Seems like we should shutdown Amtrak and invest in more local light rail. N/S extension?dbInSouthCity wrote:its .00048% of the states budget....its no where near the top of states wasteful spending list.
$12,000,000 / 600,000 fans at Rams home games= $20 per fan (Rams players/staff/visiting teams paid about $7.7M in state income taxes in 2013)
$8,000,000 spent on Amtrak / 197,000 riders= $41 per rider.
- 3,433
Wow. So nearly 2/3 of the public portion is paid for with player and staff income taxes. If we look a little deeper, it is probably possible to find that the other $4.3 million per year public portion is also paid for somehow each year. How about income taxes of parking garage owners. I pay that cost now when I go to games, but I won't if my car sits in my driveway on Sundays. I'll spend it on travel to Florida in the summer. Or put it into my kid's 529, where the state gives me a refund. What other state revenue is impacted if the team leaves? If it is more than $4.3 million, the state might have to take money from schools to make up the difference if the team leaves.dbInSouthCity wrote:its .00048% of the states budget....its no where near the top of states wasteful spending list.
$12,000,000 / 600,000 fans at Rams home games= $20 per fan (Rams players/staff/visiting teams paid about $7.7M in state income taxes in 2013)
$8,000,000 spent on Amtrak / 197,000 riders= $41 per rider.
- 9,566
Rams have $143million a year in player salaries, $20M in coaches salaries and about $10M a year in staff salaries...gary kreie wrote:Wow. So nearly 2/3 of the public portion is paid for with player and staff income taxes. If we look a little deeper, it is probably possible to find that the other $4.3 million per year public portion is also paid for somehow each year. How about income taxes of parking garage owners. I pay that cost now when I go to games, but I won't if my car sits in my driveway on Sundays. I'll spend it on travel to Florida in the summer. Or put it into my kid's 529, where the state gives me a refund. What other state revenue is impacted if the team leaves?dbInSouthCity wrote:its .00048% of the states budget....its no where near the top of states wasteful spending list.
$12,000,000 / 600,000 fans at Rams home games= $20 per fan (Rams players/staff/visiting teams paid about $7.7M in state income taxes in 2013)
$8,000,000 spent on Amtrak / 197,000 riders= $41 per rider.
local property taxes take a hit when 60-70 millionaires leave (sure not all own houses here)
car registration taxes/car sells tax take a hit when 60-70 millionaires leave and take their 50k-$1M cars or stop buying new cars here....if i had more time and bit more access to certain info, i could probably find $12M impact to the state from the Rams leaving.
- 1,868
But Amtrak is synergistic with MetroLink, so that might not be the best trade.dmelsh wrote: Seems like we should shutdown Amtrak and invest in more local light rail. N/S extension?
I think sometimes we make this more complex than it really is. As far as the economics of sports, I'm sure there are plenty of ways to very rationally look at the costs and come to the conclusion that it is is not always a good deal-but that is not the reality of our culture. Sports are incredibly tied to the fabric of our society and contribute to identities. The Rams/NFL are not in a vacuum and if they leave STL will disappear into the ether. The alternative is going to another city to build another stadium to re-establish a new history, to entertain other human taxpayers. We lose. Period. Perhaps we can locally come up with a fuzzy "we don't need you" rhetoric that we saved money and can now invest better in our local infrastructure, but that is lost on the majority of the country a percentage of which being the demographic we are trying to lure here to help said infrastrcuture.
People like Greatest STL (single, working, well educated, positive, contributing consumers) are likely littered all over the very cities we are pining over; moving into their better riverfront residences, using their riverfront amenities, watching their professional sports, and taking advantage of their rehabs....and some of them will add 2nd loss of an NFL franchise to the list of increasing crime, Ferguson-esque challenges, etc as reasons why STL must be a loser. People will view it as another symptom of our problems.
I think it also speaks volumes that plan 1b with this stadium is attracting a new team. If the Rams jump, the efforts will begin to get someone else in there if the stadium plan has any steam.
No one will say "The Rams left STL"... They will say "STL lost the Rams." And if that occurs, no matter how you want to draw it up we lose. Again.
People like Greatest STL (single, working, well educated, positive, contributing consumers) are likely littered all over the very cities we are pining over; moving into their better riverfront residences, using their riverfront amenities, watching their professional sports, and taking advantage of their rehabs....and some of them will add 2nd loss of an NFL franchise to the list of increasing crime, Ferguson-esque challenges, etc as reasons why STL must be a loser. People will view it as another symptom of our problems.
I think it also speaks volumes that plan 1b with this stadium is attracting a new team. If the Rams jump, the efforts will begin to get someone else in there if the stadium plan has any steam.
No one will say "The Rams left STL"... They will say "STL lost the Rams." And if that occurs, no matter how you want to draw it up we lose. Again.
- 8,155
^ It won't be a good thing if we lose the Rams but it won't be a big loss, either. The city will be better off in 2020 with or without a stadium on the riverfront. And let's try to actually put up riverfront housing, shall we?
No they're going to say "St. Louis lost the football Cardinals AND the Rams".blzhrpmd2 wrote:No one will say "The Rams left STL"... They will say "STL lost the Rams." And if that occurs, no matter how you want to draw it up we lose. Again.
Excuse me if I don't buy these Armageddon predictions. St. Louis will still be printed on maps if the NFL's gypsy/carpetbagger franchise decides to leave.
I've lost a lot of interest in the NFL over the past year anyway. That league has a lot of issues mounting, and they are not going about solving them in a good way (or even at all).
I've lost a lot of interest in the NFL over the past year anyway. That league has a lot of issues mounting, and they are not going about solving them in a good way (or even at all).
- 271
Yepblzhrpmd2 wrote:I think sometimes we make this more complex than it really is. As far as the economics of sports, I'm sure there are plenty of ways to very rationally look at the costs and come to the conclusion that it is is not always a good deal-but that is not the reality of our culture. Sports are incredibly tied to the fabric of our society and contribute to identities. The Rams/NFL are not in a vacuum and if they leave STL will disappear into the ether. The alternative is going to another city to build another stadium to re-establish a new history, to entertain other human taxpayers. We lose. Period. Perhaps we can locally come up with a fuzzy "we don't need you" rhetoric that we saved money and can now invest better in our local infrastructure, but that is lost on the majority of the country a percentage of which being the demographic we are trying to lure here to help said infrastrcuture.
People like Greatest STL (single, working, well educated, positive, contributing consumers) are likely littered all over the very cities we are pining over; moving into their better riverfront residences, using their riverfront amenities, watching their professional sports, and taking advantage of their rehabs....and some of them will add 2nd loss of an NFL franchise to the list of increasing crime, Ferguson-esque challenges, etc as reasons why STL must be a loser. People will view it as another symptom of our problems.
I think it also speaks volumes that plan 1b with this stadium is attracting a new team. If the Rams jump, the efforts will begin to get someone else in there if the stadium plan has any steam.
No one will say "The Rams left STL"... They will say "STL lost the Rams." And if that occurs, no matter how you want to draw it up we lose. Again.
dbInSouthCitym, great points.
While all of them may not be millionaires, the St. Louis City earnings tax definitely would take a hit.
Sadly, St. Louis always thinks about the consequences of its inaction and ambivalence after the fact. About two years after the Rams leave, people are going to be sulking and regretting.
Keep in mind that Minneapolis, Chicago and Atlanta have cobbled together packages to get their stadiums paid for. They are having to pay too. They found a way to make it happen.
St. Louis is such a laggard. In some ways, I don't blame Kroenke. The powers-that-be knew from the day the Rams arrived they would have to have a discussion about a new or upgraded stadium. They should have started the conversation four or five years ago. Why are we here again at the 11th hour??! POOR APATHETIC LAZY LEADERSHIP.
It's sad the Governor of Missouri seems to be the only politician gung-ho about keeping the Rams in St. Louis. I sure hope he takes executive action.
Andrew Leonard, chairman of the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, PLEASE SHUT UP!
While all of them may not be millionaires, the St. Louis City earnings tax definitely would take a hit.
Sadly, St. Louis always thinks about the consequences of its inaction and ambivalence after the fact. About two years after the Rams leave, people are going to be sulking and regretting.
Keep in mind that Minneapolis, Chicago and Atlanta have cobbled together packages to get their stadiums paid for. They are having to pay too. They found a way to make it happen.
St. Louis is such a laggard. In some ways, I don't blame Kroenke. The powers-that-be knew from the day the Rams arrived they would have to have a discussion about a new or upgraded stadium. They should have started the conversation four or five years ago. Why are we here again at the 11th hour??! POOR APATHETIC LAZY LEADERSHIP.
It's sad the Governor of Missouri seems to be the only politician gung-ho about keeping the Rams in St. Louis. I sure hope he takes executive action.
Andrew Leonard, chairman of the St. Louis Convention & Visitors Commission, PLEASE SHUT UP!
In the past 15 years the Twin Cities have found a way to:arch city wrote:dbInSouthCitym, great points.
While all of them may not be millionaires, the St. Louis City earnings tax definitely would take a hit.
Sadly, St. Louis always thinks about the consequences of its inaction and ambivalence after the fact. About two years after the Rams leave, people are going to be sulking and regretting.
Keep in mind that Minneapolis, Chicago and Atlanta have cobbled together packages to get their stadiums paid for. They are having to pay too. They found a way to make it happen.
St. Louis is such a laggard. In some ways, I don't blame Kroenke. The powers-that-be knew from the day the Rams arrived they would have to have a discussion about a new or upgraded stadium. They should have started the conversation four or five years ago. Why are we here again at the 11th hour??! POOR APATHETIC LAZY LEADERSHIP.
-put up most of the $170 million for the Wild's hockey arena
-contribute almost $400 million to the Twins baseball stadium
-pay about $150 million for their 1/2 of the Gopher's football stadium
-also pay another $150 million for the Vikings new stadium
-pay for $155 million in renovations to the Timerwolves arena
Is it right that millionaires and billionaires have gotten so much public money from the citizens of the Twin Cities and Minnesota? Hell no. But somehow the city, county and state have managed to pony up all the cash without the world ending.
-
- 8,155
Scott Walker is wanting to use the state "jock tax" as its contribution to a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks... basically player's contributing back to the arena. Here that wouldn't bring in a tremendous amount for the city's contribution through the 1% earnings tax but it would be something. (I assume they pay earnings tax even though there technical place of employment is unincorporated Saint Louis County.)
Another thing I'd do to help finance a stadium on the city side is reinstate the admissions tax and dedicate that to the bonds. I can't remember if it was a $1 per ticket, but if so that would be around $500,000.
Another thing I'd do to help finance a stadium on the city side is reinstate the admissions tax and dedicate that to the bonds. I can't remember if it was a $1 per ticket, but if so that would be around $500,000.
Can you guys confirm that the Rams even pay earnings tax? Remember, they're headquartered in Earth City, the player practice in Earth City. They play half of their games outside of St. Louis. They only work in St. Louis 8 Sundays a year. I'm not sure what that means for the earnings tax.
Additionally, I'd suggest MOST of the players do not own property in St. Louis. Football players are more likely to rent in their team's market than own.
Additionally, I'd suggest MOST of the players do not own property in St. Louis. Football players are more likely to rent in their team's market than own.
I keep hearing that our current leadership dragged their feet and got us into this mess. Hogwash.
This mess is a result of 2 bad things.
1. A terrible lease that our leaders from 20 years ago let happen.
2. One of the only owners in sports that prefers to leave his team's current city rather than try to make it work.
If St. Louis had started preparing to replace the Dome 4-5 years ago, they'd have been working on a replacement for a 15 year old building with tens of millions of dollars left to be paid off. That's just unrealistic, and everyone should accept that. Their best shot was to patiently play out the process and hope the team's owner was willing to work with them.
Kroenke has not been. He wants out as soon as he can get out. Everyone other team that has had the opportunity to leave has made a genuine effort to get a stadium built. And they've all gotten one except for San Diego and Oakland, and they've remained patient in their markets.
If St. Louis had a decent lease OR a decent human being of an owner, we wouldn't be losing our team. Only with that horrendous combination are we at risk for losing the team.
This mess is a result of 2 bad things.
1. A terrible lease that our leaders from 20 years ago let happen.
2. One of the only owners in sports that prefers to leave his team's current city rather than try to make it work.
If St. Louis had started preparing to replace the Dome 4-5 years ago, they'd have been working on a replacement for a 15 year old building with tens of millions of dollars left to be paid off. That's just unrealistic, and everyone should accept that. Their best shot was to patiently play out the process and hope the team's owner was willing to work with them.
Kroenke has not been. He wants out as soon as he can get out. Everyone other team that has had the opportunity to leave has made a genuine effort to get a stadium built. And they've all gotten one except for San Diego and Oakland, and they've remained patient in their markets.
If St. Louis had a decent lease OR a decent human being of an owner, we wouldn't be losing our team. Only with that horrendous combination are we at risk for losing the team.
- 8,155
^ I think that's right. Things would have gone rather smoothly on getting a stadium if we weren't working with an adversary. Last year we really didn't know what Silent Stan's intentions were but now we know he really does want to go to LA.
But the n/s metrolink would attract more development than a stadium.dbInSouthCity wrote:I think per dollar spent more people would use the stadium in a given year then the n/s metrolink line
jstriebel wrote:I keep hearing that our current leadership dragged their feet and got us into this mess. Hogwash.
This mess is a result of 2 bad things.
1. A terrible lease that our leaders from 20 years ago let happen.
2. One of the only owners in sports that prefers to leave his team's current city rather than try to make it work.
I would amend point #2 to say we've got one of the only owners in the NFL who has enough personal wealth and is willing to spend it on building a stadium in LA without significant financial support from California. LA would have had a team long ago from one of many owners who would jump at the chance to move there. The problem for many was that they couldn't afford to build a football stadium- a money loser, even in LA- in the short term without significant state funding. Kroenke can afford to take the short term hit for the gains made from the long term resale value.
Another indication that Kroenke really doesn't want to be here and that we shouldn't allow him to extort our region and state for hundreds of millions of dollars we need available to stimulate actual growth.
- 3,767
If Kroenke is able to move the Rams without much resistance, I would venture to guess, that he planned on moving the Rams when he exercised his first right of refusal and took complete control in 2010. At that time, he never definitively said that he was keeping the team here. He talked in code, saying he has 'always stepped up for football in STL and he is doing that again'. I don't believe he changed his mind somewhere along the way, after the CVC rejected his demands for a redo. If he did not intend on moving, he would not have proposed a massive overhaul to the tune of $750 million. A proposal he knew 100%, would be rejected. He would have asked for modest improvements and said 'let's start talking about a new venue down the road' with the CVC. I am of the belief, if he gets to LA, he intended to move from the start. There would have been nothing we could do, to get him to stay. He has been making little behind the scenes moves for years now. People just notice and didn't think he could or would move the Rams. Then he bought the Inglewood land. Many claimed, 'he is in real estate, that's what he does'. Then it took his official announcement of the stadium project in LA, for some to wake up to the reality that he is going to try and get to LA. I know people that still think he is bluffing. I just disagree with that belief. I think he will be in LA at the earliest by 2016 or shortly after.
- 8,155
^ Right, looking back it is clear that he has wanted to move for a while now. To me the only thing that seemed clear with Silent Stan during this time was that he wanted to be an instrumental player in getting the NFL back to LA but I wasn't sure if it was by moving his own Rams there or by more behind-the-scenes ways. But now its clear his desire is for the LA Rams.
My guess is that If he can work out things for a multi-year lease at the Rose Bowl they're a goner for '16-'17 unless our Hail Mary works out.
My guess is that If he can work out things for a multi-year lease at the Rose Bowl they're a goner for '16-'17 unless our Hail Mary works out.
- 1,868
Probably have a much better impact on property values/taxes, too.stlien wrote:But the n/s metrolink would attract more development than a stadium.dbInSouthCity wrote:I think per dollar spent more people would use the stadium in a given year then the n/s metrolink line
- 1,864
Indianapolis is seeing a push for a new soccer specific stadium near downtown. This isn't even for an MLB team, just their NASL one. The cost is $82 million...
![]()
![]()
If the NFL Stadium proposal falls through here, something like this would be a perfect fit instead. Smaller footprint, way less parking needed, and it would fit in the area better with less demolition of the existing warehouses.
If the NFL Stadium proposal falls through here, something like this would be a perfect fit instead. Smaller footprint, way less parking needed, and it would fit in the area better with less demolition of the existing warehouses.
- 8,155
^ Something like this along with a re-use of the Union Electric plant could work very well with the upcoming GRG improvements for the area and serve as an additional catalyst for additional private investment in this funky area.
^^ Make no mistake, though, they'll be competition to get an MLS team. If we want one, we need to not only get our USL Pro team going strong, but also get a stadium built (or at least shovel ready).
- 3,767
If Indy gets that venue, they will get an MLS team. That thing is awesome, stunning, beautiful! MLS definitely prefers a soccer specific venue. I think the advantage that the Peacock venue would offer, is much more seating capacity, for BIG events, like the World Cup (I think the US will get another one down the road), European club summer tours, FIFA friendlies and qualifiers. I would love to see USMNT qualifiers here. Actual World Cup events would require much more capacity than KC's Sporting Park, for example.
By the way, THIS is an awesome concept for public financing:
By the way, THIS is an awesome concept for public financing:
Looks their "commenters" are just as bad as STLtoday's. If they could actually pull that off, with self-generated tax revenue, it would be something to consider.The team is proposing a 10 percent tax on tickets and a use tax on stadium revenue to fund it, collecting it over a 30-year period.
“If you don’t go, you don’t pay,” Wilt said. “It’s essentially being self-financed through user fees whether it’s a tax on the tickets, the food and beverage so that it’s not a general tax.”