[Elvis]

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/misso ... tion-play/

Gov. Jay Nixon’s Stadium Misdirection Play

Effort to get public funding is all about deceit in St. Louis
By Ray Hartmann June 15, 2015 6:47 AM


A proposed $1 billion NFL stadium in downtown St. Louis is an improbable dream, owing to the troublesome detail that its backers do not—and, in all likelihood, will not—have an NFL team to play in it.

But it's still engrossing to watch this particular cut of political sausage being made by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon. And on Friday, it got a little more gross.

That’s when the administration of Mayor Francis Slay—an ardent stadium backer—pretended to launch a broadside legal attack at the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority (RCSCA)—an ardent stadium backer—over its right to make the whole thing happen. It was staged in the form of a counterclaim to RCSCA’s lawsuit challenging a city ordinance that requires a public vote before public funds can be committed for a stadium.

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch dutifully played along: “City fires back at Dome authority, says can't build new stadium.”

Wow. What gives here? Why did Slay change his mind? Why would his city counselor go for the jugular to derail a stadium project that the mayor considers a top priority for the city?

The short answer: None of that is happening here. The entire lawsuit is as staged as pro wrestling. It’s stadium backer versus stadium backer, all designed to produce one outcome: to achieve a verdict in local circuit court that would remove any impediment to Nixon almost singlehandedly delivering $400 million in public funds to NFL owners as an incentive to keep St. Louis in its fold.

Without doubt, it’s Slay’s firm intention for the city to lose the case it’s feigning to defend. That’s not even debatable. But what’s extraordinary about the counterclaim is that it would appear that the city is surreptitiously trying to help the RCSCA clear its biggest hurdle—the fact that it's limited to fund facilities “adjacent to a convention center”—by intentionally losing the “argument” about what adjacent means.

The definition of adjacency is a matter of considerable case law, and how it’s determined depends upon which precedent a judge chooses to follow. In one case, “adjacent” might mean attached. In another, it might mean across a road or across a river or in the adjoining county. Most significantly, some case law states that a judge should consider the context of what lawmakers meant when limiting an authority such as RCSCA with the term “adjacent.”

Now, were it to come down to common sense and not legalism, the stadium backers would lose on the question of context. There is absolutely no question that the RCSCA was established in 1989 by Gov. John Ashcroft and the legislature for one purpose, and one purpose alone: To facilitate and fund the expansion of St. Louis’ convention center with a domed stadium that would serve the multiple purposes of expanding exhibit hall space, attracting new major sporting events and serving the needs of a potential NFL team.

I’m sure of this, because as publisher of The Riverfront Times, I was one of the people who the stadium backers of that era sold on the project. I supported it, much to the dismay of most fellow liberals (including much of the RFT editorial staff) because of the convention-center angle (not knowing that it would be dark for convention purposes half of the year).

It’s perfectly logical that the RCSCA’s scope was limited to a project “adjacent” to a convention center because the central sales pitch was that St. Louis needed to do this even if it didn’t get an NFL team. That’s how we became the only city to build an NFL stadium on the come.

Nixon and his so-called, two-man “task force”—businessman Dave Peacock and attorney Bob Blitz—are attempting to use the RCSCA as a permanent stadium-financing mechanism. Their strategy: to use its authority to issue bonds for the first stadium to finance a second one. That’s why they chose the north Riverfront site on the theory that it’s close enough to the convention center to be adjudicated as “adjacent.”

My legal sources tell me that the city is likely to cite cases that don’t invoke the context requirement in the hope that Judge Thomas J. Frawley will rule that the proposed new stadium meets the adjacency definition that governs the RCSCA. Then, the RCSCA would be free to extend existing bonds, raising $250 million in state revenue bonds without any action or approval from the legislature.

The same legal sources suggest that the RCSCA is optimistic about prevailing on the question of whether it can avert a city vote on funding the debt service for the extended bonds. If it’s established that the RCSCA can issue the debt, the messy details of funding the debt service can be simply kicked down the road to future city governments, as at the state level, because no immediate funding would be needed from city voters. And the RCSCA’s high-powered counsel would probably pick apart the city’s stadium-vote ordinance in any case, especially with no serious opposition from the defendant.

In sports parlance, the city would appear to be “throwing the game” with regard to the court case. The Slay administration appears intent not only on losing, but losing on key arguments that would weaken its other key legal challenge, a lawsuit filed in Jefferson City by six legislators against the RCSCA that attacks its authority to extend existing bonds on the adjacency issue, among other points. Rep. Jay Barnes (R–Jefferson City) is the lead plaintiff.

A Cole County circuit judge would not be bound by the decision of a St. Louis circuit judge, but he or she might be influenced by it. Plus, the RCSCA could argue in Jefferson City that a St. Louis judge has already considered what adjacency means in the “context” of St. Louis geography, thus removing the need for a judge in Jefferson City to rule to the contrary.

If this sounds like conspiracy theory to you, answer this: Why else would the city of St. Louis go out of its way to attack the RCSCA’s fundamental right to finance a stadium project that Slay considers his top priority? Speaking in code, City Counselor Winston Calvert told the Post-Dispatch that the counterclaim “is a reflection of the fact that everybody is ready to get these issues resolved and move on.”

By “resolved,” he means “resolved” in favor of Slay and other stadium backers, not on behalf of the city as a defendant. And by “move on,” he means to avoid any other hurdles, such as the pending case in Cole County, which would delay the stadium backers. The NFL’s insistence that funding issues be resolved almost immediately (perhaps as early as a special meeting of team owners in August) gives them precious little time and almost no margin for error.

Consider it the understatement of the century that the city isn’t likely to appeal to a higher court should it “lose” its case “against” the RCSCA. And with the city playing to lose, there’s a decent chance that the RCSCA may prevail in court.

Whatever happens, we have the answer to the stadium issue’s original mystery: How was Nixon going to wrest hundreds of millions of public dollars out of a state legislature that is certainly hostile to him, to stadium corporate welfare and to St. Louis? Why, he happened upon a legal technicality: The “authority” of the RCSCA to borrow $250 million in state funds by simply extending the existing ones. Add to that $150 million in tax credits that Nixon apparently can manufacture through existing administrative authority—opportunity cost to other projects be damned—and voila, St. Louis has “decided” to offer $400 million to the NFL.

Unbelievable. It’s a legalistic cousin to the “boat in the moat” concept through which casinos were essentially able to use oversized bathtubs to meet a (stupid) state requirement that they be situated as riverboats. For NFL fans, think “tuck rule.”

The bottom line is this: If Nixon succeeds, he will have effectively committed future generations of Missouri taxpayers to finance a new NFL stadium in St. Louis without so much as a committee hearing on the subject. And if $150 million in potential non-football projects go unfunded in St. Louis, so be it. The end justifies the means.

I’m not in the custom of siding with Missouri Republican legislators, but you cannot blame them for finding this outrageous. This truly is an abuse of executive power, arguably even an unprecedented one.

To the extent that NFL officials having been praising “the stadium progress in St. Louis,” it’s probably out of astonished gratitude that a governor has concocted a way to send $400 million their way without any public process at all. With apologies to the sportswriters who hang on every encouraging word that comes from the office of NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, what do you think they’re going to say in response to such a spectacle? Of course, the NFL likes the idea of a governor pulling something like this off. What a nice precedent for them.

Unfortunately for stadium backers, that doesn’t translate into “thanks, you’ve got your team.” The St. Louis franchise of the NFL is ranked 32nd among 32 teams in value in the respected Forbes rankings, and the area is stagnant in growth and wounded in reputation. The NFL cannot possibly give it a high priority.

Worse, there’s two possibilities, neither of them good for St. Louis stadium backers: One is that Rams owner Stan Kroenke achieves his long-standing dream of moving the team to Los Angeles, leaving St. Louis in the tenuous position of trying to steal still another team from another city. Or, two, is that Kroenke is thwarted, forcing him to remain, at least for the moment, as the not- so-proud owner of the St. Louis Rams.

In the former case, it’s not clear where the team would come from, because the San Diego Chargers would almost certainly stay in San Diego or reluctantly join Kroenke as his tenant in Inglewood, and Raiders owner Mark Davis has been emphatic (almost cruelly) about his unwillingness to consider a move to St. Louis. Plus, any relocation would take time—likely years. It’s entirely possible that if the Republican legislators lose in court, they’ll make it a top priority in next year’s legislative session (or a subsequent one) to prohibit the RCSCA from extending existing bonds for a new stadium.

And if St. Louis succeeded in thwarting Kroenke from moving the Rams, his next move would almost certainly be to do nothing, holding his cards in his hand, Kroenke style. You see, as reported here (almost exclusively, for some reason), Kroenke owns nine one-year options to play, one year at a time, at the perfectly functional Edward Jones Dome on the sweetest lease in the league, wherein he receives uncommon millions in naming-rights fees and other advertising revenues, and pays less rent ($25,000 per game) than it costs to operate the building.

I’m not sure why, but there’s an assumption in the media that if forced to stay in St. Louis, Kroenke would somehow be persuaded to invest $250 million into a stadium that he doesn’t own, in a bottom-ranked city that he just tried to leave (and one that blew up his dream, no less), replacing his sweetheart deal with a market-rate one (the only way it could begin to work), giving up all those millions and, more importantly, the free agency to pick up and leave St. Louis if and when any better deal came along in, say, San Diego or San Antonio or London or Mexico City or Portland or...well, you get the point.

The best response you get privately when challenging stadium backers on this is that they’ll figure out a way to persuade Kroenke to sell the team or to swap franchises with another owner. But who’s going to pay his price (which hardly would come at a friends-and-family discount in this event) and throw in $250 million for a new stadium in the bottom-ranked NFL market?

So this whole saga isn’t likely to end well for stadium backers. But if I’m wrong about every word of this—if somehow, you and I are going to enjoy NFL football years from now in a state-of-the-art, new NFL stadium on the north riverfront, then let’s do our best to forget that it was all made possible by an unprecedented use of smoke and mirrors. And deceit. I’ve even got a name for our team, resurrecting one that, until recently, served local amateur hockey well.

Go, St. Louis Bandits!

SLM co-owner Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m.

[snackdaddy]

Interesting take at the end there. One I never thought of. If they force Kroenke to stay in St. Louis, can they force him to pay the $250 mil towards the new stadium? And if not, what's gonna happen if he continues to stay in the EJD? Are they gonna have this fancy new stadium with no one to play in it? That would completely backfire on Nixon, Slay, et al. Kroenke still holds a good hand here. They mighta come up with a straight, but I think he's holding a flush in his hand.

[den-the-coach]

Interesting take at the end there. One I never thought of. If they force Kroenke to stay in St. Louis, can they force him to pay the $250 mil towards the new stadium? And if not, what's gonna happen if he continues to stay in the EJD? Are they gonna have this fancy new stadium with no one to play in it? That would completely backfire on Nixon, Slay, et al. Kroenke still holds a good hand here. They mighta come up with a straight, but I think he's holding a flush in his hand.

That's why I find this comical the St. Louis people want you to believe that the NFL is going to stop Kroenke and there is nothing he can do about it. And lately they've been posting Kroenke never wanted to move the Rams regardless if the Inglewood scenario. They have me really bewildered to the point they locked the thread.

At this point I'm going to refrain from that site, however, I could not remain silent. I still don't see how the Rams don't end up in Los Angeles because legally the Managing team of the convention center broke the lease and Kroenke took them to court and won so legally, he's free to move his team. Now I understand per the NFL you still have to get approval, but I truly don't believe Kronke was doing all of this to get a stadium down by the river, but stranger things have happen.

[Elvis]

Interesting take at the end there. One I never thought of. If they force Kroenke to stay in St. Louis, can they force him to pay the $250 mil towards the new stadium? And if not, what's gonna happen if he continues to stay in the EJD? Are they gonna have this fancy new stadium with no one to play in it? That would completely backfire on Nixon, Slay, et al. Kroenke still holds a good hand here. They mighta come up with a straight, but I think he's holding a flush in his hand.

That's why I find this comical the St. Louis people want you to believe that the NFL is going to stop Kroenke and there is nothing he can do about it. And lately they've been posting Kroenke never wanted to move the Rams regardless if the Inglewood scenario. They have me really bewildered to the point they locked the thread.

At this point I'm going to refrain from that site, however, I could not remain silent. I still don't see how the Rams don't end up in Los Angeles because legally the Managing team of the convention center broke the lease and Kroenke took them to court and won so legally, he's free to move his team. Now I understand per the NFL you still have to get approval, but I truly don't believe Kronke was doing all of this to get a stadium down by the river, but stranger things have happen.

This is one of the biggest stories in the history of the franchise. Why wouldn't we want to talk about it?

Anybody who does is certainly welcome here...

[Hacksaw]

That's why I find this comical the St. Louis people want you to believe that the NFL is going to stop Kroenke and there is nothing he can do about it. And lately they've been posting Kroenke never wanted to move the Rams regardless if the Inglewood scenario. They have me really bewildered to the point they locked the thread.
At this point I'm going to refrain from that site, however, I could not remain silent.

That dude whose handle rhymes with RamsFans came in belching the same argument that has been spewed over the last 250 pages. BC, ripper and our own oldschool have been putting up the good fight but I'm glad they shut it down. That thread was becoming as toxic as the soil in Carson. I for one am glad 503 temporarily shut it down and I hope he keeps it that way as it had gotten very divisive there. I bailed out 2 dozen pages ago. It wasn't fun anymore.

den, I don't see Stan capitulating to these guys. Unless he shocks us all with a "this is exactly what I wanted all along" comment, that stadium will never get built. He can't be forced to buy in and they can't raise enough money for even their half with out essentially cheating. IMO StL E. Riverfront is pipe.
The article Elvis posted here today pretty much sums up the whole deal to me and if the NFL owners think this is business as usual and sign off on it, I'll be even more shocked.
The riverfront stadium would be real nice, but Stans deal is with the Ed and he can stay unless they kick him out,,, which they won't. The outdoor stadium would be nicer but certainly not up to the expectations he appears to have now.

So that leaves the shaky Carson project to thwart us which I easily see going down in flames , , ,both figuratively and literally. lol

I guess we shall see what we shall see,

[den-the-coach]

This is one of the biggest stories in the history of the franchise. Why wouldn't we want to talk about it?

Anybody who does is certainly welcome here...

God Save the King!

[den-the-coach]

I guess we shall see what we shall see,

And our truth is marching on! Well posted my friend, well posted!

[Hacksaw]

Hartman Interview/Transcript:

Notable excerpts from the interview--

Q. You recently wrote in St. Louis Magazine about the politics Jay Nixon's using in building a St. Louis stadium:

A. "Whenever you talk about the stadium...it's important to distinguish between observing what's going on and advocating. I'm not crusading against the stadium...Because I'm pretty confident it's not going to happen. This lawsuit is really the equivalent of pro wrestling in the legal system. (The Dome Authority) is ostensibly suing the city of St. Louis...requiring voters to approve of the stadium. The plaintiff and the defendant are on the same side. So it's all play acting."

"When they set this up in 1989, they set this up for one project and one project only. They set it up to do one building. Whatever they had to do to get the Dome built...this was clear. What (Jay Nixon) did, he discovered that perhaps with a loophole, the word 'adjacent' is complex...There's a very slim possibility that we're going to have an NFL team here. If (Stan Kroenke) moves the Rams, we're back where we were 20 years ago."

Q. If St. Louis doesn't have a chance at getting funding to build the stadium, why is the St. Louis task force portraying that's not the case?

A. "I will say Dave Peacock couldn't be a nicer guy. I don't know. I'm not a know-it-all. I'm just looking at the basic facts out there in the public. Maybe they have some theory why Stan Kroenke would put that team in that building. I don't want to go into their motives. I think they're sincere. And I think maybe they thought they could get by with the financing. Personally...I think they should've tried to cut a deal with the Kansas City guys across the state. Had they gone to the legislature...it wouldn't have taken any appropriations from the legislature. I think they made a calculation that they'd survive a court case. Maybe they've got some amazing secret sauce theory about Kroenke."

Q. Do you think if they were to secure a team, you don't think they'll get the financing for a stadium?

A. "I do think if they can get this through the courts...and if Kroenke leaves, I think we've got a puncher's chance of getting a team. There's not a long line of cities anymore putting up $450 million for a stadium. The NFL loves it."

Q. On corporate spending and how it'll affect the future of NFL in St. Louis:

A. "Can St. Louis' corporate community, can they support three teams (with one of them being the Cardinals). The St. Louis Cardinals rank sixth out of 30 markets at $1.4 billion. After the Cardinals, there's not enough room for the Blues and the Rams to do well. Cardinals president Bill DeWitt Jr. said it would be better for them if the Rams leave. It's not all about the fans. It's about the luxury boxes (and corporate money). (Attendance) doesn't float their boat. It's about getting corporate dough. I hate it when people talk about this in terms of the fans. Laying the guilt trip on St. Louis fans...is almost immoral. "

Q. More on corporate spending. Has St. Louis' loss of some corporate headquarters hurt in this regard?

A. "It's really an unfortunate thing for St. Louis. You've seen so many corporations here. Anheuser-Busch, the May Company was a huge one for St. Louis. Corporations spend money where they have an outpost. Southwestern Bell (when they had their headquarters here), they spent a lot of money on sports. When you look at the Cardinals, it's a pie, there's only so much to go around."

More on corporations:

A. "The Rams start with 126 suites and they only sell 100 of them. If you look at the record over the last decade, Kansas City isn't much better than we are. I agree the Rams have sucked. But I think it's because of the corporations. And the Cardinals just took off in the past 10 years. They're competition. The corporations diminished and the Rams sucked. All three things happened at the same time. I do know they use to sell (the suites out and almost all the club seats). It's bad for us as sports fans. They won't admit it, but it's good for the Blues and Cardinals (if the Rams leave). "

CALLER QUESTIONS/COMMENTS:

Q. What about the NFL setting a precedent to let teams pick up and leave even if the city is putting up money

A. "Here's the precedent I don't think the NFL wants to set: (St. Louis) walked away from upgrading the Edward Jones Dome, now it's going to help us two years later? (St. Louis) had a deal, we had a contract walked away from it. We walked away. I do think there's a slim hope if the Rams leave, that perhaps (Jaguars owner) Shahid Khan would sell the team and strike a deal to own a team here. That's just a theory. People should've known this is coming.

Q. Thoughts on the cross-ownership issue in Denver and how that could play out?

A. "Why hasn't that played out in five years? He broke the rules five years ago. One theory is (Denver Broncos owner) Pat Bowlen has Alzheimer's and is near the end. It would make sense for (Kroenke) to get to Denver. Another theory is Kroenke will move the Rams to move to LA, then sell them (for over $2 billion), then go to Denver. But even if they did a franchise swap, who's going to put the money here? All those scenarios are speculative...and I think the legislature will be a bit of a problem if it takes much time next session."

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLc...i ... uture.aspx

Thanks to RamBill for providing the transcript.

[The Ripper]

A caller asked about the precedence if the NFL turns down public money. Hartman came back with something I have been posting for months that it would be a worse precedent for the NFL not told hold St Louis to the terms of the lease. He didn't point out that there are other teams that have the same clause Cincinnati and 2 of the owners on the LA Committee, Hunt and McNair. Hunt got his renovations and in Houston their having issues with the required renovations for the Supebowl so letting a city off could cause a lot more problems than turning down money.

[bubbaramfan]

And that's the rub ripper. Rams came to St. Louis with the understanding they play in a top tier facility. They made a deal. St. Louis didn't hold up to their end of the bargain, and now the Rams are moving back. Pretty dang simple to understand had St. Louis done what they said they would do, none of this would be going on.

On a side, I'm done with those other boards.