urbanSTL

Jim Kavanaugh Speaks on SC STL, long interview.

http://stlouligans.com/archives/2427

^^"We believe this is the right thing to do for the community, but to try to get this done without public funding, would be really really challenging."

That statement in itself should concerning. Other cities don't seem to be having this issue with ownership groups not being able to pay for a stadium. Is STLFC not as financially strong as other applicant cities?

I listened to most of the podcast. I believe Jim K. was trying to hammer home the point, that most of those franchises did not have to invest the $150 million in expansion fees, since this is the highest expansion fee ever paid. They touted the fact that they are making a huge investment that those clubs did not make. This was in reference to those bringing up the fact that some MLS franchises are building new venues without public support.

SC STL also mentioned that they are local owners (besides Edgerly) that are doing something good for STL, for the right reasons, to help our city. They have no intentions on making a short term investment, nor is this decision based primarily on cashing in. This investment is being made to bring people Downtown, to bring MLS to STL and make a huge investment into Downtown. While the Rams hangover is fresh in their heads, they are not anything close to the Rams.

He also said that $30 million would be needed to prep the land for a stadium. That would prompt me to ask, is there a location that would be cheaper and easier to develop? That would knock millions off the price, if they could relocate the venue. While I prefer that location, I'd rather have a team play here in a different location, versus not at all.

It sounds like, from the interview, that their only strategy (for now), is to meet with Greitens to tout the benefits to him and to the State (uphill battle). If by some miracle, they convince him to back their plan, the challenge of getting City voters on board, is the next hurdle. As the plan sits today, SC STL's plan has a very difficult road ahead.

Aesir wrote:^^"We believe this is the right thing to do for the community, but to try to get this done without public funding, would be really really challenging."

That statement in itself should concerning. Other cities don't seem to be having this issue with ownership groups not being able to pay for a stadium. Is STLFC not as financially strong as other applicant cities?

Guess Nashville isn't a strong applicant either.

http://www.tennessean.com/story/news/20 ... m/95567466

State bill seeks to help Nashville MLS bid with stadium

Tennessee Sen. Steve Dickerson, R-Nashville, last week introduced a bill that would allocate state sales tax revenue generated from a future professional soccer stadium in Nashville to Metro government. This would include sales tax revenue from admissions to games as well as concessions, parking and other charges on the premises of the stadium.

The bill would extend the same sale tax treatment that exists for the Tennessee Titans, Nashville Predators and Memphis Grizzlies and their stadiums.

^ It looks like that tax money would come from soccer - specific revenues only, tickets, concessions, etc. That is a much better way to assist the project. Then only stadium generated revenues would go back into paying the debt. Novel idea!

DogtownBnR wrote:^ It looks like that tax money would come from soccer - specific revenues only, tickets, concessions, etc. That is a much better way to assist the project. Then only stadium generated revenues would go back into paying the debt. Novel idea!

Exactly and that would easily pass in St. Louis. I believe that's also similar to what Sporting KC did as well isn't it? Minnesota asked for property tax exemptions would of course wouldn't apply to SC STL as they don't want to own the stadium. I just don't understand why they don't reduce the cost of the stadium. Minnesota's is estimated at $120 million and San Jose just completed theirs for $100 million. SC STL has it estimated at $150 million while Orlando is doing a 25,500 seat stadium for $155 million while they bought the property back from the city. Reduce that number and ask the state/city to help with infrastructure costs and the total private investment amount would be similar


I think SC STL just overplayed their confidence in getting the vote approved and it was probably Peacock who pushed for it. If they would have done something similar to how Ballpark Village phase 2 was done they probably would have passed a vote easily. Getting voters to approve an extra sales tax on yourself while getting a property tax abatement would have gone a long way. I just think they were wanting to shoot for more funds when it turn I think it's going to completely backfire


edit: It seems like if SC STL would use some of the talking points that Nixon is using would have gone a long way, site is a mess and will require significant investment to develop. I'm just blown away by how terrible their PR has been
https://soundcloud.com/user-788359247/n ... s-comments

So the state economic development division reports the return to the state would be $24M on top of the $40M invested. And it looks conservative to me estimating player salaries that generate state income tax revenue increasing only 2.6% per year. Current player union contract requires 5%. But MO turned down a couple of billion in Medicaid Expansion for the poor because Rex and Show-me oppose all public investment. So I'm sure Rex will order this killed too, no matter how much it pays back the state. And KC side legislators who still get annual $$s for the Chiefs will rejoice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KC side still can remind us the $12 million annually the state is paying for with the dome. That still has another 7 years or so left I believe

It's truly fascinating to me that SC STL cannot see the position they are in. They've essentially anchored everyone to this $80M number. If they came out and said hey we actually only need $50 or $40 everyone in this town would rejoice, they'd get their money and the public would feel like "hey they asked for 80 and we only gave 50- what a deal!"

mjbais1489 wrote:It's truly fascinating to me that SC STL cannot see the position they are in. They've essentially anchored everyone to this $80M number. If they came out and said hey we actually only need $50 or $40 everyone in this town would rejoice, they'd get their money and the public would feel like "hey they asked for 80 and we only gave 50- what a deal!"

This

mjbais1489 wrote:It's truly fascinating to me that SC STL cannot see the position they are in. They've essentially anchored everyone to this $80M number. If they came out and said hey we actually only need $50 or $40 everyone in this town would rejoice, they'd get their money and the public would feel like "hey they asked for 80 and we only gave 50- what a deal!"

100% agree, maybe that's their plan and just waiting for the uproar to get louder before announcing it? Currently I think they just have their heads in the sand lol

joelo wrote:KC side still can remind us the $12 million annually the state is paying for with the dome. That still has another 7 years or so left I believe

I believe it ends in 2021. Not sure if there is an end date to the state payments of $5M per year to the KC stadium complex. Of course the $12M for the dome was more than paid back by Rams player and staff state income taxes, per MO Economic Dev. Division, which is why it seemed worth spending some bucks to try to keep the Rams. Not quite fair to criticize dollars spent to keep the Rams, but then complain about the dome payments -- unless you knew (with proof) that the Rams were leaving all along, as Donnybrookers love to claim.

As I learn more about the Minnesota United project in St. Paul, the even greater my dislike for the SC STL owners grows.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/02/26/fo ... structure/

Their franchise fee is $100M and they are building a $150M stadium = $250M total. SC STL's franchise fee is $150M and they want to build a $200M stadium = $300M. Knock that sucker down to MU's cost and the total is the same. And Saint Paul will be able to pay for it's modest contribution through on-site revenues.

Also interesting that the new stadium will be built not in downtown Saint Paul but in an area off the interstate b/w the Twin Cities that more resembles the old plan for MLS off 64 at Hanley.

^Minnesota just spent $598 million in public money on an NFL stadium and $392 million in public money on an MLB stadium. I'm not sure its fair to cherry pick projects as an example of how different cities fund their stadiums. Every project and situation is different.

^ no doubt the NFL subsidies had an impact on the local mood up in Minnesota, but nevertheless their MLS ownership shows that a reasonable plan that minimizes local & state contributions can be made in the good ole Midwest. But SC STL choose not to go that route and most likely will have to adjust if it wants to do this.

Good thing we as a city/state don't have to worry about funding an NFL/MLB stadium anymore. MLS stadiums are cheaper so that doesn't mean public funding percentages should increase because of it

^ Comes to mind that prospective MLS owners should be in an even better position w/ the NFL just having vacated as there now exists all that corporate and fan $$ available in the sports/entertainment marketplace... but instead of ensuring they come to the table with a proposal like Minnesota United that would limit public exposure and allow locals to recoup their contribution from on-site revenues, SC STL is seeking to raise city taxes. That's pretty brutal/ballsy.

^I'm curious as to why they didn't take the hotel/rental car (tourist) tax approach to help fund the stadium. I was doing my expense reports this morning and whether it is New Orleans, San Fran, KC, New York, etc. there are anywhere from 2-4 additional taxes on my bills to fund these type of projects in their respective cities.

^ not sure if this is true or not, but I've heard Enterprise has flexed its muscle in the past to limit car rental taxes on past projects... but if this is a City-only deal then I could see that being less of a factor as in the County.

Adding... according to this study, Midwest cities of KC, Indy, Milwaukee and Minneapolis all are in the Top 10 for highest travel taxes (mostly made up of hotel and airport car rental taxes)
http://fortune.com/2015/08/03/travel-ta ... -vacation/

STL is not on the list even though we have a pretty high hotel tax.... not sure if we exactly want to make the Top 10 list ourselves, but it does seem to make the case there is room to increase the car rental tax at least somewhat. CA and FL cities run the table on lowest travel taxes.

http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News ... axes-again

I haven't stayed in a hotel in the city in 3 years so no clue if that's true. I do travel to surrounding states often for work and would agree that Kansas City is up there when it comes to hotel taxes

I wonder how much a US v Mexico World Cup Qualifier game could make for the city? Also an actually World Cup game when the US finally get awarded one after the last few screw jobs.

https://www.nhl.com/blues/news/winter-c ... -285102498

The St. Louis Regional Chamber's Director of Economic Research, Ruth Sergenian, calculates the economic impact of the 2017 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic® could generate $18.5 million for the region. This estimate is based on the assumption that the 2017 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic® and the 2017 Bridgestone NHL Winter Classic® Alumni Game on Saturday, Dec. 31, will both draw 45,000 attendees to Busch Stadium in downtown St. Louis.

joelo wrote:http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News ... axes-again

I haven't stayed in a hotel in the city in 3 years so no clue if that's true. I do travel to surrounding states often for work and would agree that Kansas City is up there when it comes to hotel taxes

I'd swear it used to be worse. I worked at the Ramada Inn at the Arch for a summer in the 90s. We advertised rooms starting at $89.00. Guests were regularly somewhat alarmed when their total came to nearly $120.00 or so after taxes and fees. As I recall, that really was mostly taxes. I want to say nearly half of that was a hospitality tax to support the convention center. (And football stadium.) I have a hard time seeing any St. Louis hotelier supporting more hospitality tax. And Enterprise is doubtless a big enough deal to keep taxes down on rental cars. I think MLS2STL is rather too late to belly up to that particular trough.

This proposal is dead according to what the Post has just said.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk