urbanSTL

The proposal takes another hit. I had gotten the idea before that the plan called for the city to give the team 50% of the tax revenue to payback the naming rights number.

Turns out it's actually 64%.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... s4.twitter

Also, new numbers acknowledge this won't be a windfall of tax revenue. Instead their big pitch is that the deal will "roughly break even."

Oy.

And even worse is the fact that most of the breaking even sounds to be dependent on big gains the first 3 years before tailing back off to significant losses during the rest of the term.

Unless they figure out a way to get other counties involved, I'm just not sure I see this happening.

I was fully expecting something in the 60% ballpark. And "roughly break even" is what Jeff Rainford has been saying from day one.

Also, this definitely feels like a negotiation is going on.

Mound City wrote:I was fully expecting something in the 60% ballpark.

Also, this definitely feels like a negotiation is going on.

But the problem is that the negotiation is between the Task Force and the city.

And the better job the city does at negotiating, the worse position the region is in with the NFL.

If the counties that make up this region were involved, funding would be a cinch.

Yeah. It's too bad we live in a region where County participation is a total non-starter. I give the task force props for doing the best they can with what they've got. The most important details haven't changed. Existing, unchanging revenue stream (which will continue to represent a constantly-decreasing percentage of the city's budget), supplemented with money that the city wouldn't have unless the stadium was built anyway. I'm more confident than you are about this; I think that will be palatable enough for at least fifteen alderpersons, all for a crack at saving the NFL in St. Louis.

My question is: is it good enough for the NFL?

I guess I don't honestly know how I feel.

There's probably a 75% chance the Board of Aldermen will ultimately pass this. But I think it will come with a lot of scrutiny and debate first.

And I guess the reason that 75% chance doesn't represent optimism for me is the fact that I don't think we SHOULD pass this deal. It's a bad deal.

I don't want to NOT pass it either, though. I want the stadium, I want the team.

So it sucks. It really really sucks. This is a bad deal and I wish there was some way to make it a good one.

jstriebel wrote:This is a bad deal and I wish there was some way to make it a good one.

There is!

Socialize Football
A modest proposal to save the National Football League.

When owners refuse to negotiate with the reasonable demands of workers in vital industries, the state has historically stepped in to mediate, sometimes threatening to take control, and occasionally actually seizing capital and assets. In 1952 President Truman briefly nationalized the steel industry when owners refused to negotiate in good faith.

With the ongoing labor dispute with the referees in the NFL, one of America’s last great industries — the game of football — is under attack. Mr President, it’s time for some decisive leadership to bring together a nation in mourning, to save an industry in crisis.

It’s time to socialize football.

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2012/09/nati ... -football/

I guess my issue, Mound, is that these extended bonds ARE a new revenue stream. It's easy to talk around them as not really being one, but they are. Because the stadium was supposed to be getting paid off, and now that won't happen for another 30+ years.

And that'd be moderately acceptable if we were continuing to pocket a sizable chunk of the tax revenue to cover those bonds. But now we're giving most of that up to.

The burden on the city is not only going to be extended annually, but it is likely to be increased by a notable amount. To me, that's a bad deal.

My problem with people insisting on the "public vote" is that unless that public vote is happening in the next few weeks, it's tantamount to killing the stadium proposal and thus the NFL in St. Louis.

The stadium financial assistance public vote ordinance has been dead for months. During these months, Green, Ogilvie, Spencer, Ingrassia, or any of the other of the handful of aldermen/alderwomen who are transparently against financing the stadium that would keep the NFL here no matter what could have introduced a bill requiring a public vote, but of course they waited until the zero hour to do so in order to ensure it would kill the NFL in St. Louis, if it were passed.

I agree with this. While the aldermen's desire to have a public vote is noble, it makes the stadium plan void. They are pushing for a vote on a plan that we won't be able to vote on.

They made a bad decision years ago on which a judge has already ruled. Now they want to change the law to get their way, and maybe their constituents way too. But this bill does nothing different for the city. We don't have a say now in the stadium plan and we won't have a say if the bill passes.

What they should be doing now is saying "OK we screwed up years ago. Let's put forward a bill that remedies this ability to bypass a public vote in future bills." If they have so many constituents telling them they want a public vote or don't want the stadium, its pretty simple. Vote against the stadium plan. Maybe they are too cowardly to do that.

^Just FYI, the Board of Alderman didn't screw up years ago. That was a public ballot initiative, not an ordinance passed by the Board of Alderman.

I know the tax revenue projections are different from the $4.2 million we're getting this year. But if they were to remain the same, here's how that plays out.

Current Annual Net Financial Impact
-$6 million in bond payments + $4.2 million in tax revenue = -$1.8 million

New Stadium Net Financial Impact
-$6 million in bond payments -(2/3)*(4.2 million in tax revenue) +(1/3)*(4.2 million in tax revenue) =
-$6 million in bond payments -$2.8 million + $1.4 million = -$7.4 million

Tax revenue would have to increase by an average of $5.6 million annually to make the impact equal. That'd be a 233% increase.

To break even, it would have to increase by that full $7.4 million which would be an increase of 276%.

^ It's fun to try to run #'s but that those type of calculations (lacking critical variables) are not even close to a representation of the real gain or loss over time.

Also forgetting revenue and taxes from non football events. And we were NEVER going to break even.

At this point I'm still a little skeptical on the non-football events. If they happen great. But besides an MLS team—which remains a big question mark—there are no clear and consistent non-football events.

No city has filed yet for relocation, correct? And they can't file until January? So, what triggered these public hearings already being held in the three cities?

Right. I don't doubt we'll land 1 or 2. Probably land at least one big soccer game a year, although we're close to that already with Busch. I'll assume we're able to do it slightly more and more consistently with the new stadium, though.

But really, how impactful is that? MLS is the primary way to maximize the stadium tax revenue, and as you said, we can't count on that right now.

^ if you have to give 2/3 away, it'll help very little.

This is my take as well. Heavy back loading of the bond payments. Ability to pay off naming rights borrowing with tax money is going to be highly dependent on economic activity generated by the Rams. The projections sound...rosy.

imran wrote:

chaifetz10 wrote:My own $0.02: If you don't live in the city of St. Louis then you have no right to get mad at the BOA for wanting a public vote or to even try to sway their decision.

Thank you !!

I sent a note to Stenger asking how I or we as Countians can help the City get this funding problem over the goal line. Didn't hear back, but we are trying. The stadium will be on the CITY riverfront after all, on property that has sat derelict for decades. 6/10 of 1% of the yearly $1B budget to get $850 million from others to finally develop that wasteland seems like a good deal. Back in 1995 the City devoted $6 million toward the dome. $6 million in 1995 is the same as $9.4 million now, due to inflation. And in 1995 $6 million was over 1% of the budget back then. I recall zero controversy then about whether 1% of the city budget was worth it to get the dome. This is a good deal for the city.

Gary, in 1995 we made a really, really stupid decision. I don't think that should be the standard upon which a new deal should be judged.