The financing plan for the proposed NFL stadium in St. Louis unveiled Friday by Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon’s two-man team "could work," but advocates now "need to pin down details," according to David Hunn of the ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH. Stadium advocates "need to secure funding" plus a "realistic plan to buy land on the north riverfront." SportsCorp President Marc Ganis said, "It’s a reasonable starting point for meaningful discussion." On Friday, the two man-team of Edward Jones Dome attorney Robert Blitz and former Anheuser-Busch President David Peacock announced "a vision to keep football in St. Louis" with the stadium, which would be located "on the Mississippi River, above the high-water mark, with a floating riverfront trail, boat docks and more than 10,000 parking spaces for tailgaters." They estimated that the 90-acre facility "would cost" between $860-985M. Peacock and Blitz "outlined funding sources," including $200M from the NFL’s loan program. Most of that loan "would likely be paid back" by the Rams, including as much as $250M from team Owner Stan Kroenke and up to $55M in state tax credits. The funding "includes two streams of money" from the region’s residents. That includes about $130M in the sale of PSLs and as much as $350M from the "extension of the bonds at the Edward Jones Dome." But specifics "were few, and details vague." The Missouri Legislature "will almost certainly have to approve public ownership of a new stadium," and an extension of the bonds "may well mean a public vote in St. Louis and St. Louis County" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/10). Hunn noted the plan is for site preparation to "begin by June," with the stadium tentatively set to open for the '20 NFL season (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/10). ESPN.com's Nick Wagoner offered "Key Bullet Points From St. Louis Stadium Plan" (ESPN.com, 1/9).
WHAT'S THE PLAN, STAN? ESPN.com's Wagoner reported in addition to housing a football team, the city's stadium plan "also accounts for the potential addition" of an MLS team, "some renovations of the Edward Jones Dome to attract major sporting events like the Final Four, and additional development in the currently blighted north St. Louis area." MLS Commissioner Don Garber has been in contact with Peacock, who said that the proposal "isn't just about keeping football in St. Louis but altering the way the city is viewed." Peacock: "It's about the future of our region. It's about how we are perceived, it's about no longer accepting the notion that our assets can just dissolve in front of us or leave." Peacock repeatedly emphasized that under the plan, there "would be no new taxpayer burden." The Rams "sent out a statement Friday saying they had seen the plans, would review them and would speak with Peacock and Blitz." Wagoner noted the Rams' comments did not "necessarily include Kroenke, who has yet to speak to the two, or any other civic leaders." Peacock said, "I'm sure he's seen these because they've been shared early on in the process. I don't know of its impact or his reaction because I haven't met with him. ... I'm sure we'll meet with Stan Kroenke when the time is right" (ESPN.com, 1/9). In St. Louis, Shane Gray wrote Peacock essentially "drew a line in the sand and took off the gloves in saying that we are ready to 'fight for what is rightfully ours.'" Peacock said of Kroenke, "The Rams are our team. This is St. Louis' team. Owners own the franchise but the fan base and the popularity and the passion behind that team is owned by the fan base. This is our team" (INSIDESTL.com, 1/11).
TALE OF TWO CITIES: In St. Louis, Mike Reilly wrote of Edward Jones Dome, "I’ve never seen the restrooms dirty, never seen rust or peeling paint, never seen anything that would justify calling the place a dump. Drab, yes. Bland, yes. So what? ... And when it comes to watching football, I have no complaints" (
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/11). In L.A., Vincent Bonsignore wrote the "utter nonchalance by the Rams have made it such a one-sided attempt at reconciliation you wonder if they really even noticed. Or even cared." Friday's presentation "was an impressive one," but it "was missing a key element." Bonsignore: "The man of the hour never bothered to show" (
L.A. DAILY NEWS, 1/10). PRO FOOTBALL TALK's Mike Florio noted the Rams "didn’t attend the press conference" presenting the St. Louis stadium plan. Florio: "Here’s what it likely means. We’ve given the politicians years to make a viable proposal for a new stadium. ... And leave we will if, as we expect, the proposal made Friday contains the same deficiencies that past proposals exhibited" (
PROFOOTBALLTALK.com, 1/9). In St. Louis, Roger Hensley wrote under the header, "Readers Sound Off: Kroenke Is A 'Bloodless Owner'" (
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/11).
FOLLOW THE MONEY: In St. Louis, Jim Thomas wrote the proposal "is the life raft that’s keeping NFL football afloat" in the city, where there are questions about whether there is "sufficient support in the business community and corporate sector to keep the Rams profitable and viable" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/11). But Missouri state Sen. Ron Richard last week said, "I doubt if there’s an appetite to do public money for that, when we have education issues, highway issues and infrastructure issues." State Sen. John Diehl: "It’d be extraordinarily difficult to get a stadium package through the General Assembly" (JOPLIN GLOBE, 1/9). In St. Louis, David Nicklaus writes if you "want economic benefits, professional sports are the wrong place to invest." Nicklaus: "St. Louis is being asked to pay dearly for the prestige of remaining an NFL city, so I think Peacock described his stadium plan accurately when he called it a 'crown jewel.' A jewel can sparkle and make its owner feel good, but it’s hardly a productive use of half a billion dollars" (ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 1/12). ESPN.com's Wagoner wrote the future of the Rams in St. Louis "could ultimately fall in the hands" of those at NFL HQ. Peacock: "We’ve had great discussions with the league. The NFL is extremely engaged in this" (ESPN.com, 1/9).
BOLTS' BACKYARD BATTLE: SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL's Daniel Kaplan reports the Chargers' opposition to the Rams possibly relocating to L.A. "could take several forms, from internally mounting resistance within the NFL to funding groups opposed to the stadium." An anonymous Chargers official said, "The Rams voluntarily left the Los Angeles and Orange County markets, and some owner may question whether they deserve to return -- especially if it means that the stadium situations of the two California teams remain unresolved" (SPORTSBUSINESS JOURNAL, 1/12 issue). In San Diego, Kevin Acee wrote as Kroenke "hurries up," Chargers Chair & President Dean Spanos "bides his time." One is the "schemer going full steam, the other not plodding but plotting." Acee: "Who will win, the tortoise or the hare? Or both? Or neither? We’ll likely know within the year." It "should not be underestimated that Spanos is playing by the rules, and that figures to go a long way with his fellow owners, who will ultimately decide who moves" to L.A. and the fee that relocation will require (SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE, 1/10).
