urbanSTL

roger wyoming II wrote:Here's my back-of-the-envelope calculations for 500,000 attendance (8 reg season + 2 pre-season) with average ticket price of $80:

4.5% sales tax + 5% amusement tax: $3.800 million
4.5% sales tax on concessions/merch, etc.: $0.675 million (avg. $30 per visitor)
City Earnings tax: $0.450 million (this is what Anders rep came up with)

So I would say direct taxes generated would be around $5-$6 million if you add in a bit of hotel tax and misc. sales. From this you'd have to deduct lost property taxes, police overtime, etc.. Depending upon the deal, parking revenue. etc. could be an additional source of revenue for the City that it currently doesn't get. As the years go by, tax collections would be expected to increase, but also the potential for additional multi-million investment obligations to keep up the stadium.

Of course we'd have to see how the actual lease deal and financing details, but I think in general it is fair to say that the stadium wouldn't be a major drain on revenues but also not a major windfall.

With regard to Stenger and the County non-involvement in the new stadium, what does the county plan to do with its hotel tax after 2021 when the dome is paid off? If they just drop the tax, then county hotels will have a cost advantage over city hotels. So when big events happen in the new stadium, folks may want to stay in the county where rooms will be cheap. That doesn't seem fair if they are attending events in the city or new stadium. So could the city add a tax of some kind to tickets -- and then give only the city hotels some of that tax money back to effectively tax the visitors that are staying outside the city, but using city funded assets?

blzhrpmd2 wrote:JS/UD, Just as you'll have to trust me that I love the city as much as you do. I just don't equate my love for it to having its finances come out perfectly. Trading potentially more urban-friendly design and development on the north riverfront for the stadium is the tough decision in that scenario.

Just to be clear, I wasn't questioning your love of the city. Merely responding to your general notion that anyone prioritizing civic tax dollars and such over the team must not truly love the team. I'm simply saying that's not the case because I do love the team, but I still can't quite bring myself to support this stadium no holds barred.

I fully believe you love the city also. It's entirely possible for us to both love the city and the Rams and come out on the other side of the fence as far as what we hope happens.

(FWIW, I'm still very much ON the fence. I've always believed sports have an intangible value to the community, so the money doesn't have to be perfect. And the more I read, the more it seems the money actually isn't so terrible. It probably falls in that not perfect but good enough range. My issues then fall to the stadium site plan, the tactics involved, and then greater issue of whether the NFL and the sport of football are worthy causes despite my ridiculous emotional attachment to teams that represent my city. When I add it all up, I don't have a strong position other than to make sure I stay informed and involved in critical analysis and discussion.)

Seems like we are WAAAAAAAY ahead of anything San Diego and Oakland have...this is from the NFL's #2 in charge and #1 in charge for LA relocation

Grubman: StL has site & city/county/state partnership that has identified most of its funding sources. SD/OAK don't have that.

^ same reason Mayor Slay lagged since 2013, he didnt think LA was a real option yet....
and i think they know something more about the Stenger/County thing then it was made public...

dbInSouthCity wrote:Here is how we got to where we are today

Stan bought the team- had all the intentions of staying and working on a new stadium here

As reported by numerous people....STL Leaderships strategy (room 200) was to ignore Stan and if he wanted a new stadium or improvement Dome he can pay for it...they didnt think LA was an option for a long time

Stan got tired of waiting and knew that other teams were looking at LA, he didnt want to lose twice...get nothing done here and lose a chance at LA.

As we stand today, Stan is going down two paths not because he wants to but because he needs to...he needs to be ready for LA if things dont work out here because the Chargers and Raiders are looking at LA....If NFL believes that Stan is the best plan for LA, he will take it ...if the NFL believes the new STL Stadium is a solid plan and want Stan to work with the Task Force to make it happen, Stan will do that...he knows at this point he cant lose.

There may be some truth behind that, but on the other hand Nixon said that he'd take up the negotiations after the CVB rejected the arbitration decision. So if Stan did indeed prefer to stay it seems like he would have been working closely with Nixon (and Peacock, who had been working silently through 2014) which by all accounts he was not. Anyway, I guess next week we'll hear more on his LA plans.

San Diego needs a vote and the earliest it can get it is Nov 2016...Grubman has said NFL will not wait for that.
Oakland has no support in Oakland to get anything done....NFL doesn't like the plan they are trying to get going with some developer...

best possible outcome for the NFL is 2 cali teams stay in Cali, either that be their current cities or LA area and Rams stay here...but if NFL cant get anything done for those 2 teams in home markets and neither is ready for LA, i dont care how good are plan is here i think the NFL will move to Rams because for whatever reason they are dead set on having a team/s in LA in 2016. If that happens, Oakland will probably piggy back to LA with the Rams in 2017 and SD will be left to swim on its own....its a tricky game and SD doesnt want to be left to fend for itself....this is why they are pushing full steam ahead with the Carson site.

So, if my understanding is correct, Stenger has basically said the County will NOT extend bonds for a new stadium, correct? And once the initial bonding period expires in 2021, they're (theoretically) out entirely? Call me an idealist or an idiot, but I think this is a great thing -- de-coupling the City and County on some of these "shared cost' projects may be just what is needed to force the City to stand on its own 600,000 feet and start making decisions to improve itself rather than for the oft-heralded "regionalism".

To that end, I hope the City requires, as a covenant of support, that the football team locates its headquarters/operations within the City limits for the duration of its time as an NFL team in the City of St. Louis. Currently, with the team headquartered in Earth City, Rams players and coaches only pay the City Earnings tax for ten game days a year -- meaning, if a Rams player makes $1 million, he only pays a measly $384 to the City via the earnings tax. That same $1 million dollar player pays in closer to $10,000 if the Rams are headquartered within the city limits (I think that's how it works -- there may be some wishy-washy math where it ends up less because a player's not considered as working a full 52-week/2080-hour work year).

If the City doesn't require this now -- especially after Stenger pulled the County out -- then it is a massively missed opportunity and a horrible display of City leadership. I'm not familiar with the total salaries of Rams players, coaches and personnel. Maybe someone can pull those numbers and see what happens if the team moves (and is required to move) to the City. Right now, they're paying earnings tax on only 4% (closer to 3.85%) of their annual salary. What would it be if they were paying it on closer to 95%?!

This would be a boon for visitors from Indy, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Arlington, etc. We pay for their stadium when we stay in their hotels, but they don't have to return the favor when they stay in ours. Between no medicaid expansion, no reciprocal hotel tax, no football team, no motorcycle helmets (proposed), inviting Gov. Perry to come and recruit our business away, guns for felons, and the bbq protection legislation, I feel there has been some kind of political coup here, and we've been taken over by Texas. They just haven't told us yet.

Oakland and San Diego don't have the leadership in Peacock that we do. And they do have owners who at least say they would prefer to get a new stadium to stay in their current cities, creating less urgency. Also, Charger fans are not as motivated since the Chargers will stay in SoCal somewhere within easy Sunday driving distance. The SF metro area just got a new stadium for the good team, so may have trouble motivating the population for another one for the bad team. Fans in both of those cities will still have an easy drive to NFL games, lowering their urgency.

^Dweebe, can agree on two out of three for two reasons, Stan's K stadium will be built for two teams and it makes fiscal sense because Cali will not support any NFL stadium. As far as the Raiders, my impression after living in the Bay area the past five years is that the Raiders will not play in Santa Clara. After getting to go on a 49er's stadium tour around Xmas it certainly gives you the impression that the Santa Clara stadium was built for one home team. Just to make sure you know where your at, they finish the tour by guiding you to an impressive 49er's museum that ends with up front viewing of their Super Bowl trophies.

My bet, Raiders will bounce along until they fall into a new stadium that the Davis doesn't have to pay for or will get a very favorable deal. One, Carson City would win out if either owner really had the money like Stan K. Can't really support it, but my gut says that it will be a lot easier for a Rams/Chargers deal as far as NFL goes. Especially if Stan K/Chargers play it as a temporary lease to get San Diego to build a stadium. It also gives Raiders/Oakland time to see if the surrounding development deal can come together in a hot real estate market that is finally spilling over to East Bay. Especially when Oakland and Alameda County finally signed onto the same development agreement. Finally, if all fails, I believe it is only a matter of time before you see a stadium deal come together in San Antanio or maybe even Austin if neither Carson City or new stadium/development doesn't come together for Raiders.

As a buddy in St. Louis stated to me, what matters is that you own the team not the stadium.

This Carson thing is moving forward. Whether it ever gets built, is another story. While I agree that the Kroenke project is the frontrunner, I can't see Spanos and Davis letting that happen without a fight. Nothing is settled yet, that's for sure!

It really sucks that all of this stuff is going on while our stock nationally as a city, is perceived as down and out. The Mike Brown thing could not have happened at a worse time. It further plays into that 'dying city' thing. I do not believe we are a dying city. I think we have our issues, but they do not reflect upon our ability to support NFL Football.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/nfl/la-sp ... story.html

Stan's inglewood project is a bit ahead of Carson but thats not the entire picture when you consider that St.Louis is WAAAY ahead of SD and Oakland...October will be interesting, i think by then you will have Stan ready for inglewood stadium, Task Force ready for the riverfront...Carson 90% ready and SD and oakland nowhere near ready...so what happens then....

Kevin B wrote:So, if my understanding is correct, Stenger has basically said the County will NOT extend bonds for a new stadium, correct? And once the initial bonding period expires in 2021, they're (theoretically) out entirely? Call me an idealist or an idiot, but I think this is a great thing -- de-coupling the City and County on some of these "shared cost' projects may be just what is needed to force the City to stand on its own 600,000 feet and start making decisions to improve itself rather than for the oft-heralded "regionalism".

To that end, I hope the City requires, as a covenant of support, that the football team locates its headquarters/operations within the City limits for the duration of its time as an NFL team in the City of St. Louis. Currently, with the team headquartered in Earth City, Rams players and coaches only pay the City Earnings tax for ten game days a year -- meaning, if a Rams player makes $1 million, he only pays a measly $384 to the City via the earnings tax. That same $1 million dollar player pays in closer to $10,000 if the Rams are headquartered within the city limits (I think that's how it works -- there may be some wishy-washy math where it ends up less because a player's not considered as working a full 52-week/2080-hour work year).

If the City doesn't require this now -- especially after Stenger pulled the County out -- then it is a massively missed opportunity and a horrible display of City leadership. I'm not familiar with the total salaries of Rams players, coaches and personnel. Maybe someone can pull those numbers and see what happens if the team moves (and is required to move) to the City. Right now, they're paying earnings tax on only 4% (closer to 3.85%) of their annual salary. What would it be if they were paying it on closer to 95%?!

Picking nits here but I believe Stenger said they *would* support it but only if it was sent to a public vote. When he held firm on that it was the Governor that told him that county money wouldn't be necessary. Stenger said he never asked the Governor or anybody else to take St. Louis County out of the deal. Though it was fairly well known that the parties interested in advancing the proposal didn't want a vote at all, so whether it was a true ideological difference or a convenient excuse is up for debate.

-RBB

Thanks rbb. Yes, I think your timeline is more accurate. Nixon didn't want a public vote, Stenger said he'd insist his constituents get that opportunity, and Nixon said the process could move on without County involvement. So yes -- I guess the onus is on Nixon in this case, where the hand he eventually plays forces that of Stenger.

Still like the idea of the City de-coupling the "regionalism" play for this stadium and other future projects. The City can't be the regional center if all its funding activities depends on those living/working outside the actual city.

blzhrpmd2 wrote:But wouldn't you agree there is just as much or more use of those regional icons by those that are living/working outside of the city?

Plenty of county residences and businesses are full of posters and prints claiming the city as "theirs." Does that come without responsibility?

The county shouldn't be over burned with footing bills, but it's not as if the county shouldn't be responsible for maintenance and cultivation of assets that its residents are regularly patronizing.

This is true if the current system stays relatively in tact.

But perhaps larger change would mean moving to a system that ended the regional agreement on those civic icons. Maybe it's time for free admission to only apply to the city.

I'm actually opposed to that for the sole reason that I take great pride that we offer so many amenities for free to EVERYONE. I know it's not smart business, but it's wonderful. If only city and county residents got in for free, then I'd consider supporting making it city only (not because I'm a jerk but because the county no longer seems willing to even feign regionalism). But since it's free to everyone, I feel that's something worth saving.

I was wondering if the city might consider selling assets in order to help fund the region's half of the new stadium. Such as a portion of the airport. Or could the city impose an additional airplane ticket tax on non-city residents only? What other assets could generate the city and county portion of the stadium cost? The city could easily raise $6M per year with just a $10 ticket tax on Rams tickets, which would in-effect be primarily paid by County and St. Charles fans, since most of the fans live there.

From what im reading on San Diego and Oakland papers and people involved in the situation, seems like all hope is lost for both of those cities to get something done with the home teams...

at this point it seems like Peacock is on the 18th hole with a 5 foot put left.

Did you read McLellan today?