supporting their team. Gonna be interesting to see what's gonna happen with this.
I in no way like it when good true fans of a team lose their team to another city. Happened to the Seattle Supersonics and dorks like David Stern and Adam Silver are bending over backwards to snippet short any and all efforts from Bay Area businessman Chris Hansen to bring a team like the Sacramento Kings or New Orleans Pelicans or Milwaukee Bucks ta Seattle. They're dead-set against the Sonic's returning to Seattle. Actively working to prohibit it. It's stupid and nuts. There's no way Sacramento is going to be strong enough ta support the King's. They're so bankrupt already yet the NBA front office is just "yeah, yeah SAC is having a little trouble. Leave them alone...maybe Warren Buffett'll step in and save them." Or something.
There's no way Sacramento is going to be strong enough ta support the King's. They're so bankrupt already yet the NBA front office is just "yeah, yeah SAC is having a little trouble. Leave them alone...maybe Warren Buffett'll step in and save them." Or something.
Right.
The Kings have two of the longest sellout streaks in NBA history despite not being very good over their 30 years in Sacramento. They didn't draw well over the last 8 years because of previous ownership and their willingness to move the team to Vegas.
Sac is more than capable of supporting an NBA franchise, no less than San Antonio, Portland, Utah, Orlando, and Indianapolis. Since new ownership has taken over, attendance has increased and the team seems to finally be headed in the right direction just in time for the Kings new downtown arena, which is set to open in fall 2016.
But again, when it's not your team, it's easy to say that. If the Colts were threatening to leave, leaving Indianapolis without the NFL completely, you might have felt differently. I lived in Indy for six years, including the dark days when you could hear a pin drop in the RCA Dome. If the Colts had left, it wouldn't have even registered on my radar. If the Rams leave, does that really affect you in any way shape or form?
It is easier to say that, but what I'm saying is exactly what I thought about the Indy Oil Can deal at the time...no revisionist history required. At the time, I thought it was crazy stupid to spend that kind of money for a football team when the impact on the local economy is basically zero. NFL teams basically get people in the metro to spend their discretionary income differently, but it doesn't create demand. If there was no NFL, then people would spend their money going out to eat, on other sports teams, at the movies, etc. In that sense, it doesn't change the economic vitality of the region, which is all that really matters. The issues that were intriguing in the case of Indy were:
1-It was an indoor stadium, and with the increased capacity requirements of the Final Four, it kept Indy in the regular Final Four rotation. That event brings in out of town money. A lot of it.
2-The NCAA HQ is in Indy. Without a facility to host the organization's signature event, they were more likely to relo. Those are good, high paying jobs, for upper/middle income for local residents (and a lot of them) not $10/hr hot dog vendor jobs like you get at an NFL venue.
3-The venue would also keep Indy in the rotation for the B10 football and basketball championships. Again, out of town money. B10 didn't have a football title game at the date of construction, but it was a foregone conclusion it was happening, and it was also a forgone conclusion Indy would host. B10 BB is played regularly at Conseco, but being the best FB host gives them leverage to get hoops as well.
4-The land occupied by the old venue was needed as part of a convention center expansion project (again, those conventions bring in out of town money as opposed to simply re-circulating local money differently).
5-More out of town money via the Super Bowl. It was conventional wisdom at the time that Indy would be rewarded with a SB with the new venue. What wasn't conventional wisdom at the time nationally (but was known locally) was that Indy would do a helluva job hosting the SB (which by all accounts they did) and they would probably get another hosting shot over the next decade.
6-The old stadium was effectively paid off. The bond is still floating out there, but effectively the debt was repaid and off the books. The debt at the date of Lucas construction still on the bond was reissued to support the convention center expansion, Victory Field, and various improvements in the vicinity (near IUPUI, the river, etc). It is also quite small (about $30 million).
7-very little tailgating room, which means people go to the bars in walking distance pregame and the city collects food and beverage tax on the booze. Outside of two very small lots, that's the only option for attendees.
Most importantly, the local portion of financing was collected through taxes on visitors and on discretionary purchases (hotels, rental cars, event admission taxes, and food/beverage) and the F&B tax was collected over the metro as opposed to just in the city.
These selling points don't exist for STL. Also, it was politically impossible for political leaders not to strike a deal given where the franchise was in 2004-05 when the deal got ironed out. This would be the same thing as the city not figuring out something during the Greatest Show on Turf era of the Rams.
You can argue, "Well, you can say that, but you don't really mean that", but I'm telling you, believe it or not, that there is no way I would have been on the fence shrugging my shoulders (where I was at the time) without 1) the financing advantages 2) the revenue generation advantages 3) the secondary job retention advantages (NCAA) 4) the fact that Irsay handled this with more dignity than Kroenke and 5) the fact that it was politically impossible not to get it done anyway considering how tremendously good (and popular) the Colts were at the time.
All that said, I'm not representative of your typical football fan either because of my background in economics/finance/public development and love of urban living in general. I'm not willing to let my love of a team undermine city finances the way the STL project has the potential to do for the City of St. Louis.
I mean, I like beer, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of the more important things (wife, kids, health, career, etc.). Same with a football team and city finances/needs. I had a hard enough time swallowing the bitter pill of Indy, and the Rams pill is much much more bitter for city residents.
It is easier to say that, but what I'm saying is exactly what I thought about the Indy Oil Can deal at the time...no revisionist history required. At the time, I thought it was crazy stupid to spend that kind of money for a football team when the impact on the local economy is basically zero. NFL teams basically get people in the metro to spend their discretionary income differently, but it doesn't create demand. If there was no NFL, then people would spend their money going out to eat, on other sports teams, at the movies, etc. In that sense, it doesn't change the economic vitality of the region, which is all that really matters. The issues that were intriguing in the case of Indy were:
1-It was an indoor stadium, and with the increased capacity requirements of the Final Four, it kept Indy in the regular Final Four rotation. That event brings in out of town money. A lot of it.
2-The NCAA HQ is in Indy. Without a facility to host the organization's signature event, they were more likely to relo. Those are good, high paying jobs, for upper/middle income for local residents (and a lot of them) not $10/hr hot dog vendor jobs like you get at an NFL venue.
3-The venue would also keep Indy in the rotation for the B10 football and basketball championships. Again, out of town money. B10 didn't have a football title game at the date of construction, but it was a foregone conclusion it was happening, and it was also a forgone conclusion Indy would host. B10 BB is played regularly at Conseco, but being the best FB host gives them leverage to get hoops as well.
4-The land occupied by the old venue was needed as part of a convention center expansion project (again, those conventions bring in out of town money as opposed to simply re-circulating local money differently).
5-More out of town money via the Super Bowl. It was conventional wisdom at the time that Indy would be rewarded with a SB with the new venue. What wasn't conventional wisdom at the time nationally (but was known locally) was that Indy would do a helluva job hosting the SB (which by all accounts they did) and they would probably get another hosting shot over the next decade.
6-The old stadium was effectively paid off. The bond is still floating out there, but effectively the debt was repaid and off the books. The debt at the date of Lucas construction still on the bond was reissued to support the convention center expansion, Victory Field, and various improvements in the vicinity (near IUPUI, the river, etc). It is also quite small (about $30 million).
7-very little tailgating room, which means people go to the bars in walking distance pregame and the city collects food and beverage tax on the booze. Outside of two very small lots, that's the only option for attendees.
Most importantly, the local portion of financing was collected through taxes on visitors and on discretionary purchases (hotels, rental cars, event admission taxes, and food/beverage) and the F&B tax was collected over the metro as opposed to just in the city.
These selling points don't exist for STL. Also, it was politically impossible for political leaders not to strike a deal given where the franchise was in 2004-05 when the deal got ironed out. This would be the same thing as the city not figuring out something during the Greatest Show on Turf era of the Rams.
You can argue, "Well, you can say that, but you don't really mean that", but I'm telling you, believe it or not, that there is no way I would have been on the fence shrugging my shoulders (where I was at the time) without 1) the financing advantages 2) the revenue generation advantages 3) the secondary job retention advantages (NCAA) 4) the fact that Irsay handled this with more dignity than Kroenke and 5) the fact that it was politically impossible not to get it done anyway considering how tremendously good (and popular) the Colts were at the time.
All that said, I'm not representative of your typical football fan either because of my background in economics/finance/public development and love of urban living in general. I'm not willing to let my love of a team undermine city finances the way the STL project has the potential to do for the City of St. Louis.
I mean, I like beer, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of the more important things (wife, kids, health, career, etc.). Same with a football team and city finances/needs. I had a hard enough time swallowing the bitter pill of Indy, and the Rams pill is much much more bitter for city residents.
I think you make great points, and while I don't agree that an NFL team or new stadium brings no economic value, I understand how it could be viewed that way. The national visibility of a city is greatly changed when they have 3 major sports vs 2, especially when that third sport is the NFL. I also feel that building the new stadium would mean adding an MLS team for St. Louis. In my opinion, having MLB and NHL vs having MLB, NHL, NFL and MLS, changes how St. Louis is viewed on a national stage immensely. And as I linked to earlier, a study has shown it will be a net economic benefit long-term. I'd rather have St. Louis in a tier with Minneapolis and Denver, vs Indianapolis, Nashville, and Kansas City.
Also, your opinion that loving football and beer means you don't know or care what is best for the city is pretty off base. St. Louis does a great job of squandering city finances with or without the NFL.
So there seemed to be some optimism after the court ruling about keeping the Rams in St. Louis, but lately it seems the opposite. Martin Kilcoyne reported on the Rams practicing in California, and Kroenke actually showed up out there and played footsie with Jerry Jones. Also heard another report stating that Kroenke's development plan was more highly thought of than the Carson City project.
I think you make great points, and while I don't agree that an NFL team or new stadium brings no economic value, I understand how it could be viewed that way. The national visibility of a city is greatly changed when they have 3 major sports vs 2, especially when that third sport is the NFL. I also feel that building the new stadium would mean adding an MLS team for St. Louis. In my opinion, having MLB and NHL vs having MLB, NHL, NFL and MLS, changes how St. Louis is viewed on a national stage immensely. And as I linked to earlier, a study has shown it will be a net economic benefit long-term. I'd rather have St. Louis in a tier with Minneapolis and Denver, vs Indianapolis, Nashville, and Kansas City.
Also, your opinion that loving football and beer means you don't know or care what is best for the city is pretty off base. St. Louis does a great job of squandering city finances with or without the NFL.
Let's break this down.
1-The study was garbage. No robust economic studies of sports venues detect economic benefits. The state DED is correct in saying they will get roughly $9.6 million in earnings tax off players/staff/employees. They conveniently ignore that stadium maintenance costs for a new venue of that size run $20 million per year. The earnings tax, MO sales tax, city sales tax, and city ticket tax would offset the maintenance costs, but they wouldn't put a dent in paying down the debt required to finance the stadium.
2-A new stadium might mean an MLS club. It might not too though. An ownership group will need to be identified and that group will need to be willing to pay a lot to lease the stadium. MLS also prefers soccer-specific venues (around 25K-30K capacity) because playing in a half filled NFL stadium kills the atmosphere. They also prefer natural grass. 5 MLS venues don't play on grass: 3 of them in the rainy Pacific Northwest, 1 for a new club (Orlando) waiting for its grass surface venue to be completed in time for next season, and New England (bad atmosphere). MLS would likely want to see concrete plans for a soccer stadium prior to expanding to STL.
3-A city's brand isn't enhanced by pro sports franchises. It's the other way around. Cities that are big and successful accumulate pro sports franchises because they have the money to support them. Businesses don't relocate because a city has an NFL team. By the time people move down the list that far, the previous items on the list have already led to the relo decision. Most of the fastest growing regional economies (those with lots of firms moving in) either do not have NFL teams or are one of those 1- or 2-sport cities. Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Salt Lake City are probably the three biggest boomtowns nationally right now. In the Midwest, the 4 large metros with the most economic growth in the last 15 years include a couple of 2-sport markets (KC and Indy) and Columbus. The Twin Cities is also in that group. They have teams in the 4 largest laagues, but it's because they are the 3rd largest MW metro by population and the #1 metro by earnings per employee.
I will admit that the NFL brings in a wider audience than other leagues, but it's still not going to be a big hit for city like St. Louis. I could see the argument for a smaller metro without any pro sports that is under the radar and trying to gain some national exposure though. Places like Louisville, Grand Rapids, Omaha, Jacksonville (pre-team), Virginia Beach/Norfolk, etc. Those markets have more to gain. People already know STL between the Arch, one of the most successful MLB teams in history, and unfortunately, due to recent news related to race relations/police issues, some negative exposure as well.
1-The study was garbage. No robust economic studies of sports venues detect economic benefits. The state DED is correct in saying they will get roughly $9.6 million in earnings tax off players/staff/employees. They conveniently ignore that stadium maintenance costs for a new venue of that size run $20 million per year. The earnings tax, MO sales tax, city sales tax, and city ticket tax would offset the maintenance costs, but they wouldn't put a dent in paying down the debt required to finance the stadium.
2-A new stadium might mean an MLS club. It might not too though. An ownership group will need to be identified and that group will need to be willing to pay a lot to lease the stadium. MLS also prefers soccer-specific venues (around 25K-30K capacity) because playing in a half filled NFL stadium kills the atmosphere. They also prefer natural grass. 5 MLS venues don't play on grass: 3 of them in the rainy Pacific Northwest, 1 for a new club (Orlando) waiting for its grass surface venue to be completed in time for next season, and New England (bad atmosphere). MLS would likely want to see concrete plans for a soccer stadium prior to expanding to STL.
3-A city's brand isn't enhanced by pro sports franchises. It's the other way around. Cities that are big and successful accumulate pro sports franchises because they have the money to support them. Businesses don't relocate because a city has an NFL team. By the time people move down the list that far, the previous items on the list have already led to the relo decision. Most of the fastest growing regional economies (those with lots of firms moving in) either do not have NFL teams or are one of those 1- or 2-sport cities. Raleigh-Durham, Austin, Salt Lake City are probably the three biggest boomtowns nationally right now. In the Midwest, the 4 large metros with the most economic growth in the last 15 years include a couple of 2-sport markets (KC and Indy) and Columbus. The Twin Cities is also in that group. They have teams in the 4 largest laagues, but it's because they are the 3rd largest MW metro by population and the #1 metro by earnings per employee.
I will admit that the NFL brings in a wider audience than other leagues, but it's still not going to be a big hit for city like St. Louis. I could see the argument for a smaller metro without any pro sports that is under the radar and trying to gain some national exposure though. Places like Louisville, Grand Rapids, Omaha, Jacksonville (pre-team), Virginia Beach/Norfolk, etc. Those markets have more to gain. People already know STL between the Arch, one of the most successful MLB teams in history, and unfortunately, due to recent news related to race relations/police issues, some negative exposure as well.
I couldn't disagree more with your opinion on MLS. STL is one of the most rabid, and respected soccer markets in the U.S. If a stadium gets built, MLS will be here.
Also, I am by no means saying that keeping the NFL will result in stunning growth and a huge uptick in the city's economic path. I'm saying that the NFL leaving, and the North Riverfront staying like it is, will only further continue the slide in downtown visitation and visibility. I do not believe for one second that the Riverfront/Arch revitalization project (down to Lumiere Place) will be a reality in the next 20 years. We'll just get to hear people complain for the next 20 years about why downtown is so dead from November-March. It's the St. Louis way.
As for your points on the economic growth of Indy and KC...even with that growth, they're miles away from catching STL in GMP anytime soon (maybe by the end of the century). I would also like to add that both cities have either built new stadiums or refurbished existing stadiums in the last decade. Indy has attracted national attention with their stadium, and KC is being viewed as one of the soccer capitals of the U.S. with their team. Arrowhead also seems to be doing quite well since its most recent renovation. But I'm sure that has no bearing on things, just a weird coincidence.
I'm done debating, this will be the last post for me in this thread. You have strong opinions and nothing I say or back up with reports or facts will change that. I've lived here my whole life except for a brief stint in Indy. I've seen it too many times. There's no way I think a stadium not being built and the NFL leaving St. Louis will be good for the city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
