So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs)
-
Math checks out. Farmer is just being a hater, too dug in to face facts. The NFL is a cash printing press.
-
@dylans seriously, what math? You cite a single project. And some vagaries about how my entire field is a fraudulent enterprise and something something sample size. Do the studies not have sufficient statistical power? Are their error terms wrong in their models? I can tell you the Chiefs study model is stunningly bad. It’s bad press release, nothing more.
Clearly putting the Chiefs over here will work because of all the development that current Arrowhead has generated. After all who doesn’t love a good vacation in Raytown?
Yes I’ve cited such fancy metrics as “return on investment” and “but for analysis.” Absolutely far beyond anyone with a room temperature IQ to understand.
And I love the NFL, watch RedZone every Sunday. But there are good reasons both governors said shutting down the Border War was good policy. Moving a few enterprises a few miles for billions in taxpayer funds was a giant waste of money and put both states at financial risk. I was in the same room with a former Secretary of Commerce that warned if we started it again it could ruin the state’s financial position given their horrendous record of performance.
-
@dylans good then Clark should have no problem writing the check himself if it’s such a great investment
-
@FarmerJayhawk It’s simple math and that’s why your field is a mess. You would rather site a study than admit you’re wrong about the exact example we are referencing. If you can entice any business, let alone a business that attracts tourism, that has a projected payroll of 1-2 billion dollars(depends if you figure 5 or 8% annual increase in the salary cap) a year at the end of the term and only cost 1.5 billion to entice, the economics are simple. Any money that is created over the players income tax is positive revenue. Let that sink in.
You’re upset because I called your methodology into question. The exact reason I do so is because you are so entrenched in the studies that you are ignoring the known outcomes in this case. It’s like you won’t admit that this is easily paid for by player salary income tax alone because someone did a study somewhere about some entirely different business that happened to be funded the same way. Do any of those 16 examples have a minimum employee salary distribution of 255 million with 5-8% annual growth proven over the last 25 years? No they don’t, so they’re irrelevant and yet you keep circling back to worthless info.
-
@dylans well, if we must. Arrowhead in KC would bring in about 195 people per day of the year. That’s about the same as a small shopping mall. Is it worth billions of incentives to bring in a… mall?
Yeah, but what about the income taxes? Well, chop that number in half. You’re looking at 10ish income generating events per year. The top state income tax rate will be 5.8%. 5.8% of $2 billion is… $116 million. If you spread that over the life of the bonds it can fund a rural school district for a while I guess?
And sure, people will spend to go to them. But budgets are relatively fixed. How many people come from outside the area? And from those here, do they already spend their entertainment budget in Kansas? If so, that sales tax revenue goes to the state to fund things we all want: roads, hospitals, etc. If they spend additional money, cool. But it’ll come at the expense of other things in the state (again, budgets are fixed) because the sales tax revenue has to go to debt service, and will be from other parts of the family budget.
Let’s look at the Braves stadium as an example. That development got about $300m in subsidies. What happened? Well, the stadium sure generated a bunch of sales tax revenue. Beer is expensive! Unfortunately, it was at the expense of other businesses in the community so it was basically a wash except for the taxpayers were on the hook for tens of millions in annual debt service.
The Chiefs math here is pretty simple. Moving about 20 miles will generate over $900 million in annual economic activity. Which, to put mildly, is INSANE. It more or less assumes ALL Chiefs related activity would move across the border, e.g. all players, coaches, and staff would not spend a nickel in Missouri. And each dollar invested here would generate on the order of $40 in additional economic benefits. It’s extraordinarily rare to find post hoc estimates of this multiplier over FIVE.
-
@FarmerJayhawk 5.8% of 30 billion. The salary cap goes up 5-8% every year and is currently 255million it projects to 1-2 billion per year in 25-30 years. Come on man! It’s easy math, you’re way over complicating it. Plus the local sales tax stays local with star bond projects - ie there will be added income to Wyandotte county or wherever it lands.
I figured an economist could easily figure some really basic stuff out, but you’re really proving my point of how easily the data is skewed when providing outcome driven results. The 1,200 workers on the home games will pay taxes. The parking lot will collect fees, tickets will be sold, hotdogs and beer will be bought. This is all taxed and is income above the already paid for star bonds by the players income tax alone. Oh yeah the Hunts get to pay taxes on their half of the revenue to Kansas as well. The income from a couple super bowls (that will never happen in Arrowhead). But wait there’s more it’s a dome - add in revenue from possible final four games, concerts, etc. Then add in revenue from sports betting in the venue, hotel income, dining, bars - getting people in your town instead of a county over creates a boat load of income producing opportunities.
-
https://www.kmbc.com/article/closer-look-at-star-bond-projects-in-kansas/61180045
Here’s some examples not in Atlanta
-
@FarmerJayhawk But, gee, I thought that every penny of corporate welfare always produces hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue! I so fondly remember how trickle down economics of the 80’s made so made impoverished people into millionaires. Or was that millionaires into billionaires?
And I am soooooo looking forward to the plan of a certain ex-president to eliminate income tax altogether and to initiate 100% tarrifs!!! Our economy will just burst at the seams as inflation goes into double-digits with prices for many consumer goods being doubled! Combined with eliminating numerous agencies and voiding federal regs left and right, there might be a few hiccups associated with throwing 2 million federal employees out of work, and flying will be a tad more dangerous without actual air traffic controllers and because we will let every manufacturer self-certify like Boeing, and without those safety fanatics at the FDA untested drugs could wreak havoc, but those things aren’t as important as making the top 1% richer than King Midas while surfing on the delusions of millions going broke. And gosh, without OSHA we can finally get back to having more emergecy medical care like we have always wanted.
Wow, too bad you don’t understand math, being so confused by all those dozens of impartial economic studies and your years of education and experience and useless stuff like that.
-
@dylans that’s a whole drop in the bucket in terms of SGF, which in 30 years will be well over $100 billion. And cut that number in half unless the NFL lets the Chiefs play every game at home. If it is a dome then we’re looking at $2.4ish billion in bonds. So both your revenue and expense figures are wrong. Weirdly both in the direction that make it look like a good deal. Assuming that growth when participation in football is going down (7% the last 5 years) in favor of other sports is a nice touch too.
There’s also no evidence a new stadium will produce significant additional development given what’s already there. See current Arrowhead. People don’t go out to bars and restaurants for NFL games. They sit in the parking lot and drink beer they likely bought in Missouri. Or Kansas, but that’s not new spending. Just reallocating from couch beers to parking lot beers. And of course it’s taxed, that’s what the ST stands for lol.
Consumers are paying for both the infrastructure via taxes and the privilege of being there. That’s the whole point. Where normally you’d have a developer pay for the building and such and if the product or service was good it would easily pay for itself.
That article is fun because it doesn’t cite the state audit that reported the STAR bond program overall a failure at driving tourism given the metrics in statute. But I’m sure the law is just wrong.
-
@FarmerJayhawk The away team has to pay taxes, just like the Chiefs do when on the road. You’re so entrenched in your position that you can’t even do the straight line logic there. I’m sorry it’s such a sore point to you, but the bright side is if you never set foot on the stadium you will not pay any taxes. That’s the point of STAR bonds, show your principals and just don’t go.
And if the STAR bonds become available to the general public in a denomination I can afford I would put my money where my mouth is.
-
Wow, i am now officially fascinated with STAR bonds. I’ve been reading like a madman the last day or so. (i don’t live in Kansas).
I’m sure i’ll have some thoughts eventually, but these state documents provide some base knowledge.
Some basic facts can be found here in the STAR bonds annual report. I find it lacking in some details (re: ROI on STAR bonds), but has project basics like bonds issues, outstanding, tax revenue:
https://www.kansascommerce.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/2023-YE-STAR-Bonds-Annual-Report-FINAL.pdf
This doc is older (2021), but very interesting reading. Points made by the a non-partisan audit division of the Kansas government. Very interesting point/counterpoint/responses at the end from communities involved in STAR bond projects.
Enjoy! I have.
-
@dylans ok, that’s still about the same income tax revenue as a shopping mall, but for billions in new debt. I’m not a Chiefs fan so I won’t, never been to Arrowhead, never will go to a stadium in Kansas because it’s just not my scene. I’m a huge Bears fan and they’re trying to fleece the city of Chicago too. I oppose all public subsidies for stadiums and corporate welfare. I’m a free market, work for and buy what you want with your own money guy what can I say
-
@rockchalkjayhawk I can add a little color there. When I was in government we tried to get those numbers but Commerce would never provide them, citing NDAs and such nonsense (why revenue figures should be kept from the public when the public is financing the project should raise a hell of a lot of questions but alas). Same restrictions apply to this deal. We taxpayers can’t see inside the Chiefs or Royals books, or in a very recent example, we weren’t allowed to know the state was even in discussions with Panasonic until the bill passed and the deal was signed. Aside from the bad economics, the public should be livid about that.
-
Last point on this, Kansas has a tax credit for residents that pay taxes in other states. So if a bunch of people relocate across the state line and work on away games, Kansas refunds a nice chunk of their income taxes paid elsewhere. So again it’s more millionaires getting a nice subsidy while we pay for it. Twice.
-
@FarmerJayhawk On the other hand, relocating the teams will result in millions of people finally being correct about how Kansas City’s teams “are in Kansas, right?” This will save us ex-KCers from Kansas, now living hundreds of miles away, from untold hours of frustration, resulting in no longer wasting massive amounts for therapy…or bourbon. (Ok, the bourbon is a fixed cost.)
Aggregate savings of hundreds! That is more than 2 billion, right?
-
@FarmerJayhawk I guess you’re not for attracting any business that generates positive tax revenue if it requires luring them with incentives. I suppose you would call it corporate welfare. The thing is this is more like the Jesus fishing parable than a government handout - it will actually return the tax money and then some. The free money the government gave to the public caused inflation without job creation and left the people with a lifetime of greater future expenses that far outweigh the pittance they received. This is what happens when you give gobs of money to us peons instead of the fortunate few that can actually use it for the greater good even if it further lines their pockets. Lining their pockets, but creating jobs for us normal folks.
You can deflect to projects that didn’t work as planned, but none of them involved nfl teams. I’m afraid you’re stuck with your confirmation bias and simply cannot see how this project should actually be very profitable.
Near as I can tell the economic failure of the previous STAR bond projects isn’t the inability to repay the bonds, it’s simply that more Kansans are enjoying the nice new things in Kansas than out of state folks. Isn’t that terrible?!?
-
@dylans indeed, it has to pass a “but for” and other analyses that say the project did add additional money and increase income in the area, not just reallocate existing spending, which is what the STAR bond projects that didn’t pass LPA’s audit found. I’d rather people frequent existing local establishments than reallocate spending toward publicly subsidized ones.
It doesn’t generate any growth, just people already there adjust their spending toward the new and shiny thing while existing businesses lose. That’s what happens with most big stadium projects. So other local businesses are losing revenue while people spend their money to pay off debt at a project that may be there without the bonds anyway. LPA found most Kansas incentive programs couldn’t provide the “but for” assurance Commerce identifies as the main goal of incentive programs.
If tax revenue is what you’re after, oops. “We estimated none of the incentive programs will return more than $1 in tax effect returns per $1 of incentive costs… These results show the incentive programs don’t likely cover their own costs in terms of state tax effects. In other words, the future tax effects likely won’t fully cover the state monies awarded as incentives for these programs.” In other words, you’re better off doing exactly nothing than awarding incentives.
Now on the NFL stadiums thing, WyCo does have some unique factors that will blunt the impact of a new stadium. There are already a ton of hotel rooms, restaurants, and whatnot over there. There won’t be a lot of new development. Especially since KCMO is so close. Many (most?) won’t even stay and spend all their money in Kansas. They’ll just come over for the game. And not all development will be new, Commerce has retained significant eminent domain authority to bulldoze whatever business it wants in the new STAR district for the stadium, again replacing existing spending. I would doubt most “jobs created” would even result in significant consumption in WyCo. Most likely live across the border since there isn’t any real housing over there, and there won’t be. Housing doesn’t generate sales tax revenue so there would be no reason to put it in a STAR district, which has to be huge in size given the multiple billions in debt.
-
@FarmerJayhawk 🥱 there is no such business that “lose” for the dodge city or garden city water parks. There simply isn’t anywhere local to spend your money on like that. It didn’t relocate money from one business to another, it relocated it from people’s savings.
It doesn’t matter what you or anyone else thinks, we don’t even get to vote on the matter.
-
@dylans sounds like a great opportunity for someone to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, do some entrepreneurship, and start a business! If you just work hard enough I’m sure you can make a bunch of money without a government handout. So if you’re willing to put the work in like you surely are considering your unparalleled work ethic, write up a business plan and take it to a bank.
Surely if it creates sufficient new economic activity you’ll get the loan and it’ll pay off for sure without government assistance. If not, you just have to work harder. Put in more hours in the heat. Pull yourself up by your swim trunks.
-
@FarmerJayhawk Your talking to the wrong guy - if I understand correctly you work for the university - ie part of the problem. Government jobs will never create anything but debt for me. I’m self employed, I pay my taxes (self employment taxes are extra special!) while getting little to nothing from the government in return. My grandfather was an entrepreneur who started over a dozen business. Maybe that is why I am not offended by the money required to create such a boon to the local economy, I understand what it takes.
Those bonds will be paid for by the project, as every other star bond project has been with the exception of the schlitterbon murder water park.
It sounds like someone who just moved to Kansas and has no clue about how things actually are used is making judgements about the success or failure of business based upon studies that are incomplete in there assessment of the value returned to the people who actually live here.
The wasted tax dollars are not on these projects that are paying for actually themselves it’s government positions like University professor or whomever does these poorly done economic studies that are robbing the people - how much did it cost to come up with that result that doesn’t line up with the reality of the situation?
TLDR - go out and experience the things built with STAR bond money in Kansas, see the Kansans that are enjoying it and then tell me it was wasted money.
-
@dylans literally none of what you wrote about me is true but thank you for telling how to do the job I don’t have (I’m in the private sector) and telling me how long I’ve lived in Kansas (all but 8 years of my life) Good to know! Seriously so glad you’re so knowledgeable about my situation. Even I learned something! Also my grandpa started one of the last private grain elevators in the country and I’m still involved in managing the family farm so don’t lecture me on the “real world” or some nonsense phrase boomers use to tell anyone a day younger then them they’re wrong without any substance.
Again still waiting on substantive criticisms of the mountain of economic studies here. They’re free to read and you can take your time if you need to read slowly to get your facts straight since that’s a major problem for you.
-
@FarmerJayhawk All you have is your hugely flawed studies that tell you what to think. Form your own thoughts and get back to me. 8 years wow!!!
Ironically I’m not that much older than you, just have different much different experiences.The “failure” is a lack of a long distance draw. The bonds are all getting repaid, with one exception. That is only a failure by drawing up ridiculous definitions of what a success is. Repaying your debt and while creating jobs and activities for local people is hardly a failure. Half of all new business shutter their doors in 5 years, that is a failure.
-
By that definition your grandpa’s elevator was a huge failure. No doubt he borrowed some money to build it, repaid the loan and successfully operated it for many years. However the money he accumulated came from the local community and so his success meant someone else local lost, therefore it was an economic failure under these terms. - a ridiculous statement that I believe in no way, but it seems to be your argument against the star bonds.
-
Guys…you sound like me and Jayballer - except smarter. Kiss and make up and lets call names to Mizzou fans.
-
@dylans said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
By that definition your grandpa’s elevator was a huge failure. No doubt he borrowed some money to build it, repaid the loan and successfully operated it for many years. However the money he accumulated came from the local community and so his success meant someone else local lost, therefore it was an economic failure under these terms. - a ridiculous statement that I believe in no way, but it seems to be your argument against the star bonds.
I don’t care to add to either side but lets keep a clear mind here and not argue in bad faith. Whatever hypothetical loan you are talking about would not have been paid back with taxes and can’t be compared to the star bonds.
-
@dylans yes how dare I use objective evidence. I think people who want to practice medicine should just wing it, don’t read books or anything like that. They can’t see viruses or bacteria so how do they even know they’re real? Why should we use RCTs to judge the effectiveness of drugs? They’re just academics who haven’t been in the real world. We should just go with our gut on that.
lol that’s an insane characterization of my position. You clearly have no interest in taking my position in good faith so we’re done here.
-
Star Bonds, is that Trumps latest hooker? Oh, nm.
Clearly, I’m rusty at playing peacekeeper. Thanks guys.
-
I think it’s been an interesting discussion.
-
@stoptheflop I do that every week haha
-
@approxinfinity she’s in love with his massive… bankruptcies
-
@dylans said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
Data coming from universities is often flawed by methodology in my many of my experiences, flawed by work ethic in others, and further flawed by the researchers biases
Wow. Please don’t tell me you favor data generated by corporations and associations over academic institutions.
Bias is possible with any study, any institution. But if the source is corporations and associations, which have potential conflict of interest, you just have to be more skeptical.
… I have never heard that there is a difference in research rigor from private vs public sources. If that’s true, it would be interesting.
-
So i have done a ton of reading on STAR bonds after reading the two combatants above!
There’s no simple answer. They are both right, with some chaos by both thrown in as well.
The good: It brings new and exciting things to the community. I imagine lots of people in Kansas are happy that these new things exist in their communities. That’s hard to put a price tag on. You can argue it doesn’t cost the tax payer a thing if successful. It eventually brings in a new taxable base for the city/county.
The not so good: You’re basically for free publicly financing work that a gazillionaire could do privately. Depending on the STAR bond, most if not all of the taxes collected after the project opens go directly to pay back the bond. So none of that taxable base would go toward city/county coffers for other use. And if it works out, the payback for the bonds could be 30 years for the Chiefs project. So you’re losing out on tax money for a long ass time. If there’s a default, that’s a problem.
So i dunno. I like nice things. There’s lots of not so good in there, but if the bonds are eventually paid off as promised, no harm no foul?
-
“The reason we started on it so early is that we studied those cities that had problems with their teams,” Lamping said. "Unfortunately there have been cities that have lost their NFL teams and they generally all have the same thing in common. It’s a smaller market. The team doesn’t have a lease tying them to the city and they have an unresolved stadium problem.”
-
@rockchalkjayhawk said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
So i have done a ton of reading on STAR bonds after reading the two combatants above!
There’s no simple answer. They are both right, with some chaos by both thrown in as well.
The good: It brings new and exciting things to the community. I imagine lots of people in Kansas are happy that these new things exist in their communities. That’s hard to put a price tag on. You can argue it doesn’t cost the tax payer a thing if successful. It eventually brings in a new taxable base for the city/county.
The not so good: You’re basically for free publicly financing work that a gazillionaire could do privately. Depending on the STAR bond, most if not all of the taxes collected after the project opens go directly to pay back the bond. So none of that taxable base would go toward city/county coffers for other use. And if it works out, the payback for the bonds could be 30 years for the Chiefs project. So you’re losing out on tax money for a long ass time. If there’s a default, that’s a problem.
So i dunno. I like nice things. There’s lots of not so good in there, but if the bonds are eventually paid off as promised, no harm no foul?
Our local billionaire funded tons of amazing projects - stuff that would never happen otherwise like a dance studio. Unfortunately Cecil passed away and they don’t grow billionaires on trees in western Kansas. Hell, trees barely grow.
As for the two water parks in western Kansas that are labeled failures - the money is mostly local (thus the “failure”), but it’s keeping the money local (so it’s a net positive for the area). There is no similar place locally you’d have to travel 3-6 hours away to blow that money before. On occasion one of the parks will entice us into to that town and we’ll do a Walmart pickup order (small town living $500 per trip for 2-3 weeks worth of supplies) while there, minor stimulus. Success or failure depends upon the lenses you view it with - retaining local money is important too!
With the Chiefs stadium - it would likely be 60% Kansas people that would be spending money there, locals that make the numbers look bad in the study. However 100% of those dollars were going to another state before so it’s all new income not just the 40% or so from out of state. -as is the employee income and if Clark moves the Chiefs headquarters to Kansas as well his roughly half of the pie too.
-
Oddly enough we just got back Sunday from KC, we did a private tour of arrowhead not knowing how much longer it would be there. I hope the chiefs move to Kansas for sure but it has to be the right situation. I don’t want higher taxes, if that’s what it takes I’m out. You don’t want me to get going on the tax situation in this country. The Hunt family is worth Billions of dollars they could probably pay for a large chunk of it and fundraise the rest if they really wanted a new stadium. The cheaper suites in that place are north of a 100k a year and have to be reserved for a 5 year span. Most of them were nicer then houses. It was a pretty cool experience. The top of that place is super sketchy about like climbing a ladder and you feel like you’re gonna fall down while sitting.
-
I have no skin in the game, but do know the feeling of losing an NFL team due to a city refusing to bend the knee to a billionaire owner that didn’t want to pay for his own stadium. I don’t give a shit that Bud Adams was a Jayhawk, fuck him and I hope he’s rotting in he’ll for what he pulled with the Oilers here in Houston.
With the recent player ratings of team facilities and such that recently came out, we all found out how much of a cheapskate Clark Hunt really is. I’d say if he wants a new stadium, either pay up to renovate Arrowhead or buy land out by Legends and build a new stadium himself with his own money. Taxpayers in the KC metro area, regardless of which county and side of the border they are on, should not give Clark Hunt one cent of public funding for a stadium or renovations.
If these stadiums provided the ROI claimed to swindle the public to vote for them, then the owners of these teams would have zero issues building and paying for everything themselves because they would make a nice profit from those deals. Since owners don’t do that, that should be a big red flag to people that these kinds of deals aren’t money makers.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
If these stadiums provided the ROI claimed to swindle the public to vote for them, then the owners of these teams would have zero issues building and paying for everything themselves because they would make a nice profit from those deals.
Excellent point, PHOF-worthy by my reckoning!
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Just so I’m 100% sure - you’re not a huge fan of Bud Adams?
-
@nuleafjhawk said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
@Texas-Hawk-10 Just so I’m 100% sure - you’re not a huge fan of Bud Adams?
The man pulled the same shit that John Fisher pulled in Oakland with the A’s. Adams devalued the franchise by gutting a Super Bowl contender and negotiated in bad faith with Houston for a new stadium a few years after Houston taxpayers spent a lot of money to renovate the Astrodome (that was finally paid off in 2014, 15 years after the Astrodome quit hosting pro sports). The negotiations were so bad that the city of Houston never even put it to a vote, that’s how bad the deal Adams was pushing was for Houston because he already had the Nashville deal worked out.
-
@bskeet said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
@dylans said in So, Kansas Reinstated the Border War (for the Chiefs):
Data coming from universities is often flawed by methodology in my many of my experiences, flawed by work ethic in others, and further flawed by the researchers biases
Wow. Please don’t tell me you favor data generated by corporations and associations over academic institutions.
Bias is possible with any study, any institution. But if the source is corporations and associations, which have potential conflict of interest, you just have to be more skeptical.
… I have never heard that there is a difference in research rigor from private vs public sources. If that’s true, it would be interesting.
In this specific application, the public studies are far superior for a couple reasons. First, the private studies are all bought and paid for. They don’t publish their data or methods (or actually any of the study except for topline findings). Here’s an example. If you follow the link to the consultant’s site, they aren’t exactly shy about it, “ESI helps you answer the big questions and make your case through insights, ideas, and thoughtful analysis. We apply our expertise in economic development, real estate, transportation, and public policy to improve the urban environments where we work and live.”
Where what we do has to go through review from independent, external experts who, in all but very specific cases, can examine our data and methods, provide substantive critiques, and then we revise if we made a mistake or didn’t explain something correctly or whatever. Even though I’m in the private sector now I still do some peer review when it makes sense.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 Stan Kroenke did the same thing with the Rams. He and the NFL screwed St Louis over and then had to pay a lot of money to the city for the shady dealings. I only watch the Super Bowl now since they left. I am still bitter about what happened.
-
@patoh3 It’s crazy that they took a money pit like an nfl team away from a city and had to pay $790 million in damages. Seems like St Louis should be happy according to the studies.
-
@dylans they settled in order to not have to show St. Louis their books. Totally voluntary
-
@patoh3 seems to have worked out pretty well for both parties. Stan got to move the team on his own dime and St. Louis got more money than they ever would’ve gotten for plowing almost $1 billion into a new stadium
-
@FarmerJayhawk spot on, the private studies will favor who the money says to. Same as internal investigations, “We investigated ourselves and found we did very little or nothing wrong!” Shocking development.
-
St Louis came out OK, but the local fans who had spent millions of dollars on tickets, PSL’s, and merchandise were given a huge FU.
-
@Texas-Hawk-10 I lived in Houston from the late 70’s to the late 80’s. I was a big fan of the Oilers (and Astros) and attended many games in the Astrodome. I’d heard the name Bud Adams, but didn’t know about these shenanigans.
-
@FarmerJayhawk you wild Spinmeister!
The lawsuit was originally filed by the city of St. Louis, St. Louis County and the Regional Convention and Sports Complex Authority all the way back in 2017. The lawsuit was filed because the plaintiffs felt that the Rams “violated the obligations and standards governing team relocations” by moving the franchise. Basically, the city of St. Louis and the other plaintiffs felt that the Rams broke the NFL’s relocation guidelines when they left town and that the other 31 teams were at fault because they voted to let the Rams move.
St. Louis interests sued the league and Rams owner Stan Kroenke after NFL owners approved the team’s move to Los Angeles in 2016. They sought more than $1 billion in damages.
A $790 million settlement was reached in November 2021. About $275 million went to attorney fees. That left $512 million, and interest brought the total to around $519 million.
https://www.espn.com/espn/story/_/id/35149258/deal-finalized-divide-rams-settlement-money-st-louis
The suit claimed the NFL violated its own relocation guidelines, and that the league and the Rams enriched themselves at the expense of the community they abandoned.
-
@dylans it’s right there, not exactly groundbreaking journalism, “ The settlement, reached in mediation, ends a 4½-year-old lawsuit filed in the wake of the Rams’ departure. Kroenke and the NFL had failed in bids to have the lawsuit dismissed or at least moved out of St. Louis, and courts were sympathetic to the St. Louis side’s effort to disclose financial information of team owners – rulings that hastened the push for a settlement.” https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/32706415/source-nfl-settles-st-louis-lawsuit-rams-relocation-los-angeles-790m
-
@dylans @FarmerJayhawk they really did screw over the community and state in that situation. I’m not sure Hunt would move the team anywhere besides Dallas-Fort Worth area where is from but not sure it would work with the cowboys.
