This is an archived version of a Field of Schemes article. Comments on this page are closed. To find the current version of the article with updated comments, click here.
June 02, 2009
Rams for sale, could seek to break lease?
St. Louis Post-Dispatch columnist Bernie Miklasz has ignited a firestorm of media chatter with his column Sunday indicating that the Rams are for sale, and could be headed out of town:
The owners will ask Goldman Sachs to help facilitate the sale of the Rams by evaluating bids and soliciting potential buyers.
The sale price is unknown, but Forbes magazine's most recent estimate listed the Rams' value at $929 million.
And if you are a St. Louis Rams fan, here's the reason to be concerned: I'm told there will be no preconditions attached to the sale of the Rams. This means the Rams could be scooped up by out-of-town buyers.
The Rams, you'll recall, have a 30-year lease on the Edward Jones Dome, but were clever enough to include a provision that lets them break the deal if the building isn't among the 25% most "state of the art" in the NFL, something Miklasz says ain't gonna happen:
It's virtually impossible for the CVC to meet that top-eight standard. By 2010, 23 NFL stadiums will have been built or thoroughly renovated since the Edward Jones Dome opened in 1995.
Even with a $30 million upgrade that's being done now, the Edward Jones Dome will be one of the oldest stadiums in the NFL by 2015.
If all this sounds familiar, it's because it comes exactly one year and one day after a similar Post-Dispatch article asserting that St. Louis needs to replace the dome or else see the Rams leave town. It looks increasingly like St. Louis is headed for another major football stadium showdown, just 14 years after their last one.
So a future owner could move his team, right? Freedom of Association is beautiful, a cornerstone of American life.
It's true. Soaking local taxpayers is a scam run by politicians, construction labor unions, bond underwriters and league owners.
Yet, writing books about such in hopes of earning profit also amounts to a scam. In short, such writers leech off the leeches.
Perhaps someone can step forward and write a book titled "Bookshelves of Schemes: Writers who complain about others who scam taxpayers"
I assume Neil makes a few dollars from his book, but he does not ask for taxpayer subsidies to do write it. Professional sports can make money without govt handouts too.
Why people enjoy giving tax money to wealthy athletes and owners I will not understand, but I thank Neil for trying to change minds.
Hey Keith, in which particular way are you confused about the difference between someone's tax dollars going to build a stadium, and that same someone choosing to spend their pocket money to purchase a book?
Ketch, sorry; darned small fonts...
What bit about being a leech are you struggling with?
By his writing, which exposes his beliefs, Neil deMause seems to be annoyed at a group of powerful, rich, filthy collectivists who are living at the expense of defenseless, powerless, enslaved taxpayers.
Yet, Neil deMause does not seem to be annoyed at a group of powerful, bureaucratic filthy collectivists who are living at the expense of defenseless, powerless, enslaved taxpayers, and demanding all to accept their meddling socialist utopian schemes.
I think it is quite OK to demand that politicians spend the public purse with openness and accountability, especially when stadium deals are used to reward cronies, property developers, and construction unions.
Not sure why whatever other political opinions Neil may have impacts this argument. In fact, I don't think anyone commenting understand what your point is at all, assuming you have one.
If you want the public to give you a place to drink beer, watch baseball, and act like a lout, that is your right. But please don't get upset when people point at the gaps in your logic.