On Friday, you will recall, it was revealed that St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay is proposing to make up for using naming-rights money to pay for the public share of a Rams stadium — money that team owner Stan Kroenke insists should be his — by kicking back city taxes on spending at NFL games to the team. How is that going over with city officials who had specifically complained about the city “game day” tax kickback when it was first proposed as stadium funding, without the intermediate step? As you might expect, not well at all:
“The city cannot agree to fund the $150 million proposed by the stadium task force without extending itself well above the current $6 million commitment,” [city comptroller Darlene] Green said in her statement.
“St. Louis city should not be asked to shoulder the burden of the funding gap that was created when St. Louis County was given a pass for its share in building a new stadium,” she continued. “When analyzing the risks and benefits, I reiterate that all funding partners should share equally in bridging the funding gap and minimize the burden to city taxpayers.”
Green is only one vote (on the three-person Board of Estimate, not the Board of Aldermen — apparently St. Louis got around those one-person-one-vote problems), but as the main public spokesperson for the elected-official opposition, it’s worth noting what she says. And doesn’t say: Note that she only wants other “funding partners” (presumably the county) to cover a bigger share of the stadium, not necessarily Kroenke. That’s in line with her previous statement that maybe a statewide sports authority should be created to lavish public dollars on not just the Rams, but other local teams as well.
In other words, it sounds like we’re well on our way to the “How should the public pay for it?” stage of the debate, rather than “Should the public pay for it?” or even “Do we really need one in the first place?” That’s somewhat understandable given that Kroenke is playing hardball with his L.A. move threat: The general assumption is that unless his subsidy demands are met by some public entity, he’ll take his team and leave, though there’s no certainty that 1) this would be approved by other NFL owners, and 2) building his own nearly $2 billion stadium Inglewood would really be more lucrative than even a lesser offer of public money in St. Louis. Missouri officials are bidding against themselves, in other words, which we shouldn’t be surprised at, since they’ve proven so good at doing so before.
Oh jeez, Neil. You can complain about of a lot of stadium shakedowns being built on imaginary leverage, but this threat is real. From the moment that the convention authority was notified that the current some has fallen out of the top 25% of NFL stadiums, Kroenke’s actions have been those of a man whose team is bound for LA.
Kroenke may want to go to LA, but he still has to get NFL approval and be able to turn a profit on it. The first remains uncertain, and I’m far from the only person who thinks the latter may be as well.
That would be a huge hose-job to St. Louis, if they are willing to build that greed driven guy a stadium.
I remember when Silent Stan said recently that he would be willing to share his potential stadium in Inglewood. I bet it will be the Rams and the Raiders in the end, playing in Silent’s new place. There will be a “miracle” that keep the Chargers in San Diego.
But what do I know? It’s an interesting deal to me. Three teams, only one guaranteed spot.
City/county issues are always sticky in St Louis since the city is not part of the county. The city limits are remarkably small. That’s also one of the reasons the city has such terrible crime statistics. The other reason being the crime of course.
You need to check out what’s now happening in Cleveland. It makes this St. Louis thing look honest.
Neil,
Even if we stipulate that those two things are true, you can’t call it “his” subsidy demands and there has been no indication that he’s using LA as leverage in a negotiation with St. Louis.
Ben, are you suggesting that Mr. Kroenke is pursuing a parallel development for an NFL team in Los Angeles in addition to the team he hopes to keep in a new stadium in St. Louis?
If not, then how can the LA plan be anything but leverage for St. Louis? He’s going to be in one place or the other, not both.
Mike: Three teams, one spot, indeed.
Reminds me of, three shells, one bill. Three cards, one rube, etc etc.
Musical chairs doesn’t work if you have the same number of players and chairs. And just like musical chairs, the number of chairs is limited only by the will and desire of master of the game.
@ Mike
The San Diego plan is dead and the city’s financing was based on the Chargers paying $12 million to $15 million a year in rent. Splitting the cost of the Carson stadium is cheaper than than what the Chargers would have to spend in San Diego. They are definitely gone.
The Chargers are more popular than the Rams in LA that’s why KCBS and FOX11LA choose to broadcast the Chargers home games even though they aren’t required. FOX11LA almost never shows the Rams because their ratings are horrible. FOX has the double header this weekend and the Rams are hosting their biggest rival the 49ers, FOX11LA is showing the Giants @ Saints. Only a small handful of nutjobs still care about the Rams.
Green’s already flipflopped on this issue, the local construction workers union will shut her up, this is politics 101.