new stadium will be a publicly "owned" you think Stan is stupid enough to own a $1billion hunk of concrete and steel on a faultline? even Jerry Jones doesnt own his stadium in Dallas and he paid for 70%ward24 wrote:
If we "extend the debt payments" for a new, privately owned facility, we still have to back fill that money to maintain the public Convention Center. That becomes a very real new financial liability on the City, likely to be filled from general revenue, which eats in to something else. There's no free lunch.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- 9,570
Yes.dbInSouthCity wrote: new stadium will be a publicly "owned" you think Stan is stupid enough to own a $1billion hunk of concrete and steel on a faultline? even Jerry Jones doesnt own his stadium in Dallas and he paid for 70%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newport-Inglewood_Fault
But that's besides that point. We know the new stadium would be publicly owned. That doesn't change anything about what Alderman Ogilvie just added.
I'm not sure why this needs to be a secret, though. If the financing is there, they need to announce it. Additionally, the idea of a "private investor" still has me skeptical.sirshankalot wrote:Peacock has a deep-pocketed private investor waiting in the wings to avoid all this....it's going to happen.
Most investors seek a return on their investment. So are they looking to eventually be paid back by the city? Are they trying to get a share of the stadium profits (which would be a negative from the NFL's standpoint)? Are they getting some other kind of favors? Are they strictly a good citizen, the type of which St. Louis hasn't seen in ages?
Just saying there's a private investor raises as many questions as it answers.
- 9,570
maybe the private investor will also buy the 30% share of the Rams that is owned by Georgia's kids...or may own the MLS team and play rent free at the stadium
- 1,642
Based on what Ogilvie said and Stenger backing the County out of the deal then I say just screw the whole thing.
Given that probably 0 to 3 players or coaches would or do live in the City, I would make it contingent that "Rams, Inc" be located in the City if there's a deal.
Also, Stenger is a doughy-faced idiot who should have lost to Stream.
imho
Given that probably 0 to 3 players or coaches would or do live in the City, I would make it contingent that "Rams, Inc" be located in the City if there's a deal.
Also, Stenger is a doughy-faced idiot who should have lost to Stream.
imho
There's a weird assumption from the pro-stadium crowd that the MLS team is happening. Even an optimistic person needs to realize it's probably not.dbInSouthCity wrote:maybe the private investor will also buy the 30% share of the Rams that is owned by Georgia's kids...or may own the MLS team and play rent free at the stadium
St. Louis will hopefully get an MLS team, but it probably won't.
The interesting thing is we would probably land a team if we decided to build a soccer specific stadium there (also saving lots of money and buildings) rather than a football stadium. But that's besides the point.
- 3,433
How much money does the city make off conventions? Or does it lose money? If there are a lot more conventions August through January since the dome won't need to maintain a field for the Rams, doesn't that generate a lot more money that can be poured back into the convention center? And won't it generate more tax money from establishments downtown? I guess I assumed that the convention center exists to at least break even to generate revenue for the city -- like the airport.ward24 wrote:Wanted to point out one thing - there's an idea out there that "extending the existing payments on the Dome" does not add a new financial burden to the City. That's not accurate.
The City has a long term responsibility to maintain and upgrade the Convention Center and Dome. When the existing $6M annual debt payments are done in 2021, the most likely place that money would go to is back into the Convention Center and the Dome to keep it competitive. There are many unfunded or barely funded issues at the Convention Center right now, and there are upgrades that we can't fund while we're paying the Dome debt. Its important to remember that the Convention Center and Dome are 100% publicly owned, and we have to maintain them. We have a very real responsibility to taxpayers to keep those facilities marketable for conventions for the long haul, which do bring people to STL.
If we "extend the debt payments" for a new, privately owned facility, we still have to back fill that money to maintain the public Convention Center. That becomes a very real new financial liability on the City, likely to be filled from general revenue, which eats in to something else. There's no free lunch.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
I was wondering if we would build the lower bowl if MLS commits to a team, but build it with hooks to add an upper deck and suites someday when MLS gets huge here -- or if the NFL wants to crawl back and squeeze more money from me than it already has.jstriebel wrote:There's a weird assumption from the pro-stadium crowd that the MLS team is happening. Even an optimistic person needs to realize it's probably not.dbInSouthCity wrote:maybe the private investor will also buy the 30% share of the Rams that is owned by Georgia's kids...or may own the MLS team and play rent free at the stadium
St. Louis will hopefully get an MLS team, but it probably won't.
The interesting thing is we would probably land a team if we decided to build a soccer specific stadium there (also saving lots of money and buildings) rather than a football stadium. But that's besides the point.
Given that there seems to be a growing wave of naysaying against this thing, let's appease that sect and say the stadium doesn't happen, Rams leave, we are free from the evil financial shackles of the Rams and the NFL, and phew, we can finally start fixing this city.
What happens if in a few years our convention numbers are still poor or at least no better? I hear plenty of press that organizations have problems commiting to STL because of our growing reputation with crime in and around the downtown area as well as the trepidation on a national level that has ensued from last summer's events. Guess how much of that has to do with the NFL? Where are there groups out there saying that they are not commiting to STL for convention space because the facilities are lacking, outdated, or they couldn't get the date they wanted because it was booked by the Rams? Is there some hard data that says every other week/weekend the Rams were not playing was booked for a convention? Is there a waiting list for conventions in the fall that are just clamoring to be booked as soon as the 8 Sunday afternoons a year are open? Is there some data that shows the number of times a group was denied because football boxed it out? If so, great, I am just curious and I think that if those against the stadium are going to demand an honest assessment that keeping an NFL team has to make perfect financial sense because it provides no other benefits (lunacy), then the alternative to keeping the NFL should be held to the same standard.
I find it interesting that in all of this hatred against the NFL, the phrase "only 8 days a year" gets thrown around as an insult and reason it's a bad investment. Yet when we change our focus to conventions, those same 8 days gets altered to an entire season of time that gets wiped out. Granted a multi-day affair that includes a Sunday would be lost and I get it. I just want to see some numbers that prove we've lost out on signifcant convention monies with the Rams here and project an increase with the NFL gone. Otherwise we are running on faith that we will get it done in the convention arena....and there aren't enough Dave Peacock's to go around to make sure everything has a fighting chance.
What happens if in a few years our convention numbers are still poor or at least no better? I hear plenty of press that organizations have problems commiting to STL because of our growing reputation with crime in and around the downtown area as well as the trepidation on a national level that has ensued from last summer's events. Guess how much of that has to do with the NFL? Where are there groups out there saying that they are not commiting to STL for convention space because the facilities are lacking, outdated, or they couldn't get the date they wanted because it was booked by the Rams? Is there some hard data that says every other week/weekend the Rams were not playing was booked for a convention? Is there a waiting list for conventions in the fall that are just clamoring to be booked as soon as the 8 Sunday afternoons a year are open? Is there some data that shows the number of times a group was denied because football boxed it out? If so, great, I am just curious and I think that if those against the stadium are going to demand an honest assessment that keeping an NFL team has to make perfect financial sense because it provides no other benefits (lunacy), then the alternative to keeping the NFL should be held to the same standard.
I find it interesting that in all of this hatred against the NFL, the phrase "only 8 days a year" gets thrown around as an insult and reason it's a bad investment. Yet when we change our focus to conventions, those same 8 days gets altered to an entire season of time that gets wiped out. Granted a multi-day affair that includes a Sunday would be lost and I get it. I just want to see some numbers that prove we've lost out on signifcant convention monies with the Rams here and project an increase with the NFL gone. Otherwise we are running on faith that we will get it done in the convention arena....and there aren't enough Dave Peacock's to go around to make sure everything has a fighting chance.
- 3,433
^I could believe that. However, I would still like to see records or proof that groups have been or are interested in coming to STL in the fall. Any evidence that would make me think the convention business will be significantly expanded in the coming years without the burden of a football team is welcomed.
My fear is that in addition to the north riverfront most likely being more or less about the same in a decade, it is tough to see our convention traffic changing all that much without some more objective information to prognosticate otherwise. What can we really do with additional funding that will change the landscape of why an organization would pick STL? Better yet, what can we do that won't be offset by the bigger issues (see "Measuring STL against other cities" thread; read-crap leadership and crime) that are keeping population, corporations, and conventions alike out of the city?
My fear is that in addition to the north riverfront most likely being more or less about the same in a decade, it is tough to see our convention traffic changing all that much without some more objective information to prognosticate otherwise. What can we really do with additional funding that will change the landscape of why an organization would pick STL? Better yet, what can we do that won't be offset by the bigger issues (see "Measuring STL against other cities" thread; read-crap leadership and crime) that are keeping population, corporations, and conventions alike out of the city?
^^^ That's something of a straw man. The Dome exists. The Rams aren't going to play in it much longer. The Dome is opening up regardless.
The options are spend $400-500 million in public funds to keep the Rams or to not spend that money and lose the Rams. The future of the Dome isn't really up for debate since the Rams are leaving it regardless.
You can debate whether we should spend the $70 million to get it up to snuff for conventions or not spend anything and let it be subpar. But there's no scenario where the Rams will be playing football in the Dome much longer.
The options are spend $400-500 million in public funds to keep the Rams or to not spend that money and lose the Rams. The future of the Dome isn't really up for debate since the Rams are leaving it regardless.
You can debate whether we should spend the $70 million to get it up to snuff for conventions or not spend anything and let it be subpar. But there's no scenario where the Rams will be playing football in the Dome much longer.
- 3,433
I went to one of the 6 NFL stadium focus group sessions this evening. There were two sessions in the morning, two in the afternoon, and two in the evening. The sessions consisted of about 12-15 people in a room around a table. I guess I should have figured out that there might be someone video taping through a mirror or something, since I didn't really see microphones or anyone taking notes. But that didn't come up until later when someone said they thought they saw Kevin Demoff there and that he might we watching through a one-way mirror or something.
I could not have scripted our session better if the intent was to show strong support for the Rams and NFL in St. Louis. All particpants were Rams fans who went to most if not all games every year. Most were PSL holders, but a couple had smaller packs or just bought a few games each year. The younger guys were into technology -- wifi, etc., to keep up with fantasy league results during the game. I think 3 of the participants had club seats now.
They asked if we felt that we got value for our previous PSLs, and the consensus was that we did. And we would do it again if we had the option.
They went through list of amenities and asked what we valued: Location, traffic, parking, team branding, access, crowd circulation, concessions, bars, restaurants, store, technology, sound, video, in-game entertainment, premium seating, game-day, and pre-game.
Folks wanted more tailgating and 80% preferred open-air stadium. Some wanted more points of access into the stadium, and desire for wide open concourses with statues of players and a player museum -- like Busch.
When they asked to rank Blues, Cards, and Rams, folks wouldn't do it outright, but pointed out we are not just a baseball town -- we are no different than any midwest city -- we go nuts for football just like any town when we compare to baseball or hockey straight up -- when all teams have similar success.
My group preferred to keep the Rams but would likely support any NFL team that commits to our city -- Raiders or Rams if either owner commits to staying in St. Louis. Some anti-Kronke comments, but not much -- more like -> what business owner doesn't communicate with customers?
Went through other city PSL pricing for various stadium sections. SF, NYG, NYJ, Dallas, Minnesota. Looked a little high until we saw Minnesota.
Then they asked about these ranges for the Rams new stadium:
Season_Ticket_Prices, PSLs_Cost
LB Corner 1250 to 1000, 5000 to 2500
LB End Zone 1200 to 900, 4000 to 2000
UB Side 1100 to 800, 2500 to 1500
UB End Zone 850 to 650, 2000 to 1250
UB Corner 800 to 600, 1000 to 500
LB= Lower Bowl
UB= Upper Bowl
Club Side LB 3750 to 2750, 15,000 to 10,000
Club Mezz 3750 to 2750, 10,000 to 7,500
The consensus was that these prices were not unreasonable, and that all folks in the room would buy PSLs at these prices, and believed St. Louis would buy up all the PSLs at these rates.
Club seat amenities: Could add in-seat service in club areas, viewing of postgame coach press conference thru glass for club seat buyers, etc. Also mentioned Dallas has a plaza area for cheap standing room only tickets that could be available here also to rev up fans. Most new stadiums have views of the field from concessions and club areas -- similar to Busch. Our stadium would too.
So our group was gung ho for the Rams first, and any NFL team if we couldn't keep the Rams.
I could not have scripted our session better if the intent was to show strong support for the Rams and NFL in St. Louis. All particpants were Rams fans who went to most if not all games every year. Most were PSL holders, but a couple had smaller packs or just bought a few games each year. The younger guys were into technology -- wifi, etc., to keep up with fantasy league results during the game. I think 3 of the participants had club seats now.
They asked if we felt that we got value for our previous PSLs, and the consensus was that we did. And we would do it again if we had the option.
They went through list of amenities and asked what we valued: Location, traffic, parking, team branding, access, crowd circulation, concessions, bars, restaurants, store, technology, sound, video, in-game entertainment, premium seating, game-day, and pre-game.
Folks wanted more tailgating and 80% preferred open-air stadium. Some wanted more points of access into the stadium, and desire for wide open concourses with statues of players and a player museum -- like Busch.
When they asked to rank Blues, Cards, and Rams, folks wouldn't do it outright, but pointed out we are not just a baseball town -- we are no different than any midwest city -- we go nuts for football just like any town when we compare to baseball or hockey straight up -- when all teams have similar success.
My group preferred to keep the Rams but would likely support any NFL team that commits to our city -- Raiders or Rams if either owner commits to staying in St. Louis. Some anti-Kronke comments, but not much -- more like -> what business owner doesn't communicate with customers?
Went through other city PSL pricing for various stadium sections. SF, NYG, NYJ, Dallas, Minnesota. Looked a little high until we saw Minnesota.
Then they asked about these ranges for the Rams new stadium:
Season_Ticket_Prices, PSLs_Cost
LB Corner 1250 to 1000, 5000 to 2500
LB End Zone 1200 to 900, 4000 to 2000
UB Side 1100 to 800, 2500 to 1500
UB End Zone 850 to 650, 2000 to 1250
UB Corner 800 to 600, 1000 to 500
LB= Lower Bowl
UB= Upper Bowl
Club Side LB 3750 to 2750, 15,000 to 10,000
Club Mezz 3750 to 2750, 10,000 to 7,500
The consensus was that these prices were not unreasonable, and that all folks in the room would buy PSLs at these prices, and believed St. Louis would buy up all the PSLs at these rates.
Club seat amenities: Could add in-seat service in club areas, viewing of postgame coach press conference thru glass for club seat buyers, etc. Also mentioned Dallas has a plaza area for cheap standing room only tickets that could be available here also to rev up fans. Most new stadiums have views of the field from concessions and club areas -- similar to Busch. Our stadium would too.
So our group was gung ho for the Rams first, and any NFL team if we couldn't keep the Rams.
- 9,570
I spoke with a guy who went to the morning session and he said it went very well too...said all 20 of people in his group would buy season tickets with PLS at the suggested prices....
- 3,433
Here is the link to Jim Thomas piece on the sessions. Sounds like early sessions were similar to mine.
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 7e87f.html
http://www.stltoday.com/sports/football ... 7e87f.html
- 8,155
No insight on the possible private investor, but much more clarity on what Nixon/Peacock have in mind....
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/ ... t-will-it/
The County takes on the necessary Dome/Convention Center rehab while the city and state undertake the new stadium. However, it is unclear how Stenger will respond and he made it seem like don't count on anything above the current obligation ending in 2021. Also, I interpret Slay's comments as meaning he's planning for no vote. It'll be fun to witness the chaos such a move would create.
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2015/04/02/ ... t-will-it/
The County takes on the necessary Dome/Convention Center rehab while the city and state undertake the new stadium. However, it is unclear how Stenger will respond and he made it seem like don't count on anything above the current obligation ending in 2021. Also, I interpret Slay's comments as meaning he's planning for no vote. It'll be fun to witness the chaos such a move would create.
- 9,570
^ Roger, Ive been telling you for 3 months now...there will be NO VOTE...here, county, jeff city, anywhere...
- 8,155
^ And I've been telling you for 3 months that would lead to certain litigation with an uncertain outcome. It'll be fun to watch the process unfold.
edit: I do believe though that if the NFL demands to have funding in place by the end of summer it really is the only way for them to proceed.
edit: I do believe though that if the NFL demands to have funding in place by the end of summer it really is the only way for them to proceed.
Good to read that the focus groups were positive. I hope the NFL interprets it as such.
As far as the convention stuff, I'm not trying to say investment in it is not a good thing. I'd just like to learn more about the projections for our convention future without sharing the venue.
As far as the convention stuff, I'm not trying to say investment in it is not a good thing. I'd just like to learn more about the projections for our convention future without sharing the venue.
A few thoughts:
The major issue with scheduling other events during football season was that any event large enough to want the space was likely to schedule at least 18 months in advance, and the NFL doesn't publish their schedule that early, so the fall / winter was essentially blocked out. The NFL via the lease can use any of those days, and the CVC doesn't know what days they are until relatively late, so they can't schedule other events. That will be a moot point in the future when the Rams aren't there.
On public votes:
City ordinance, which voters approved after an initiative petition in 2004, requires a public vote for any public assistance to a professional sports facility, not just for new taxes for such a facility. As long as that ordinance is in place, a vote is required, bar none. Yes, the Board of Aldermen could change the ordinance, but that seems relatively unlikely. Here: https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st. ... 3.91PRSPFA I'm not saying certain proposals wouldn't pass, just saying the law that voters approved requires a vote.
Also, state law 'The Hancock Amendment' requires most new taxes (State and Local) to also go to a public vote. Its more complicated, but that would also suggest a vote is going to be required if there is a new tax, even if its a tax on tickets or something stadium specific.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
The major issue with scheduling other events during football season was that any event large enough to want the space was likely to schedule at least 18 months in advance, and the NFL doesn't publish their schedule that early, so the fall / winter was essentially blocked out. The NFL via the lease can use any of those days, and the CVC doesn't know what days they are until relatively late, so they can't schedule other events. That will be a moot point in the future when the Rams aren't there.
On public votes:
City ordinance, which voters approved after an initiative petition in 2004, requires a public vote for any public assistance to a professional sports facility, not just for new taxes for such a facility. As long as that ordinance is in place, a vote is required, bar none. Yes, the Board of Aldermen could change the ordinance, but that seems relatively unlikely. Here: https://www.municode.com/library/mo/st. ... 3.91PRSPFA I'm not saying certain proposals wouldn't pass, just saying the law that voters approved requires a vote.
Also, state law 'The Hancock Amendment' requires most new taxes (State and Local) to also go to a public vote. Its more complicated, but that would also suggest a vote is going to be required if there is a new tax, even if its a tax on tickets or something stadium specific.
Scott Ogilvie
24th Ward Alderman
- 3,433
I think the Mayor and Governor realize that it will be better to do what it takes to secure the $450 million outside money from the NFL now to pay for half the cost of the new stadium, and keep a team in St. Louis, and keep all the tax revenue that flows back to the state and city. Most NFL cities have done the math with the same conclusion. Otherwise, in about 10 years, if a different generation of leaders wants a new venue for an expansion team, MLS, international soccer events, concerts, a new football league, olympic festival, or even KC football occasionally, it will probably cost closer to $2B to build and we will have to fund the whole thing with public money as we did in 1995. And use PSL money to cover the relocation fee again instead of applying it to the cost of the capital asset. We seem to like go cheap on capital assets like the new airport in Illinois in the '70s, combined football / convention center in the 90's, and metro-link expansion shutdown now. Other cities seem more bold and confident about their future and it's paying off for them.
Would it make sense from a political angle to discuss a combined City/County port Authority that incorporates Lambert if the county officials are willing to throw their support behind CVC renovations while state/city pursue a NFL top tier riverfront stadium? Obviously it won't get settled overnight and significant details to discuss. Another way to put it, what would make it worth it from a county political perspective in order to support a significant convention center improvement while the state/city is building a new NFL stadium downtown?
At this point you have
- Metrolink expansion Prop A supported by both
- Museum tax district supported by both
- A CVC/dome/taxing encompassing both
- Expanded GRG tax base supported by both
- City/County combined economic development agencies.
From an asset and infrastructure perspective outside of streets the port authorities are separate but the city really has control of the huge asset in terms of Lambert. Lambert's success is a huge driver for both, as well as the region, and wonder if the county should have a seat at the table. Nothing like some good ol political back room horse trading to make things work
At this point you have
- Metrolink expansion Prop A supported by both
- Museum tax district supported by both
- A CVC/dome/taxing encompassing both
- Expanded GRG tax base supported by both
- City/County combined economic development agencies.
From an asset and infrastructure perspective outside of streets the port authorities are separate but the city really has control of the huge asset in terms of Lambert. Lambert's success is a huge driver for both, as well as the region, and wonder if the county should have a seat at the table. Nothing like some good ol political back room horse trading to make things work
The New York Port Authority has control over the seaports, airport, railroads, and transit systems, it could be a good model for St. Louis. I don't think anybody would make the argument that St. Louis gets more stuff done than New York...just saying.
- 9,570
Some theory floating around for this is that St.Louis Task Force must have checked off a few boxes that the NFL was looking for and by saying it could be May, it put the pressure on the SLTF to get it done and now that its done the May deadline seems to been just a way to put pressure on SLTF to get something off the list quickly....