urbanSTL

^ No doubt state support is off table but when you look at $40 million tax credit is really 30 cents or so on the dollar or about $12 million in cash. Someone can correct me. With any decrease in tax rate this coming year and your talking that the tax credits are even worth less on the market. To me this is where a politician can make himself look really good or grandstanding at best because he can tell easily the half truth and people buy into it. Greitiens issue of addressing state disinvestment is not living or dying on this particular state tax credit app. Unfortunately, but a different discussion, is the incoming Governor is pretty much taking the position of the statehouse has for years..

I also think MSL stadium is realm of doable by the city and the ownership group. Now up the ante with NFL stadium price tag and you are talking a whole different story. If anything, I think alderwoman is hedging her own words to be on the fence politically.

Personally, I think the city would be better with a combined MSL/Scottrade upgrade package when going to voters. Trying to add MLS stadium with some goofy job development/training language that doesn't specify how that money is spent is a much bigger issue if I was a resident. In the meantime, the city needs real support and help for NGIA infrastructure improvements promised and Convention upgrades from state and county respectively.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... b1462.html

chaifetz10 wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:I bet this has completely knocked St Louis off the list of MLS contenders. IMO, Greitens just singlehandedly killed this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. The STL MLS group's decision to play games and push for a high level of tax incentives even after the expansion fee was announced lower than expected is the real dagger. The ownership group (probably) has the financial depth and resources to get this done with minimal public support. The fact they want to gamble by playing the same BS games as we saw with the NFL stadium deal makes me blame them more than Greitens.

More true than not. Either way, St Louis will never be getting an MLS team. I strongly doubt the league will have any interest in us after this. A shame, really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chalupas54 wrote:

chaifetz10 wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:I bet this has completely knocked St Louis off the list of MLS contenders. IMO, Greitens just singlehandedly killed this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Disagree. The STL MLS group's decision to play games and push for a high level of tax incentives even after the expansion fee was announced lower than expected is the real dagger. The ownership group (probably) has the financial depth and resources to get this done with minimal public support. The fact they want to gamble by playing the same BS games as we saw with the NFL stadium deal makes me blame them more than Greitens.

More true than not. Either way, St Louis will never be getting an MLS team. I strongly doubt the league will have any interest in us after this. A shame, really.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm with Chiaifetz. MLS is looking for a franchise fee and a market not governors support where as the ownership group like every ownership group & developers will make a play for every incentive they think is possible. The question, is how badly does the ownership group really want to bring MLS to St. Louis? IMO.

With respect to potential support from the State of MO, I wonder how much different this MLS proposal is from others that go before the MDFB for tax credits... I think the MLS should be looked at just as any other business and if it merits support from their traditional economic analytical process, MO should provide it. To write it off just because it's a stadium seems like the wrong approach unless Grietens plans to never give MFDB "welfare" support for millionaires.

Also, while I'm not sold on the MLS stadium as the best proposal for the site from the city's perspective, I do think as owner Missouri should provide some support for returning the 22nd Street area back into a state ready for redevelopment and returned to a productive part of the cityscape.

https://twitter.com/chryssi/status/816001143922970625

Kind of difficult to be optimistic when there's still no financial proposal to review and I haven't heard a peep from the ownership group.

I mean when the stadium site alderwoman hasn't even heard from the ownership group or gotten details after she sponsored the use tax bill for the stadium how do you take the ownership group seriously?

^They would (should) meet with her because she is the sponsor of the legislation that will trigger a public vote on the $80M they want from the City. I would think they would want her well within the loop if they actually want that money.

With the prospect of no public money and a disinterested alderwoman, it frees them up to expand the potential sites, find more investors, or drop the effort. The East side across from the Arch might be a better site. Or Maryland Heights. Or Fenton. Or St Charles along the river. Maybe they need to get communities in a competition for their venue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'd love to see investment on the east side, if it is close enough it is still centrally located. Land acquisition costs could be much cheaper. But I doubt they would get any public money over there either, with the state Illinois and the municipalities like ESL and whatnot are in. It would have to be close to 100% private, and unfortunately, it is looking like this ownership group is taking a hard stance against 100% private, even to the point of potentially losing the whole thing.

Which is very disappointing. I've wanted an MLS team for a good long time.

Not sure how the relationship between public/private investment for the stadium plays a factor in whether the MLS wants to expand to St. Louis. They've vetted the ownership group and the stadium plan and from there, the MLS probably doesn't care who pays for it. Just get it done.

The most frustrating part of this whole deal is the SCSTL group's insistence that this is the only way it gets done. They set the arbitrary number at $80 million from the city - likely without much input from the city itself - and then it's viewed publicly as if it's a take it or leave it offer. What if, perhaps you engineered the stadium plans to put the cost more in line with comparable MLS stadiums? What if you reduced the amount needed from the city in lieu of the $50 million savings in the expansion fee (realized savings or not, they showed it in their budget to pump up the owners contribution)? What if you entertained the idea of bringing on additional investors to cover that cost, even though it probably means a smaller slice of the pie for everyone?

None of those are addressed and instead they simply present it publicly as a concrete number needed from the city and, if it fails we can all point the finger at the politicians and/or voters.

While I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is a good guy who has some civic progress in mind, if the best talking point he can float out there is the trusted "we want to bring people downtown" well, that isn't going to hold much weight. Bringing 20k downtown for three hours 17 times a year isn't going to do a whole lot to boost the surrounding area. If sporting events were enough, the 120 a year that the Cardinals and Blues bring would probably be sufficient.

Tax incentives, abatement of property tax, etc. those are reasonable concessions. To have an entirely new tax implemented with $80 million of public money earmarked for a soccer stadium is not going to win much support. Once the concept of that money coming in via a new tax is introduced, now it has to be acknowledged that it could theoretically be earmarked for other improvements and an MLS stadium is way down the priority list. Ultimately, if it doesn't make sense for the ownership group to invest in the stadium, then stop talking about ROI for the state/city. If the ROI was legitimate, the owners would be lined up to milk it for their own profit.

One other thing that bugs me about Kavanaugh's narrative - if he truly was looking to bring development downtown for the good of the region, why is his company's shiny, new headquarters being built in the middle of a pond in Westport Plaza? You really want to make a large scale impact on downtown, take a major employer and build their new HQ in the heart of the city, not a soccer stadium.

I still don't understand why the MLS2STL group cancelled the meeting with the state group (I forgot the name) that was going to give them tax credits before the end of 2016. If they really are that hard up for money, why pass that up? Who cares what Grietens says if he isn't in power yet. Whether you argee with the state giving money or not, to me it was a gaff to give up those credits which there is no way they get now.

jshank83 wrote:I still don't understand why the MLS2STL group cancelled the meeting with the state group (I forgot the name) that was going to give them tax credits before the end of 2016. If they really are that hard up for money, why pass that up? Who cares what Grietens says if he isn't in power yet. Whether you argee with the state giving money or not, to me it was a gaff to give up those credits which there is no way they get now.

^ well the ownership group is bunch of biz owners who will need to work with the Governor over the next 4 years, they didn't want to burn any bridges on that end before he even takes office.

^^Don't the tax credits have to renewed every year? That would make Greitens current position on tax credits, relevant when the renewal comes up.

Was Greitens firing an AR-15 in the air when he announced "no public support for stadiums and no welfare for millionaires"?

I wonder how many people who wanted this stadium voted for Greitens? I didn't but at the same time I'm more in line with him on this. There are many different ways they could have funded this stadium. The way the Blues are asking for reno funds for Scott Trade is easier to stomach because they are raising the tax 1% on people who actually use the stadium/opera house and the city is using a portion of the taxes they collect from the Blues for it. Instead of SC STL doing something similar along those lines they ask for straight city wide business tax. It's hard to feel sympathetic for this ownership group

The source of the revenue is the biggest sticking point for me. It's completely unrelated to the project and essentially means you're tapping a new revenue stream to pay for something that has a very good chance of providing minimal return.

I'm sold on the idea that sports franchises have a significant (and largely intangible) value to a city that shows itself mostly in the form of civic pride. But in this case, the ownership group is asking for far more than they need. It isn't the city's job to offset the ridiculous expansion fees the league is requiring. And the prospect of the city owning the stadium doesn't hold nearly as much value as it does for a true multi-purpose arena like Scottrade or even the Dome which can be used for a large number of events throughout the year.

odd that the stadium site plan includes the Harrys site and the stadium folk nor the City hold the option to that land

dbInSouthCity wrote:odd that the stadium site plan includes the Harrys site and the stadium folk nor the City hold the option to that land

Maybe it's odd because Peacock et all don't have much of a polished plan at all. To me, just further proof it's all half-a#s.

Then there's this:

Previously SC STL investors believed during and after the gubernatorial campaign that Greitens was OK with the plan, said vice chairman Dave Peacock, chairman of the St. Louis Sports Commission and a former president of Anheuser-Busch..

“We had been working with an adviser pre- and post-election,” Peacock said in an interview Tuesday. “We were under the impression our approach was a good one.”

Peacock said the exact same thing regarding the NFL stadium and the people he was talking to at the NFL. Why does it seem like this man is always talking to the wrong people?

^ I saw that yesterday along with the "impugning" comment.... pretty remarkable. Probably not a coincidence it was Kavanaugh I think who made the more cordial remarks instead of Peacock after the meeting with Greitens yesterday.

Greitens and SC STL are talking:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... 53aee.html

A forbes article about the current sports situation in STL which i saw posted in another forum.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/2017 ... 29e10b6109