When you get that money lined up, we can compare it to the stadium plan straight up. But what if we did Plan B at Chouteau Landing? Then we can have plan A AND B.dbInSouthCity wrote:I would assume if the public put up $400m for plan b like it is for plan A there would be a lot more than $610m
In private money lined up. Heck for $400m private you could get $1b-2b private
- 3,433
I went to the hearing yesterday to listen. At the opening, the city, I believe, presented some numbers and handed out charts, but I didn't get a copy. If anyone got one, I'd like you to scan it here, or list the numbers. I believe they are saying the Rams generate something like $6.2M in 2019, and by the end of the lease, the City will have had to pay $22M total from its general budget minus tax revenue. That is less than $1M per year or less thatn 1/10 of 1% of the city budget, but I'd like to see the chart or their spreadsheet to see their computations and assumptions. And I believe they said if the Rams leave, the City will still be on the hook for at least $28M in payments on the dome through 2021. So, if they are right, the choice comes down to paying $22M and having the Rams and a stadium, or paying $28M and having neither. Did anyone hear that the same way, or do you have the charts or a link that shows this? Thanks.
I guess they conveniently did not take into account the extra convention revenue that a freed up dome would add to the mix.
- 8,155
I'm not sure about that... if Kroenke had an interest in Maryland Hts. he may want to own the site and have more of a Kraft-type deal in Foxboro with stadium and surrounding commercial development. The land purchase his partnership is pursuing is 200 acres so it is a very large site easily possessing the potential for that type of development. With full control of stadium revenues and cheaper land acquisition costs out there he'd be able to build a decent stadium with little public investment (going towards highway and access improvements, etc., TIF, etc. if he were so inclined.) I also think the state may have to amend the RSA statute if a publicly-owned stadium in Maryland Hts. were desired.dbInSouthCity wrote:Aesir
Maryland Heights stadium would not be privately financed. Stan would most likely ask for the state $250m and probably the same amount from the county
This is garbage. City Hall's analysis is junk numbers.gary kreie wrote: And I believe they said if the Rams leave, the City will still be on the hook for at least $28M in payments on the dome through 2021. So, if they are right, the choice comes down to paying $22M and having the Rams and a stadium, or paying $28M and having neither. Did anyone hear that the same way, or do you have the charts or a link that shows this? Thanks.
Let me rephrase that... they are saying that the city would have to find ways to make up that $28M in Dome payments, which is true; but they aren't telling us that indeed most of that tax revenue (and possible even more) would be made up for that if the Rams vacate the Dome next year.
- 3,433
Before we get too excited, I'd like to find the real numbers they were using yesterday. I didn't get one of the handouts, and I can't find a link to those number online. I do have the link to Andy Banker's numbers, and I was trying to work backwards from that, since it doesn't explain everything.
Here are Fox Channel 2 numbers:
http://fox2now.com/2015/11/12/crunching ... -proposal/
Here is the story in the Post with Regional Chamber of Commerce numbers:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... df393.html
Here is a link to the Regional Chamber of Commerce PDF file directly.
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... 1b.pdf.pdf
The only other studies I know of specific to this deal are the ones from the Missouri Dept of Economic Dev., and the one from the Harvard MBAers.
Here are Fox Channel 2 numbers:
http://fox2now.com/2015/11/12/crunching ... -proposal/
Here is the story in the Post with Regional Chamber of Commerce numbers:
http://www.stltoday.com/business/local/ ... df393.html
Here is a link to the Regional Chamber of Commerce PDF file directly.
http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews ... 1b.pdf.pdf
The only other studies I know of specific to this deal are the ones from the Missouri Dept of Economic Dev., and the one from the Harvard MBAers.
RW, I have tough time seeing why Stan K would ever want to privately finance a Maryland Heights stadium. Look at this way, he goes into a room of financers/bankers and presents the LA stadium and a Maryland Heights stadium both privately financed. What stadium do you think the bankers are going to pick considering the respective team values, market size, market value and so?
What would change, he would be doing the same with county leadership/Gov Nixon as Peacock is doing with Gov Nixon/Slay/BoA. In the meantime, he would buy what's around outright. For what we know, he might buy into Maryland Heights, land banking without a stadium because he is hoping it becomes the next Chesterfied Valley. Even thought I think he missed out because the region is simply not growing fast enough. But he has money and time so why not
What would change, he would be doing the same with county leadership/Gov Nixon as Peacock is doing with Gov Nixon/Slay/BoA. In the meantime, he would buy what's around outright. For what we know, he might buy into Maryland Heights, land banking without a stadium because he is hoping it becomes the next Chesterfied Valley. Even thought I think he missed out because the region is simply not growing fast enough. But he has money and time so why not
^The question is not between a privately financed stadium in MH or LA. No one would challenge that obviously LA is the more lucrative situation. But if the owners decide to tell Stan he can't move, and he plays nice and abides, he doesn't have the LA option. The question then becomes is it more lucrative to own the entire thing in MH or agree to negotiate with the city on the taskforces' plan (or sell the team, pursue another franchise, all the other crazy ideas already discussed, etc...)
If Stan looks to Maryland Heights, he'll absolutely look to own the thing. But that doesn't mean it will be entirely financed. He'll get every penny he can out of the public, whatever that may be.
He may decide he's willing to finance whatever he needs to, but that will be the end point, not the starting point. He'll as for at least half of the building costs to come from public funding.
He may decide he's willing to finance whatever he needs to, but that will be the end point, not the starting point. He'll as for at least half of the building costs to come from public funding.
So my feelings have begun to clear up on this thing: DON'T DO IT.
It's a bad deal. It just is. It's way too much public money from the City. All stadium deals are too much public money, but we COULD make this one decent. The state will benefit, and we could split up the cost over overpayment from the region. But we're not. We're putting it all on the City, and that's too big of a burden to bear.
Still, I love the Rams. I really do. And that keeps making me want to stretch the limits.
But I also hate the sport of football. I hate the NFL. And I hope and believe that both will begin to decrease in popularity as they fail to address safety issues (because frankly I'm not sure the issues CAN be adequately addressed).
But with the Rams absolute no-show against the Bears today, I realized I get ZERO benefits from this team. We talk out of one side of our mouth to defend ourselves as fans telling everyone how bad we've had it with NFL football in St. Louis for the great majority of years.
But then we (or really stadium supporters) talk out the other sides of our (their) mouth to convince people that sports have an intangible benefit that goes beyond economics. Generally speaking, it's true.
But we almost never get that benefit!
At some point you have to call a spade a spade, right? At some point 50 years of NFL football becomes a pretty good sample size, right?
Yes, in theory, a well-run organization could be a great asset for the city and region of St. Louis. But in 50 years, it almost never has been. This is a lot of money to spend on the hope that something will finally change. I say enough. It's not worth the investment. It's time to move on.
Preferably to something with a real future like the MLS.
It's a bad deal. It just is. It's way too much public money from the City. All stadium deals are too much public money, but we COULD make this one decent. The state will benefit, and we could split up the cost over overpayment from the region. But we're not. We're putting it all on the City, and that's too big of a burden to bear.
Still, I love the Rams. I really do. And that keeps making me want to stretch the limits.
But I also hate the sport of football. I hate the NFL. And I hope and believe that both will begin to decrease in popularity as they fail to address safety issues (because frankly I'm not sure the issues CAN be adequately addressed).
But with the Rams absolute no-show against the Bears today, I realized I get ZERO benefits from this team. We talk out of one side of our mouth to defend ourselves as fans telling everyone how bad we've had it with NFL football in St. Louis for the great majority of years.
But then we (or really stadium supporters) talk out the other sides of our (their) mouth to convince people that sports have an intangible benefit that goes beyond economics. Generally speaking, it's true.
But we almost never get that benefit!
At some point you have to call a spade a spade, right? At some point 50 years of NFL football becomes a pretty good sample size, right?
Yes, in theory, a well-run organization could be a great asset for the city and region of St. Louis. But in 50 years, it almost never has been. This is a lot of money to spend on the hope that something will finally change. I say enough. It's not worth the investment. It's time to move on.
Preferably to something with a real future like the MLS.
- 9,570
if the Rams won the last 2 games and were 6-3 you would be at the top of the Arch screaming DO IT DO IT DO ITjstriebel wrote:So my feelings have begun to clear up on this thing: DON'T DO IT
Also things appear to be trending towards us being stuck with the Rams
![]()
Amy Trask is the former CEO of Raiders, always impressed with her knowledge and the way she talks about this whole relocation process when she is on 920am
Amy Trask is the former CEO of Raiders, always impressed with her knowledge and the way she talks about this whole relocation process when she is on 920am
- 8,155
^ Carson Chargers and Inglewood Rams. Bank on it!
Not sure about the MLS. I remember when I was a little kid people talking about how soccer was going to take over as the most popular sport in America in a short time. That was the 80s. Soccer has definitely gained ground, but if 50 years is enough to say we're never going to have a competitive NFL team ever again (and that reaction did seem a little overly emotionally-charged for a usually incredibly poised jstreibel), then I've seen enough of a trend for 30 years to bet soccer won't become more popular than the NFL in our lifetimes. Shoot, if anything soccer has lost some luster since the 70s and 80s around here. We used to pack the Arena to the tune of nightly sell-outs in the 18-19,000s for the Steamers, Storm, and Ambush, and then it all kind of disappeared. I know locally STL is passionate about soccer, and showed it again over the weekend, but I'm still hesitant to say soccer's stock will only rise indefinitely. I'd love to see the MLS here, and would support it, but would rather it be in combination with the NFL by some means.
And let's not ignore that the NFL does not have a monopoly on head injuries and growing concerns for child/player safety.
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article ... id=2375128
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/1 ... ries/?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/sport ... layer.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... _ball.html
And let's not ignore that the NFL does not have a monopoly on head injuries and growing concerns for child/player safety.
http://archpedi.jamanetwork.com/article ... id=2375128
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/1 ... ries/?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/27/sport ... layer.html
http://www.slate.com/articles/sports/sp ... _ball.html
- 8,912
I'm sticking to my guns. I still don't see the Rams leaving.
- 8,155
Better chance than your MLB playoff picks, buddy!dbInSouthCity wrote:^ better chance of snowing today than that happening
- 3,433
I would not count on MLS for a very long time without this stadium. MLS said 2021 at the earliest. Their commissioner said they preferred a downtown stadium and would share with the NFL but prefers MLS only stadium. But an MLS only stadium would likely cost the City what an NFL stadium costs them. No G4 program. State $$s? Lower revenue due to cheaper tickets and taxes, smaller crowds, etc. I'm sure any builder would want tax revenue to go back into the stadium. So it would run into all the same problems.
- 9,570
MLS stadiums are $200M...
Team $100M
state/County $50
City $50.
Sporting KC Stadium (located in Kansas and nowhere close to downtown KC)
![]()
![]()
Team $100M
state/County $50
City $50.
Sporting KC Stadium (located in Kansas and nowhere close to downtown KC)
- 8,155
While the footprint wouldn't need to be as nearly as large for an MLS stadium compared to an NFL one, the Near North Riverfront still would be more pricey than putting it elsewhere... I think a great spot for it would be on the cleared, SLU owned parcel on Chouteau and Grand. The size is adequate and you have great metrolink access and good highway access. Another seemingly cheaper alternative would be downtown on the surface parking on the other side of the elevated 64/40.
(I've posted this before.) I'd love for an soccer stadium to get built and have it copy places like Toyota Park with a permanent stage setup at one end. Get some concerts away from the sh*thole called Riverport/UMB Bank/Verizon Wireless/Hollywood Casino.
![]()
dweebe wrote:(I've posted this before.) I'd love for an soccer stadium to get built and have it copy places like Toyota Park with a permanent stage setup at one end. Get some concerts away from the sh*thole called Riverport/UMB Bank/Verizon Wireless/Hollywood Casino.
Please, don't build anything like Toyota Park. It's considered one of the worst for game day experience whereas KC has one of the best.
- 99
I am pretty sure the MLS only recently said "stadiums need to be built in downtown, urban areas". Sporting Park, Toyota Park, and other suburban stadiums were all built before this declaration. Any new stadiums are being planned for downtown areas and it sounds somewhat non-negotiable.dbInSouthCity wrote:MLS stadiums are $200M...
Team $100M
state/County $50
City $50.
Sporting KC Stadium (located in Kansas and nowhere close to downtown KC)
However, I still think it would be much easier and cheaper to build an soccer specific stadium. I do not buy the argument that it "would likely cost the same".
Sporting KC also built in the suburbs while the state of Kansas was in it's "throw money at everyone to steal everything from Missouri" kick. IKEA store, NASCAR track, Sprint HQ, Sporting KC along with attempts at the Chiefs and Royals.billikens&bricks wrote:dbInSouthCity wrote:MLS stadiums are $200M...
Team $100M
state/County $50
City $50.
Sporting KC Stadium (located in Kansas and nowhere close to downtown KC)
I am pretty sure the MLS only recently said "stadiums need to be built in downtown, urban areas". Sporting Park, Toyota Park, and other suburban stadiums were all built before this declaration. Any new stadiums are being planned for downtown areas and it sounds somewhat non-negotiable.
However, I still think it would be much easier and cheaper to build an soccer specific stadium. I do not buy the argument that it "would likely cost the same".
BTW: we don't need a bunch of duplicated pictures of the Sporting KC park. Can you clean up your posts please?