In Losing the Rams, St. Louis Wins: New York Times, Jan 15, 2016

[Stuart G]

Informative and fascinating story about the economic advantages for St. Louis, in not keeping the Rams there. When they moved back to LA, (which they did this season) St Louis and its people saved a ton of money that it really didn't have. This article explains that. (and it explains that the move a year ago was about building a new stadium with public money which is what the owner demanded.) St. Louis and Missouri tried to meet those demands, but the owner moved anyway, because it seemed that LA was a much better market than St. Louis.. This article exposes the true nature of sports finances and team moves. Yes, this is a year old, but with the announcement of the San Diego Chargers moving to LA, it explains motives and backgrounds for such moves. And these moves are not about fan loyalty of the city involved.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/16/sports/football/st-louis-should-be-glad-it-lost-the-rams.html?_r=0

New York Times,

Sports Business

By JOE NOCERA JAN. 15, 2016
____________________________________________________________________________________

Don’t cry for St. Louis, sports fans.

The departure of the Rams to Los Angeles, whence they came two decades ago, is something for the city’s residents to cheer, not bemoan. St. Louis got lucky.

Sure, fans of professional football in St. Louis are going to miss the Rams. Though they have been bad in recent years, they had some great seasons in St. Louis. From 1998 to 2003, Kurt Warner — one of the greatest undrafted players in N.F.L. history — set the city on its ear, winning two Most Valuable Player Awards as the Rams’ quarterback and leading the team to a Super Bowl victory after the 1999 season.

But the economics underpinning the recent deal St. Louis and the State of Missouri tried to put together to keep the Rams would have been financially ruinous. Let’s not be coy about this: St. Louis, a city of fewer than 320,000 people, with a shrinking tax base, simply couldn’t afford to help finance the $1 billion stadium that the Rams’ billionaire owner, E. Stanley Kroenke, was seeking. Its mistake was in trying.

[liberal N proud]

1. Cities need to tell the billionaire owners to build their own damn stadiums

[Stuart G]

2. I agree completely, and I think this story says that.

Also, a new stadium that is being built in the LA area, is financed privately, not publically, as explained in the article. This paragraph towards the end of the article explains this:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

"First, in case you’re wondering, Kroenke and the Rams are not getting a penny in public money from Inglewood, Los Angeles or California, even though the stadium they are building is quite likely to cost more than $2 billion. This may seem astounding, given their demands in St. Louis, but it’s not. The Inglewood stadium has the potential to be far more profitable than any new stadium in St. Louis. And St. Louis never had the real estate possibilities that Inglewood does. In St. Louis, Kroenke was the owner of the Rams. In Inglewood, Kroenke will be the owner of the Rams plus the developer of a retail and entertainment complex that Jones has described as Disneyland for professional football. Kroenke is putting up $800 million in equity. That’s what developers do. Not that he’s going to go broke if it turns out he made a bad bet."

__________________________________________________________________________________________

[Jake Stern]

3. I agree with the new governor on this:

No public funding for extortionist team owners. Fans want the team to stay then they can pass the hat to raise funds for a new stadium.

[Stuart G]

4. They have already started building the 2.6 billion dollar stadium near LA (Inglewood)

It is privately financed..being built in Inglewood CA....and, here is an article about the groundbreaking. The article also discusses what it is going to be and what else is being built there.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/rams/la-sp-rams-ground-breaking-20161117-story.html

[Jake Stern]

5. I get that but far too many times team owners try to extort public money out of cities

For new stadiums.

Begs the question, if they could do it in California then why couldn't they do it in Missouri?

[Stuart G]

6. Who knows?..perhaps the reason is as follow:

The land for the new stadium in Inglewood was available. The fellow who owns the Rams is a developer and had access to financing, but more important the location is centrally located a couple miles from the LA airport. Perhaps the LA Rams owner is thinking of making a tremendous profit on deal. And others must think the same thing, since it is privately financed. (2.6 Billion in private financing) In St Louis, there was no possibility of that happening...no profit possible out of such a building...why?...St Louis has a population of 325,000...Where as the LA Metro, where this is being built, has a population of of nearly 13 million residents. ...give or take a few hundred thousand.

[hatrack]

7. Yep - faster ROI . . .

Which is almost as good as truckloads of free taxpayer dollars.