urbanSTL

^ i thought the stadium wasn't happening without a leasing commitment from the Rams (or some other team, i guess). that's the mantra chanted by stadium supporters now whenever you suggest that we might waste a bunch of money on an empty stadium. are you saying that's not the case, or that the task force has a commitment from one franchise or another?

I would say, without a doubt, there is NO WAY this stadium is built, without a commitment from an NFL team. That is the reason we are in this mess in the first place. In the last instance, the CVC & it's negotiators were forced to give the Rams whatever the asked for, since we had a stadium sitting there waiting for a team. That is how the Rams got that horrible (for us) lease provision. The Task Force will not put the City in that position again, regarding building a venue without a team. That gives the NFL team the upper-hand in negotiations. I would not expect another lease to be written again, anywhere, with a 'top-tier' clause. I feel pretty confident, that we've learned our lesson, from mistakes of the past.

Shane Gray wrote a great piece yesterday, directed at NFL owners:

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... ation.aspx

thats not a piece, thats a book.

Very true! I like Shane Gray. Even though he is very pro-STL Rams (comes off as one-sided at times), he backs it up with facts.
This 'book' needs to be in the hands of the Task Force.

Cant have a term sheet without BOA bill at least on the table...last week they didn't want the stadium bill and Min wage exemption bill on the same day..so it got put off a week.

I know Ray Hartmann is the devil just out to kill things that sports fans want or something, but does a stadium backer (to be clear, I am not against the stadium) want to take a stab at explaining why this is not a big deal?

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/proposed-nfl-stadium/

Whether or not it's a "big deal" to you will probably depend on what your stance re: the new stadium was in the first place. But anyway, here goes my stab:

1) Hartmann describes the roughly ten million dollar jump from $6 million in 2016 to $15,975,000 in 2051 as "staggering." 2051 is thirty-six years from now. For comparison's sake, $6,000,000 in 1979, thirty-six years ago, equates to $19,695,537.19 today; that's a difference of roughly fourteen million dollars.

2) Hartmann says the dome's average attendance is about 52k as a data point to compare to the 63k seats expected to be sold in the new stadium... but that's only based on attendance from 2015. Attendance should be expected to be low this year, for reasons I shouldn't have to elaborate at this point. The truth is, going back to 1995, the Rams' average attendance in St. Louis is roughly 62,000 per game.

3) I'd duplicate the point I made in 2) to also suggest that using corporate/sponsorship support in 2015 is equally disingenuous, for the same reasons upon which I shouldn't have to elaborate.

4) One thing that's particularly mind-numbing to me about this piece is that Hartmann apparently didn't think it was a given that stadium upkeep costs would extend beyond a new lease. Does he think any city buildings all of the sudden don't require upkeep when they're paid for? Man, I really wish I wouldn't have to stop making any kinds of payments on my house once my mortgage is up. I should talk to Ray's lender.

That's four major issues I have with this blurb immediately off the top of my head. There are other more relatively minor issues I have, like how he ignores the fact that it's reasonably likely the County will commit to the project once they have to decide to spend on the stadium or else lose the tourist tax dollars... I fully expect Hartmann to be taken to task for absolutely none of these issues. So why wouldn't he keep spouting off the way he does?

Basically, this article is just Ray being Ray.

jstriebel wrote:I know Ray Hartmann is the devil just out to kill things that sports fans want or something, but does a stadium backer (to be clear, I am not against the stadium) want to take a stab at explaining why this is not a big deal?

http://www.stlmag.com/news/sports/proposed-nfl-stadium/

I'll be interested to hear how the Task Force responds, since Ray couldn't seem to get ahold of them. Ray's numbers don't jive with the Task Force application for state credits at this link, which shows they don't need another $215M from the city to get to $984M. They just need $6M per year. See page 1 and page D6 at the link below. Page D6 shows projected city revenue going way beyond $6M per year, which could be debated, but they are touting that as a benefit for the city -- not money needed for the stadium. The 2nd column on D6 shows the projected city payment, and it never goes over $6M per year.
http://www.stltoday.com/dome-authorithy ... 83e2b.html

Bad name. Good news.

framer wrote:Bad name. Good news.

Horrible name. Ok news. Interesting timing.

It would be a top 3 bad stadium name with O.co Coliseum and University of Phoenix Stadium. But certainly good news for Rams/Stadium boosters.

who cares about the name...

Hartman story is nonsense...its going to cost $9m in 2051 instead of $6M? OH NOOOOO!

heck 35 years ago $6M is = to $17.26M today.

dbInSouthCity wrote:Hartman story is nonsense...its going to cost $9m in 2051 instead of $6M? OH NOOOOO!

heck 35 years ago $6M is = to $17.26M today.

My problem is every time I question the numbers on here a stadium backer says - "Well the debt payment doesn't increase, but the revenues over time will so eventually it will be profitable" -which I don't necessarily believe but I could see how that may make some sense if you believe the Rams numbers.

Now it seems the debt payment will increase, so the basically makes it a loss financially anyway you calculate it. If you want to fight about whether that los is "worth" the non-financial ramifications I can have that fight, but I don't see the financial argument working at all anymore.

Possibly. It looks like there's something there from the Sept. 1 renderings, but it's not as clear.