urbanSTL

Foundry has never seemed legitimate. If their stated goal is truly to bring MLS to town, they may have done nothing except set us back.

I'm not fully understanding what is so awful about this offer. If there's minimal interference by foundry isn't $80 mil a blessing?

What am I not getting about this? They seem pretty shady but I don't see any illwill


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^Like you said they seem shady. I don't trust they really have the funds they say they have. When pressed in interviews they just mention some guy from Florida that has a lot of money. How is that any different than me telling you I have a bunch of money and I am offering 80 million? The other group has told us all their investors and where their money is coming from so we know they can back it up. The Foundry group talks about tranparency but isn't transparent themselves. Frank asked them if they think making this announcment will affect the vote in April and they said no they don't think it does. How can they honestly say they don't think it will affect it? I don't trust them and I haven't seen anything out of them yet that makes me think they are serious about it. They say they want to do all they can do to get MLS here and so far they, in my opinion, have done more to hurt its chances than help.

I suggest reading/listening to this.

http://insidestl.com/foundry-soccer-gro ... um/1980417

The article says foundry claims they have a Floridian investor worth $2.5 bill. The CEO also says he's stepping down to run a non profit that's against public funding for stadiums.

To me this sounds the like foundry is an elaborate hoax to derail the MLS proposal requesting public funds for the stadium.

At the end of the day this thing is going to win or lose because of what's in the public funding request for Saint Louis City... if SC STL can put forth a proposal that presents clear and convincing benefits to the citizens of Saint Louis City then great; if not, it deserves to die and that will be the fault of the group for not getting more private investment.

^ First, MLS will need to select ownership group and from what they are stating it is and reported is they will entertain a franchise to SC STL before any spring ballots.

Nor do I think it is cut or dry as an April ballot at end of day. A lot of the infrastructure costs can go towards a realignment of full Jefferson interchange attached to the City & State's NGIA commitments. The Stadium, which is not as impressive as Foundry IMO offers a pragmatic approach by starting out @ 22,000 seats with option to go to 28,000 & while not as desireable but in short term the ability to use surface parking lots without any need of structured parking can generate needed revenues at very little build out cost. In other words, any business these days will see what it can get first (April Ballot) and then go from there.

^ If there is a public-funding vote, the best case scenario is that it is defeated and the owners say what the hell, let's pay for it all. iirc, that's what happened with the Nationwide Arena in Columbus for the Blue Jackets.

Not sure why everyone seems so certain that a public vote for MLS stadium funding would be defeated.

Hearing the the vote for stadium funding could be tied with a sales tax increase for metrolink n/s, police funding, and other programs.

dmelsh wrote:Hearing the the vote for stadium funding could be tied with a sales tax increase for metrolink n/s, police funding, and other programs.

That seems odd to me and a good way to defeat. I guess what I'm expecting is a soccer stadium/scottrade upgrade deal with some promo tie into "first step to NBA" and it is still less then what it what would have cost to keep Stan K. Cover all sports angles outside of NFL

I can see where tying it together will help make it pass. It's worked in Congress often enough. If it's tied to N/S, for instance, I'd be more inclined to vote for it because I think N/S is important enough to stomach a bad sports financing deal as long as it's only so bad. I could vote against it, but then maybe N/S doesn't come back around for another ten years, so I hedge my bets and hold my nose. And the soccer fans that think transit is a boondoggle do likewise if the transit isn't too terrible and the soccer is important enough. Politics. That's just the way it works. Or at least the way it used to work before a bunch of spoiled little kids began to upend the system because they want everything.

^ Might work in Congress but most local measures that include everything for everyone seem to have failed as of recent by my recollection. The best example I can give is the St. Louis recent bond measure, believe it was the primary last spring, that included everything from building improvements to vehicle replacements to alderman share of the kitty. It promptly failed. The life cycle and cost of the bond exceeded a vehicle life cycle. The only benefactors are the people selling the bonds. Enough Voters IMO called it right by voting no.

In my hometown they had a similar bond measure on the presidential election this past November that stated that the increase in sales tax could be used for multiple purposes but at end of day failed because it all went into the general fund.

Will be interesting how they present this - Also surprised at how many people take the Foundry seriously, they have turned into a passive aggressive social media clown show

Why are people so quickly jumping against the foundry? Not on this forum but when talking about it with friends and comments I've read other places, the prevailing response is that the Foundry is somehow looking to screw us over. I understand that the MLS2STL has more connections and will control most mainstream media but I didn't expect it to be as one sided.

Make the whole thing public and it'll be a lot clearer. The public is being asked to pay for a lot of it anyway. It would only make sense after the whole ordeal with the NFL. The two of them competing can only help us.

flipz wrote:Why are people so quickly jumping against the foundry? Not on this forum but when talking about it with friends and comments I've read other places, the prevailing response is that the Foundry is somehow looking to screw us over. I understand that the MLS2STL has more connections and will control most mainstream media but I didn't expect it to be as one sided.

Make the whole thing public and it'll be a lot clearer. The public is being asked to pay for a lot of it anyway. It would only make sense after the whole ordeal with the NFL. The two of them competing can only help us.

^ Your second statement in part explains the first; Foundry is the one making claims about a transparent and open process, yet at the same time they refuse to release specifics about the private financing they're proposing, who's sourcing the money, how it would be presented (as a loan, gift, as a condition of representation in the SC STL board, giant novelty check, .etc) and so forth. This is despite being directly asked for these things in media interviews. So far Foundry has refused to speak to the Post-Dispatch directly at all.

Secondly, have you read the 'open letter' penned to SC STL/Dave Peacock? It's five pages of taking passive-aggressive swipes at Dave Peacock personally, and at the STLNFL group's efforts to keep the Rams. The gist is 'since you don't want to be embarrassed again like you were before, and since you don't know how to get anything done without secret handshake deals, fraudulent activity, or public handouts, our money man who's worth billions is willing to step in and save you by making up the difference privately.'

It's not exactly the type of thing to engender an aire of cooperation and mutual respect - especially after years of apparently successful negotiations with MLS. I know if someone approached me like that I'd just as soon show them the door than accept anything from them. But it does give those already predisposed against public funding (and potentially some of those on the fence about it) something 'legitimate' to present as an alternative.

The letter puts SC STL in a tough place; If they'd take the money promised in that letter, they'd legitimize all of the criticism in it, and also presumably grant an apparently adversarial voice an influential role in the process. Not to mention there's been no guarantee that the money they're promising is actually available - just a 'trust us, our secret billionaire's really loaded'. But refuse the money and then ask the public to pay a tax and you'd potentially see a lot of folks who refuse to vote for it solely because SC STL turned down Foundry's offer to cover the taxpayer's portion in their proposal.

So yeah, to a lot of people it looks like Foundry STL is coming in at the last minute to divide sentiment and potentially derail what had appeared to be near-certain chance to land an expansion franchise.

-RBB

^ I don't think that last sentence is right; if SC STL wasn't $80M short we wouldn't be in this dust-up.

^ Hence the 'near-' in 'near-certain'. All indications are the team is St. Louis' as long as they have an ownership group and a stadium. They're mostly there.

Though for the record Peacock has said publicly that the $80M ask was not the final number and was 'on the high side'.

-RBB

rbb wrote:

flipz wrote:Why are people so quickly jumping against the foundry? Not on this forum but when talking about it with friends and comments I've read other places, the prevailing response is that the Foundry is somehow looking to screw us over. I understand that the MLS2STL has more connections and will control most mainstream media but I didn't expect it to be as one sided.

Make the whole thing public and it'll be a lot clearer. The public is being asked to pay for a lot of it anyway. It would only make sense after the whole ordeal with the NFL. The two of them competing can only help us.

^ Your second statement in part explains the first; Foundry is the one making claims about a transparent and open process, yet at the same time they refuse to release specifics about the private financing they're proposing, who's sourcing the money, how it would be presented (as a loan, gift, as a condition of representation in the SC STL board, giant novelty check, .etc) and so forth. This is despite being directly asked for these things in media interviews. So far Foundry has refused to speak to the Post-Dispatch directly at all.

Secondly, have you read the 'open letter' penned to SC STL/Dave Peacock? It's five pages of taking passive-aggressive swipes at Dave Peacock personally, and at the STLNFL group's efforts to keep the Rams. The gist is 'since you don't want to be embarrassed again like you were before, and since you don't know how to get anything done without secret handshake deals, fraudulent activity, or public handouts, our money man who's worth billions is willing to step in and save you by making up the difference privately.'

It's not exactly the type of thing to engender an aire of cooperation and mutual respect - especially after years of apparently successful negotiations with MLS. I know if someone approached me like that I'd just as soon show them the door than accept anything from them. But it does give those already predisposed against public funding (and potentially some of those on the fence about it) something 'legitimate' to present as an alternative.

The letter puts SC STL in a tough place; If they'd take the money promised in that letter, they'd legitimize all of the criticism in it, and also presumably grant an apparently adversarial voice an influential role in the process. Not to mention there's been no guarantee that the money they're promising is actually available - just a 'trust us, our secret billionaire's really loaded'. But refuse the money and then ask the public to pay a tax and you'd potentially see a lot of folks who refuse to vote for it solely because SC STL turned down Foundry's offer to cover the taxpayer's portion in their proposal.

So yeah, to a lot of people it looks like Foundry STL is coming in at the last minute to divide sentiment and potentially derail what had appeared to be near-certain chance to land an expansion franchise.

-RBB

I just read a little bit IIRC and with what I've seen said that is a fair criticism of Foundry. City leadership needs to step up and expose everything that is being said well before the vote. They are in the position to make everything clear since the two parties are not talking and possibly presenting false info. If both are legitimate then the city could negotiate from a much better position.

rbb wrote:^ Hence the 'near-' in 'near-certain'. All indications are the team is St. Louis' as long as they have an ownership group and a stadium. They're mostly there.

Though for the record Peacock has said publicly that the $80M ask was not the final number and was 'on the high side'.

-RBB

But there is no stadium without a public vote, so things are far from near certain.

STLrainbow wrote:

rbb wrote:^ Hence the 'near-' in 'near-certain'. All indications are the team is St. Louis' as long as they have an ownership group and a stadium. They're mostly there.

Though for the record Peacock has said publicly that the $80M ask was not the final number and was 'on the high side'.

-RBB

But there is no stadium without a public vote, so things are far from near certain.

All I intended was that it was the last piece in the puzzle. I'm with you, as this plan is constituted the stadium doesn't happen without the tax.

• MLS interest - Check.
  Ownership Group - Check.
  Sufficient financial resources behind the ownership group - Check.
  A location for the stadium - Check.
  A design for the stadium - Check.
  Local government on board with the proposal - Check.
  Private portion of funding for the stadium - Check.
  Public portion of funding for the stadium - ???

That tax proposal had at least a chance of passing, and if it did that would fulfill all requirements requirements for the MLS, and we know they're inclined to award an expansion team to STL. Hence my definition of 'near-certain'.

But the last bit, the tax (which hasn't even been finalized yet, much less proposed for a ballot) is less certain to pass now than it was before Foundry's 'help'. So what was near-certain is now much less so.

We're on the same page, just arguing semantics.

-RBB

flipz wrote:Why are people so quickly jumping against the foundry? Not on this forum but when talking about it with friends and comments I've read other places, the prevailing response is that the Foundry is somehow looking to screw us over. I understand that the MLS2STL has more connections and will control most mainstream media but I didn't expect it to be as one sided.

Make the whole thing public and it'll be a lot clearer. The public is being asked to pay for a lot of it anyway. It would only make sense after the whole ordeal with the NFL. The two of them competing can only help us.

So far they haven't done anything but muddy the waters. Either they're trying to sabotage MLS in STL, or they're acting indistinguishably from a group that is.

STLrainbow wrote:Ray Hartmann has a piece up; as usual it's pretty good...

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... dium-deal/

I esp. like points 6 (traditional TIF-like structures is one thing, but raising taxes is another) & 10.

"As usual it's pretty good" You can't be serious!?

^ Yes, I'm serious. Is there anything wrong with the piece? And with his NFL stadium commentary? It was far better than most, especially the nonsense we got from the sports media.