Is Stan putting up $250M? I haven't seen that anywhere?imthewiz wrote:^wouldnt Stan already be paying more than half the money already? 250 up front, and then paying back the interest free G4 loan from the NFL?
- 488
^well I thought that's what the current plan calls for. Maybe it was 200M?
- 3,762
So basically you didn't even bother to look at the research... No, Gary, that's not what they "tried to see". They evaluated the economic impact of stadiums on local economies:gary kreie wrote:The "experts" try to see if increased economic development will generate enough money to pay for the public portion.
http://econjwatch.org/articles/do-econo ... ega-eventsThe academic research on the economic impact of professional sports fran- chises and facilities, in general, comes from retrospective econometric research, though some case studies also exist. In the econometric research, researchers collect time series or panel data from Metropolitan Areas (MAs) or states that were home to professional sports franchises and facilities and estimate reduced form econometric models of the determination of various economic indicators, typically real income per capita or total employment. These analyses generate estimates of the impact of a sports franchise or facility on the economy. If the coefficient on a facility or franchise variable is statistically significant and positive, then statistically that sports variable is inferred to induce an increase in the depen- dent variable measuring economic activity. If the sports variable is not statistically significant or is significant and negative, then the inference is that the variable does not induce increases in economic activity or that it causes a decline in activity. When the variable is positive and statistically significant, the coefficient is assessed for economic significance by the researcher and compared to the claims of sports boosters. For example, boosters may claim that hosting the Super Bowl will gen- erate $300 million of new income, but the estimates associate the Super Bowl with only $30 million dollars of activity. Academic economists interpret disparities between boosters’ findings and independent researchers’ results as evidence that sports led development is not efficacious.
Again, in light of the scope of the research the refrain "but this time is different" doesn't hold any water.
- 1,299
Let's face it. The new riverfront stadium will be filled mostly by people from places like Fenton, Chesterfield, Wentzville, St. Charles, the O'Fallons, Edwardsville, Fairview Heights, etc.
Very few will be coming from urban areas.
Very few will be coming from urban areas.
- 337
It's not quite half, but you're more-or-less correct. The G4 loans are a little interesting, though: In general, NFL teams pay 34 percent of home gate receipts into the league’s revenue-sharing pool, which is distributed equally to all clubs. But the NFL waives its 34 percent share of revenue from premium seats and its share of the incremental increase in other gate revenue for the first 15 years in a new stadium, allowing those funds to instead go toward repaying G-4 loans. So it's basically paid back using money Stan wouldn't have anyway.imthewiz wrote:^wouldnt Stan already be paying more than half the money already? 250 up front, and then paying back the interest free G4 loan from the NFL?
But for the purposes of this discussion, $450 million of the $985 million for the new stadium will be paid for by private entities (Rams/NFL).
Not sure what this is trying to say? Almost all the NFL fans in the St. Louis metro area are from outside the City of St. Louis? I mean, you might be technically correct, but considering about 89% of St. Louisans don't actually live in the City of St. Louis, you could substitute "NFL fans" for just about anything and still be correct.Northside Neighbor wrote:Let's face it. The new riverfront stadium will be filled mostly by people from places like Fenton, Chesterfield, Wentzville, St. Charles, the O'Fallons, Edwardsville, Fairview Heights, etc.
Very few will be coming from urban areas.
- 9,552
Stadium would be 61% private funds and 39% public
61% private
Stan- $250
NFL- $200
PSL- $160
39% public
Bonds 201 (state 140- city 60)
Tax Credits- 189
61% private
Stan- $250
NFL- $200
PSL- $160
39% public
Bonds 201 (state 140- city 60)
Tax Credits- 189
- 1,299
County Exec. Steve Stenger has already said the people of St. Louis County won't be paying for this. We know people in Illinois won't be on the hook.Not sure what this is trying to say? Almost all the NFL fans in the St. Louis metro area are from outside the City of St. Louis? I mean, you might be technically correct, but considering about 89% of St. Louisans don't actually live in the City of St. Louis, you could substitute "NFL fans" for just about anything and still be correct.
Besides taxpayers in the city of St. Louis, who's sharing in the liability of paying for this project?
It should be paid for by those benefiting, and from the sound of things, most of the benefits go to people not residing in the city of St. Louis.
- 9,552
well technically they will be paying for it...$160,000,000 worth of PLS's plus any other tax generated by this site on tickets, parking ect that will go back to pay bonds.Northside Neighbor wrote:County Exec. Steve Stenger has already said the people of St. Louis County won't be paying for this. We know people in Illinois won't be on the hook.Not sure what this is trying to say? Almost all the NFL fans in the St. Louis metro area are from outside the City of St. Louis? I mean, you might be technically correct, but considering about 89% of St. Louisans don't actually live in the City of St. Louis, you could substitute "NFL fans" for just about anything and still be correct.
Besides taxpayers in the city of St. Louis, who's sharing in the liability of paying for this project?
It should be paid for by those benefiting, and from the sound of things, most of the benefits go to people not residing in the city of St. Louis.
as stated above, the cost of this for the city taxpayers is $60million
- 1,868
In terms of property and 1% income tax, the city is getting the benefits. I don't know how much that amounts to, but it's something.
- 8,155
^ Earnings tax is next to nothing for the Rams as only service days in the city are counted. compare with the Cards, which not only has more games but also is a HQ'd in the city. Property taxes won't be assessed on the 88 acres unless at some point some parcels are sold for private development.
NN, as far as patrons coming from the County, etc., that actually is a good thing. While Rams as a whole are but a small pebble in the ocean of the Saint Louis economy, it does bring entertainment revenue into the City that largely would have been spent outside the CIty. So the further out they come the better. Unfortunately though the number of hotel nights generated by Rams is pretty small, with Rainford e-mailing, "that's all?" when seeing the CVC numbers.
If only. More like $150 million+ over 25 or how many years the debt on the bonds is paid out.dbInSouthCity wrote:well technically they will be paying for it...$160,000,000 worth of PLS's plus any other tax generated by this site on tickets, parking ect that will go back to pay bonds.Northside Neighbor wrote:County Exec. Steve Stenger has already said the people of St. Louis County won't be paying for this. We know people in Illinois won't be on the hook.Not sure what this is trying to say? Almost all the NFL fans in the St. Louis metro area are from outside the City of St. Louis? I mean, you might be technically correct, but considering about 89% of St. Louisans don't actually live in the City of St. Louis, you could substitute "NFL fans" for just about anything and still be correct.
Besides taxpayers in the city of St. Louis, who's sharing in the liability of paying for this project?
It should be paid for by those benefiting, and from the sound of things, most of the benefits go to people not residing in the city of St. Louis.
as stated above, the cost of this for the city taxpayers is $60million
NN, as far as patrons coming from the County, etc., that actually is a good thing. While Rams as a whole are but a small pebble in the ocean of the Saint Louis economy, it does bring entertainment revenue into the City that largely would have been spent outside the CIty. So the further out they come the better. Unfortunately though the number of hotel nights generated by Rams is pretty small, with Rainford e-mailing, "that's all?" when seeing the CVC numbers.
- 337
The County isn't participating in the new stadium, and instead is taking on a greater share of paying for the existing Dome and Convention Center.Northside Neighbor wrote:County Exec. Steve Stenger has already said the people of St. Louis County won't be paying for this. We know people in Illinois won't be on the hook.Not sure what this is trying to say? Almost all the NFL fans in the St. Louis metro area are from outside the City of St. Louis? I mean, you might be technically correct, but considering about 89% of St. Louisans don't actually live in the City of St. Louis, you could substitute "NFL fans" for just about anything and still be correct.
Besides taxpayers in the city of St. Louis, who's sharing in the liability of paying for this project?
It should be paid for by those benefiting, and from the sound of things, most of the benefits go to people not residing in the city of St. Louis.
Aside from "taxpayers in the city of St. Louis" (and let's be clear: by that we mean people staying at hotels in the City of St. Louis, not average-joe-St. Louisan), the entire State of Missouri is sharing in the liability of paying for this project. In fact, the State's contribution to repaying the extended bonds for the new stadium is far greater than that of the City's.
- 8,155
^ For your first paragraph, the plan being crafted hopes the County will contribute more for the Dome & CC but Stenger has said he is non committed to that. City will also likely have to contribute more regardless.
For the second point, no, hotel taxes do not pay for Dome debt and neither will they for the stadium; it comes out of the general fund as the hotel and restaurant tax revenue goes towards long-term debt on the convention center expansion.
For the second point, no, hotel taxes do not pay for Dome debt and neither will they for the stadium; it comes out of the general fund as the hotel and restaurant tax revenue goes towards long-term debt on the convention center expansion.
- 9,552
its not something he will hold a press conference to announce, it will most likely he a backdoor deal.roger wyoming II wrote:^ For your first paragraph, the plan being crafted hopes the County will contribute more for the Dome & CC but Stenger has said he is non committed to that. .
- 8,155
^ It isn't a guarantee though.... there is a lot of pressure on him from his County homies to spend their hotel taxes on County tourism projects. And again STL will most likely have to up its contribution regardless. Details matter in all of this so we'll just have to await a final plan.
- 1,868
I would like to see that math.roger wyoming II wrote: If only. More like $150 million+ over 25 or how many years the debt on the bonds is paid out.
- 8,155
^ $6,000,000 per year X 25 years = $150 million. I'm not sure how long they'd have bond payments stretched out but I assume 25-30 years.MarkHaversham wrote:I would like to see that math.roger wyoming II wrote: If only. More like $150 million+ over 25 or how many years the debt on the bonds is paid out.
- 1,868
Aren't interest rates close to, say 4-5% or so? I'm too lazy to do the math right now, but even if you assume paying 5% interest for 30 years without paying down the principal at all that's $60m * 5% * 30 years = $90 million, plus your $60 mil to get to $150m. And that's not taking into account amortization or inflation. I'll be surprised if the value of those bonds is above $100mil in present-day terms.roger wyoming II wrote:^ $6,000,000 per year X 25 years = $150 million. I'm not sure how long they'd have bond payments stretched out but I assume 25-30 years.MarkHaversham wrote:I would like to see that math.roger wyoming II wrote: If only. More like $150 million+ over 25 or how many years the debt on the bonds is paid out.
- 8,155
^ I'm just going by the Peacock figures. Your point about inflation and constant $$ is a good one; however, it works both ways as well though for the benefits proponents like to tout.
As I've stated elsewhere, I don't think there will be a big benefit to the city budget nor a big cost to it so long as the general framework is in place and a decent lease gets worked out; but I just get a little peeved when supporters go overboard on claims.
As I've stated elsewhere, I don't think there will be a big benefit to the city budget nor a big cost to it so long as the general framework is in place and a decent lease gets worked out; but I just get a little peeved when supporters go overboard on claims.
- 1,299
If this gets confusing enough, I think the promoters figure that the taxpayers and others paying for all of this will cry "uncle" and just take it.
- 3,428
.roger wyoming II wrote:^ I'm just going by the Peacock figures. Your point about inflation and constant $$ is a good one; however, it works both ways as well though for the benefits proponents like to tout.
As I've stated elsewhere, I don't think there will be a big benefit to the city budget nor a big cost to it so long as the general framework is in place and a decent lease gets worked out; but I just get a little peeved when supporters go overboard on claims.
Where have supporters gone overboard? Me specifically. I get peeved when opponents won't acknowledge that St Louisans likely will not pay one dime for the stadium unless they stay in local hotels or go to the games to cover their 1/10 share. In exchange, they get a billion dollar asset and remain an NFL city. Instead opponents won't look at the numbers. It is pretty clear that the city and state combined make more from the Rams than the new stadium will cost them. They just have to adjust the ratios. But it's more popular to ignore the numbers and march around screaming no public money for a billionaire. Either way, we'll get what we deserve.
- 3,762
^ you mean like how you're ignoring 20 years of research—which is based on actual data rather than just an inflated sales pitch—and marching around screaming how "this time it'll be different, though"? pretty audacious of you to claim that "opponents" won't look at the numbers. you've clearly made up your mind, Gary. you want your football and data be damned.
- 1,299
I will say this...
Forget passing the "smell test". I want that stadium; AND, I want St. Louis to be an NFL city.
I'll pay and pay, and maybe go to one game every five years.
It's a civic pride thing...
It's a big league city thing...
It's a pounding we have to take.
IF we want to stay relevant in the league of cities...
Forget passing the "smell test". I want that stadium; AND, I want St. Louis to be an NFL city.
I'll pay and pay, and maybe go to one game every five years.
It's a civic pride thing...
It's a big league city thing...
It's a pounding we have to take.
IF we want to stay relevant in the league of cities...
- 8,155
^^ Gary, I wasn't thinking of you specifically. But of course many proponents have been going overboard on the benefits... heck, Bob Blitz even told the judge incorrectly that hotel taxes have been more than covering the debt... can't be any more ignorant than that; but it is an effective canard that even Bernie M. spreads through the echo chamber. Many people still think the earnings tax somehow rains $$ on the city's coffers because of all those millionaires, think the Rams are vital for our economy, etc, etc. (And beyond finances, the Bob Costas video is an absurd example, yet not an atypical one, of boosters claims that this will result in downtown's glory.)
At the moment, it appears that Rams related activity comes up about a 1/3 short of covering the city's payments on Dome debt; I think that there are ways to bump that up at a new stadium (parking revenue, an additional ticket surcharge, etc. in addition to the mere fact that taxable concessions and ticket prices are going to be much more expensive to begin with) and fully cover $6 million if that remains the amount. And the construction costs would be a nice short-term boost. But the more boosters try to snow the public with misleading or outright false claims the more I get frustrated.
At the moment, it appears that Rams related activity comes up about a 1/3 short of covering the city's payments on Dome debt; I think that there are ways to bump that up at a new stadium (parking revenue, an additional ticket surcharge, etc. in addition to the mere fact that taxable concessions and ticket prices are going to be much more expensive to begin with) and fully cover $6 million if that remains the amount. And the construction costs would be a nice short-term boost. But the more boosters try to snow the public with misleading or outright false claims the more I get frustrated.
- 3,428
I read the report. It challenges claims stadiums spur new economic development. I agree with the report that they probably do not. But that is not what the debate is about. The debate is: Will the Rams and new stadium return to the PUBLIC all the money the public is being asked to contribute over an ironclad 30 year span. The answer at the state level is clearly yes. All reports show the Rams players and staff pay more than $12M per year in state income tax, and that will only get bigger as salaries go up giving the state a surplus of about $300M after 30 years if player salaries go up at a conservative 3% rate.urban_dilettante wrote:^ you mean like how you're ignoring 20 years of research—which is based on actual data rather than just an inflated sales pitch—and marching around screaming how "this time it'll be different, though"? pretty audacious of you to claim that "opponents" won't look at the numbers. you've clearly made up your mind, Gary. you want your football and data be damned.
For the city cost of $6M per year, the Post story said that the hotel tax generates $8.5 million total, but instead of using that for the dome as I thought was originally intended, the Post implies they did a state-lottery-for-education-style sleight of hand and they are spending that money on the South wing of the Convention Center instead. But no matter which buckets they say get filled from the hotel tax, the story goes on to say that the Rams do bring in $4.2 M to the city DIRECTLY every year in "ticket sales, payroll, concessions", or 2/3 of the $6M. That was a pleasant surprise. What I don't understand about the Post article is why they didn't try to project how much that $4.2M will go up in during a 30 year lease due to inflation. On my XL spreadsheet, assuming just 2.5% inflation, the $4.2M will grow to $6M per year in about 15 years. And in 26 years the total money that would go to the city would have totaled about $156M, the same as total payments at a fixed $6M per year. After 30 years, the city is ahead about $9M. Can someone else check my numbers? The city would break even after 30 years if inflation was exactly 2.21%, and it would make $25M on the deal if inflation were 3%.