urbanSTL

I like the model where the city draws a tax district line around the new stadium and parking lots and taxes only what is in that perimeter, as is being done for part of the Ballpark Village II funding. I'm not sure why BP Village doesn't just raise lease rates directly rather than ask the City to tax them, but I think, as a tax, the city and Cards cut the Feds out of some of their money, and then they split the loot.

This should be a "split the loot" deal all the way. The city should never lose money on a new development. But if it requires the city to provide some funding for the project to exist, and they make money only if it exists, then I can see why it would be in their interest to help pay some money in to a project as long as in the long run they get more out of it. In other words, make a deal to split the gold, but make sure it isn't a con.

^It would be great if the Cardinals were just asking for a special taxing district. However, they also asked for TIF and tax abatement. For a franchise valued at $1.4 billion dollars. If all goes according to plan, the City will make a relatively small profit over the next 10 years. But it boggles my mind, if the market demand is truly there, why the Cardinals are asking for more tax incentives (above what they have yet to tap from the original deal) at all.

Garber gives the timeline for expansion

http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2016/12/1 ... d-timeline

2 teams to be approved in Q3 2017 for play in 2020 - 150 mil expansion fee - will go to 200 million for the last 2

Garber has stated that the vote in St Louis will be big in the evaluation process

Now that the terms have been announced MLS2STL can hone their proposal - But a lot of things need to happen quick - naming rights for the stadium and jersey sponsors need to be signed before Jan 30

There are 10 cities vying for 4 slots - after this round there will probably still be 10 cities going for 2

This is dead on arrival.

https://twitter.com/Mike_Faulk/status/8 ... 6243895297

Q to SC STL: Does the $150M expansion fee, $50M less than anticipated, cut down on public funding?

Kavanaugh: "No it does not."

Worst answer I have ever heard. I can't imagine voting yes for this now.

^That's not a good look.

It's a different set of circumstances, but I'm not sure how much these guys are different than the greedy NFL bozos.

This may be a dumb question, but do they (SC STL or whatever potential ownership group) have to show the details of their projected financials for a project like this? I'm assuming no. And is there any sort of details on this deal yet that we can read? Do we pass a tax, help build the stadium, and that's the deal? Or does the city get to share in any of the revenue from the stadium?

I imagine there is some sort of financial study on their end for this that says if they don't get "x" amount of public money, they don't make profit (or enough profit to their liking). It would be great to know what their cut off is. Obviously they would never say.

The most successful MLS team is Seattle at $50 million a year in revenue. And 10 out of 18 teams are losing money based on this...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith/ ... 19e7796389.

^ As I understand it, SC STL has agreed to pay for any construction cost overruns and all/most maintenance but they are still working out things like rent, amusement taxes and revenue generation allocation. If these guys are going to ask for a sales tax increase and still screw us on those things I'll flip out. Not sure about sharing detailed financial projections with city.

Yea it's an instant no for me. We even have Woodcock, SC STL's spokesman, on record saying that their $280 million contribution is very generous. So at this point I say screw them. We've caught them lying. No better then kroenke at this point

chaifetz10 wrote:

joelo wrote:This is dead on arrival.

https://twitter.com/Mike_Faulk/status/8 ... 6243895297

Q to SC STL: Does the $150M expansion fee, $50M less than anticipated, cut down on public funding?

Kavanaugh: "No it does not."

Haa. Hahahahaha. Haaaaaa. This is an instant no to me now.

Instant judgement based on one comment versus waiting for full details to be released. Sounds like the new normal for the world. Guess I hoped better from this broad. Guess I was wrong.

Please we've been waiting for more details and each time more details come out it gets worse. First we heard the $80 million funding number. Then we heard they are asking the state for an additional $40 million (which in that application it states they were paying $200 for the franchise fee). We have SC STL's own spokesperson saying they are giving $280 million in private funds so I know they are willing to pay $280 million but their portion just dropped to $230 million. So instead of them saying we'll cover $50 million in public funding they just said nope. So yes I don't need any other details unless they want to change the details

^ yup. it was incumbent upon them to try to minimize public participation, especially when other counties aren't being asked to participate, but instead they chose to pursue the greedy bastard route... they couldn't even manage to say that the reduced fee gives some latitude. they are digging their own grave.

Honestly, I say we use the funds ($140 mil?) towards fixing up scottrade into a world class arena and try to attract an nba franchise. I love soccer, but we would be saving money doing nba instead


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ double-dribble! (not sure why this is happening so much.)

Are these people idiots? They have the gall to completely ignore, nay, laugh at Foundrys' offer for private money, now this?

They realize what this looks like, right?

Aesir wrote:Are these people idiots? They have the gall to completely ignore, nay, laugh at Foundrys' offer for private money, now this?

They realize what this looks like, right?

The arrogance is appalling and the entitlement should be its death kneel. MLS is not necessarily a top sport, no matter how their growth trajectory looks. They should be begging to come into our market.

Aesir wrote:Are these people idiots? They have the gall to completely ignore, nay, laugh at Foundrys' offer for private money, now this?

They realize what this looks like, right?

The apparent greed for public money is bad, but let's not pretend the Foundry's offer is any more realistic than an offer from, say, me.

I wonder if someone's going to tell them that this is flatlining. They apparently don't have a sense for these things. When you asked for $80m and the public pulled back, that should've been their hint not to push any further.
Its a shame Mayor Slay attached "job creators" with it. Like covering dog s*** with off brand Febreze.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

^ can you explain that "job creators" comment?

STLrainbow wrote:^ can you explain that "job creators" comment?

I *believe* he is referring to this being attached to things like the N-S Metrolink on the same ballot. However I think I saw yesterday a couple bills that had them split up.