[SoCalRam78]

The only member of the fly over media that doesn't salute Peacock and ball wash the task force. Everything he says is what we've outlined, so of course no one wants to hear (or read) it.

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/st-lo ... e-and-no-/

The media slept through a huge St. Louis NFL stadium development this week when it failed to report that the proposed structure is projected to cost $112 million more than what stadium backers officially estimated as recently as July.

That “non-story” got much bigger yesterday.

That’s when NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell released a letter he sent to Gov. Jay Nixon rejecting published reports that the NFL might be willing to commit $300 million to the project through its G-4 loan program, rather than the standard $200 million commitment. He said any suggestion of the extra $100 million would be “fundamentally inconsistent with NFL policy.”

This statement was, of course, fundamentally inconsistent with what task force leader Dave Peacock told the Board of Aldermen and media earlier in the week. Indeed, he had some outlets reporting that the NFL actually came to him with the offer of an additional $100 million in its enthusiasm for the St. Louis stadium project.

It was pretty incredible that the media would accept Peacock’s word on the basis of what one or two owners may or may not have said they would be willing to support in the way of extra funding for the St. Louis project. Then again, that isn’t half as incredible as the fact that no one in the media seemed the slight bit curious as to why and when the stadium’s construction cost skyrocketed $112 million overnight.

For those who might suggest this is editorial opinion, consider two rather finite facts:

On July 1, the “total estimated costs” of the project were listed as $998 million in an official document presented to the Missouri Development Finance Board.
On December 15, the total estimated costs of the project were listed as $1.1 billion in an official document presented to the Board of Aldermen.
Something caused those numbers to increase 11 percent without explanation. And we are talking about $112 million in new costs—at millions of dollars worth of taxpayers' expense—for a project designed by HOK, one of the top architecture firms in the world.

Wouldn’t you think someone in the media might at least wonder aloud about all of this, rather than quietly switching to calling this “the $1.1 billion stadium” instead of "the $1 billion stadium"?

In any event, there is now an unfilled $112 million hole in financing for the project, one that won’t be filled today by the Board of Aldermen as it convenes to make official the commitment that it made Tuesday. That commitment—essentially funding $145 million in financing for the stadium—was presumed to make the numbers work at the $1.1 billion level if the NFL kicked in the extra $100 million.

That’s hardly the only financing uncertainty facing St. Louis. Last week, NFL vice president Eric Grubman told local sportscaster Bernie Miklasz that the league considered it unjust for the city to charge amusement taxes for its team when other sports teams—notably the Cardinals—were exempt from it.

So it’s a pretty safe bet that league officials will be underwhelmed by the most recent version of city financing that claims to be meeting part of its future obligation with proceeds from the same tax that the NFL considers unjust. And that’s in addition to early skepticism about the overall cost of the project, potential overruns, and the like.

None of this is likely to prompt city officials to reverse field on approving the funding. The more improbable the stadium financing becomes, the less likely it would be built and thus the less likely it is that taxpayer dollars will actually be spent on it, beyond the $13 million that the Regional Sports Authority has expended to get Peacock’s proposal this far.

In defense of the stadium backers, the main anticipated use of the proposed stadium had nothing to do with playing football there. It’s most important function would be to thwart Rams owner Stan Kroenke in his plans to move the team to Los Angeles by helping Kroenke’s foes make the case that he hasn’t cleared league relocation guidelines.

Kroenke has made no secret of his disinterest in the new stadium. Were he rejected by NFL owners next month in his quest to move the Rams, it seems highly likely that his next move would be to do nothing, meaning to exercise his one-year options to play at the Edward Jones Dome on the sweetest lease in the NFL.

But my own guess is that won’t be necessary. I’m thinking (not hoping) that on January 13, Goodell will be announcing that Kroenke will be joined by San Diego Chargers owner Dean Spanos in Kroenke’s proposed $1.8 billion stadium in Inglewood.

That, of course, is not certain. But this much is: It didn’t help St. Louis this week when it appeared to lose $112 million in ground on a financing proposal that NFL officials already considered shaky.

And I’m afraid it’s just one more step to the inevitable conclusion of NFL football in St. Louis.

St. Louis Magazine co-owner Ray Hartmann is a panelist on KETC Channel 9’s Donnybrook, which airs Thursdays at 7 p.m. He is also the author of the monthly column Think Again.

[LA RamsFan JSJ]

Hartmann has long been a punching bag of Rams fans in STL, but he deserves credit for being WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the "Kroenke covets LA" story. He has called this thing from miles away, all the way down to Stan's lack of interest in a new stadium proposal.

[SoCalRam78]

Hartmann has long been a punching bag of Rams fans in STL, but he deserves credit for being WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY out in front of the "Kroenke covets LA" story. He has called this thing from miles away, all the way down to Stan's lack of interest in a new stadium proposal.

The last bit was speculative, but everything he said is accurate, notably the ridiculousness of the stadium proposal financing and how it's only purpose is to block Kroenke due to NFL guidelines. I, too, noticed the stadium budget rose 100 million this week. Of course the Bernies of the world over on the sports page didn't even mention it once, just "go Peacock, go." The role of a journalist is not to tell a certain fraction of the population what they want to hear, but to report objectively on the process. Journalistic integrity, I know.

[Hacksaw]

http://stltv.net/schedule/

Click Red Arrow in upper right hand corner to watch BoA hearing.

Some very compelling arguments being made by the opponents of the stadium. One gal who was an Alderwoman back when they voted for the ED B4 Rams. She brought up all the points we have been discussing. Noticeably the bad deal they made before and the worse deal they are proposing to make. Like a parent would tell their kids not to chase after someone , or try to corner them. Have some self esteem and pride she said. He doesn't even want our money. A strip club dancer will always pick up the money. Mr Kroenke is a business man and he's saying he doesn't want it. And keeping him against his will is just plain bad" Ipp..
She was awesome.

[SWAdude]

Don't think this isn't going to go over like a lead ballon during next months meetings. They are not 100 million short, they are 800 million short. The state legislators are on record saying they will not approve payment on the bonds. Stan will NOT pay 250 million for something he does not want (what kind of denial does one need to be in to not put this together).

These Alderman are very well aware they are not voting for something that is to become reality, they voted on an apparition.

The NFL knows this proposal does not follow the guidelines that would prevent a team from moving. That letter Goodell wrote wasn't about 100 million dollars, it was telling them their vote didn't matter..........yet.