Rams Fans United - Los Angeles Rams Fan Discussion Forum

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... ml?ana=twt

Nixon: State bonds won't be sold until NFL commits to St. Louis

Brian Feldt

Gov. Jay Nixon said Tuesday that the state won't sell bonds to help pay for a new $1.11 billion stadium along St. Louis' north Mississippi riverfront until the National Football League commits to playing there.

Nixon, who was in St. Louis Tuesday to announce a new headquarters for World Wide Technology at Westport Plaza, said a new stadium won’t be built “until we have a team sitting across from us signing a long-term lease.”

Seventy-five percent of Missouri House members have said they oppose funding the stadium without a public or legislative vote, with some threatening not to approve bond payments.

Stadium proponents in St. Louis, Oakland and San Diego — two other cities looking to keep their respective NFL teams — have until Dec. 30 to make their final proposal to the NFL. League owners are then likely to vote Jan. 12-13 whether to allow the Rams, Raiders, Chargers — or some combination of teams — to move to the Los Angeles market.

Nixon said no proposal has been handed over yet, but he expects to make the deadline.

The St. Louis Board of Aldermen effectively wrapped up the public financing portion of the stadium Dec. 18 when it voted to approve the city’s commitment, worth $145.4 million, not including interest, plus some $3 million per year in amusement taxes that will go to the NFL.

Paired with the state’s commitment to issue bonds and allocate tax credits, the $560.4 million public portion of the project is now in place, though Rams owner Stan Kroenke would have to agree to any deal if he is blocked from moving to Inglewood, California, where he’s planning to build a $2 billion stadium.

All public funding is contingent on a $550 million investment from the league and a team. Local stadium proponents are relying on $300 million from the NFL’s G4 loan program, though the NFL has committed that much just once: for MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, home of the New York Giants and New York Jets.

“I think we’ve shown the NFL we want to remain an NFL city,” Nixon said.

His cute little way to avoid the issue with Schaaf and the bonds. Just another little tid bid Kroenke can use against the Riverfloat dream.

Elvis wrote:http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news/2015/12/22/nixon-state-bonds-wont-be-sold-until-nfl-commits.html?ana=twt

Nixon: State bonds won't be sold until NFL commits to St. Louis

Brian Feldt

Nixon said no proposal has been handed over yet, but he expects to make the deadline.

Paired with the state’s commitment to issue bonds and allocate tax credits, the $560.4 million public portion of the project is now in place, though Rams owner Stan Kroenke would have to agree to any deal if he is blocked from moving to Inglewood, California, where he’s planning to build a $2 billion stadium.

All public funding is contingent on a $550 million investment from the league and a team. Local stadium proponents are relying on $300 million from the NFL’s G4 loan program, though the NFL has committed that much just once: for MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey, home of the New York Giants and New York Jets.

“I think we’ve shown the NFL we want to remain an NFL city,” Nixon said.

He expects. Sounds pretty uncertain.

The other part they're still taking credit for the PSL's.

Exactly Ripper. The STL proposal is such a joke. 360 M of the 550 M that STL counts as public money should be counted as owner/team money/contribution.

So if I am reading this right, the only upfront money that STL is putting up, without any hangups, is $75M.

Is the rest tax money and questionable bonds?

max wrote:So if I am reading this right, the only upfront money that STL is putting up, without any hangups, is $75M.

Is the rest tax money and questionable bonds?

Technically yes, but I doubt that the legislature would actually go forward with not paying for the bonds, which is what the Task Force and Nixon have obviously assumed as well.

bluecoconuts wrote:

max wrote:So if I am reading this right, the only upfront money that STL is putting up, without any hangups, is $75M.

Is the rest tax money and questionable bonds?

Technically yes, but I doubt that the legislature would actually go forward with not paying for the bonds, which is what the Task Force and Nixon have obviously assumed as well.

The RSA bonds aren't obligations of the state and it would be up to the ratings agencies if they would hold the state accountable for a default.

bluecoconuts wrote:

max wrote:So if I am reading this right, the only upfront money that STL is putting up, without any hangups, is $75M.

Is the rest tax money and questionable bonds?

Technically yes, but I doubt that the legislature would actually go forward with not paying for the bonds, which is what the Task Force and Nixon have obviously assumed as well.

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion, Sen. Rob Schaff does not agree with you.

He say, unequivocally, that the legislature will not pay without a vote.

bluecoconuts wrote:

max wrote:So if I am reading this right, the only upfront money that STL is putting up, without any hangups, is $75M.

Is the rest tax money and questionable bonds?

Technically yes, but I doubt that the legislature would actually go forward with not paying for the bonds, which is what the Task Force and Nixon have obviously assumed as well.

BC, do you assume then there will be a vote? Schaff and his 120+ reps and 20+ senators (70+% veto proof majority) have aligned against it. That fact has to take the A out actionable don't you think?

edit: What AZ said.

"The St. Louis Board of Aldermen effectively wrapped up the public financing portion of the stadium Dec. 18 when it voted to approve the city’s commitment, worth $145.4 million, not including interest, plus some $3 million per year in amusement taxes that will go to the NFL."

Hold on, wasnt the owner supposed to keep the revenue on amusement tax in return for "rent" more than doubling?