Question guys: How much money does the convention center bring in yearly? I was under the impression it was hundreds of millions, if the estimate closing the place for 2 years was ~500 million. I also thought I Read somewhere the CVC brings in close to 4 billion for the city in revenue annually. Is there anywhere I can look that up?
- 3,433
You could be right. I'm not sure how you determined that. But, I am on row L, 12 rows from the field on the East side, but nearly in the corner - section 120. - facing the endzone from the side. They can't add many rows in front of me without lowering the field. The only seats in front of me now are the retractable seats.the central scrutinizer wrote:They'll be adding seats between you and the shifted field. So you'll be farther away, but others will be closer.gary kreie wrote:As a charter PSL holder, I notice that in the new Rams proposal, my seats in the lower bowl would be even further from the field than they are now. Is this an improvement? They want to rebuild the East side seats further East, and re-center the field. I would think a top-tier stadium would go the other way, like the St. Louis Cardinals did, and get people closer to the field, nor further away. Unless you are just building some kind of monument, rather than a football viewing venue.
There is no doubt that the upper tier seats are much further apart, and further from the field, than in the current dome, since the west upper seats are not moving, and East ones are being rebuilt further East. At first I thought that was true of the lower bowl. But looking at page 5 of their .pdf, and finding the very faint thin pencil lines on the West side showing the current tiers, they actually propose razing the entire lower bowl and stair-stepping the club and lower bowl seating out, rather than stacking them. Seems like a place the CVC could suggest saving cost.
- 11K
I'm not sure where to find this, anyone? I can say, though, that lifetime revenue by the CVC likely isn't $4B. That perhaps is the stated economic impact of the CVC.rawest1 wrote:Question guys: How much money does the convention center bring in yearly? I was under the impression it was hundreds of millions, if the estimate closing the place for 2 years was ~500 million. I also thought I Read somewhere the CVC brings in close to 4 billion for the city in revenue annually. Is there anywhere I can look that up?
I can't help to think that a bait and switch or whatever you want to call it will happen with the state legislation that allows a vote on a 3/16 cent sales tax for Arch Grounds/Parks/Greenways. Somehow I think the dome improvments will get pulled into this.
Either way, I believe the community and region will look at the Arch Grounds and Stadium proposals as either or but not both as I have a tough time seeing the region committing anymore tax dollars to do both at the same time.
Either way, I believe the community and region will look at the Arch Grounds and Stadium proposals as either or but not both as I have a tough time seeing the region committing anymore tax dollars to do both at the same time.
I really hope it's more like the Minnesota situation where it doesn't go to a public vote, or else the Rams will probably leave.dredger wrote:I can't help to think that a bait and switch or whatever you want to call it will happen with the state legislation that allows a vote on a 3/16 cent sales tax for Arch Grounds/Parks/Greenways. Somehow I think the dome improvments will get pulled into this.
Either way, I believe the community and region will look at the Arch Grounds and Stadium proposals as either or but not both as I have a tough time seeing the region committing anymore tax dollars to do both at the same time.
- 11K
Interesting take. I don't see the two being lumped together at all, but the discussion about regional priorities will be interesting. For the $720M stadium in Indy, seven counties, all but one in the Metro area, raised taxes/fees to support the building of the stadium. If something like that were to happen here, the "buying power" of the region would grow significantly. Currently the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County pay $6M annually to pay for the dome. The state pays $12M. What if these each increased a little and five-six additional counties contributed ~$6-8M each? This is how big stadium deals get done and I don't think the STL region can do it. If that's the case, the Rams need to go as it simply can't be the responsibility of 1.3M people in a region of 2.8M to pay for a pro sports team.dredger wrote:I can't help to think that a bait and switch or whatever you want to call it will happen with the state legislation that allows a vote on a 3/16 cent sales tax for Arch Grounds/Parks/Greenways. Somehow I think the dome improvments will get pulled into this.
Either way, I believe the community and region will look at the Arch Grounds and Stadium proposals as either or but not both as I have a tough time seeing the region committing anymore tax dollars to do both at the same time.
- 2,386
^ 
newstl2020 wrote: Looking through the comments on StLtoday really irked me last night. (I know, I know)
All these people complaining about using "my" tax money for the stadium. If I have my facts straight, aren't the city and St. Louis county (ie inside 270) the only ones currently paying for the stadium? (along with the state, of course) The new deal MUST include funding from the outer counties as well, as there have been massive demographic shifts. Jeff Co and St. Charles simply MUST pay their share of any new stadium deal. It doesn't even have to be the same amount as the city and county, but they MUST contribute SOMETHING.
These people sit out in the ex-urbs contributing nothing to the ZMD or the local stadiums that we have for our sports teams, pay no city earnings tax, etc etc and still utilize all of the amenities and it just is not fair or just. On top of this all they have the gall to not contribute anything and complain about f***ing gas prices when we don't even tax them on that. This HAS to end in with these new improvements. They have free-loaded for far too long, and it is time to start being a contributing member of the metro area.
- 2,929
Two funding variables are out there we're not talking about much...
First is the NFL itself, specifically the "G4 Financing" program. Here's some background on how G4 works from the website FootballPhDs.com:
The Rams do qualify for this, as it's a stadium renovation with public-private backing, therefore making it theoretically eligible for up to $250M in NFL-backed funding to be repaid by the team's future revenues (sounds almost like a TIF). Noting the NFL's super revenues from TV contracts (greater than $7B annually), they have plenty of cash. Plus, allocations are made on a case-by-case basis. So, if the NFL really is committed to the NFL remaining in STL, then they'll be more apt to allocate generously.
The second outside revenue sourcing could be more of a reach, but - check out the marking for the southeast corner:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nextstl/7197608368/
The new southeast base would include the access tunnel to the Lumiere Casino. Yes, that's direct access to a casino from an NFL stadium! Totally unprecedented. And yeah, that'll cost Pinnacle some money. I wonder, how much? Could it be enough to make a reasonable contribution to new casino construction?
Personally, I foresee some form of this being built along pretty even allocations between the Rams, the NFL, and the City/County/State, as well as taxes on tickets going up. If we could throw in Pinnacle money towards this, that'll only help.
First is the NFL itself, specifically the "G4 Financing" program. Here's some background on how G4 works from the website FootballPhDs.com:
Source: http://www.footballphds.com/2011/12/15/ ... financing/"Son of G3 Financing" Becomes G4 Financing
G3 financing was the NFL's old stadium financing program. It had been established in 1999 under NFL Resolution G-3 to help teams finance the construction of new stadiums and was subsequently extended in 2003. But monies under the G3 program had become depleted with the last wave of new stadium construction that included MetLife (New Meadowlands) Stadium and Cowboys Stadium. Previously, G3 funds had been capped at $150 million per team.
Under the newest Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) signed this year between the NFL Owners and NFL Players Association, a provision for revenue credits was included in the CBA that amounted to stadium credits of 1.5% of total league revenue. Yesterday, the NFL owners approved more specific language in NFL Resolution G-4 that could bring the total amount available per team for new stadium construction to $200 million. Specifics of G4 financing from the NFL include:
1. Up to $200 million for new stadium construction;
2. Up to $250 million for stadium renovation;
3. Repayment of G4 financing by the team over 15 years through revenues related to premium seating;
4. G4 loans to teams will be determined on a case-by-case basis by the NFL;
5. G4 loans are available to only public-private stadium projects.
Effects of G4 Financing
The first stadium that will likely draw upon G4 financing will be Santa Clara Stadium, which will be the future home of the San Francisco 49ers. Although we do not believe that G4 financing will curb the City of Santa Clara's debt burden, G4 financing will help cover cost overruns, particularly since cost overruns will be the responsibility of the San Francisco 49ers.
The Minnesota Vikings will likely be the second team to tap G4 financing for either a planned stadium in Ramsey County or Minneapolis, once the legislature and Vikings reach an agreement on site location and financing details.
Meanwhile, neither Farmers Field nor Los Angeles Stadium is immediately affected by G4 financing, since neither stadium has significant financing issues. Rather, Farmers Field and Los Angeles Stadium are focused on obtaining anchor tenants for their competing projects. Both stadium projects will have sufficient financial backing even without a full $200 million G4 commitment.
And applicable to all new stadiums, G4 financing cements premium seating and Personal Seat Licenses (PSLs) as the preferred way to effectively finance new stadiums, since both elements are used to repay stadium loans. Stadiums that are not planning on utilizing PSLs, such as the planned East Village Stadium for the San Diego Chargers, will have a much harder time coming to fruition.
The Rams do qualify for this, as it's a stadium renovation with public-private backing, therefore making it theoretically eligible for up to $250M in NFL-backed funding to be repaid by the team's future revenues (sounds almost like a TIF). Noting the NFL's super revenues from TV contracts (greater than $7B annually), they have plenty of cash. Plus, allocations are made on a case-by-case basis. So, if the NFL really is committed to the NFL remaining in STL, then they'll be more apt to allocate generously.
The second outside revenue sourcing could be more of a reach, but - check out the marking for the southeast corner:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nextstl/7197608368/
The new southeast base would include the access tunnel to the Lumiere Casino. Yes, that's direct access to a casino from an NFL stadium! Totally unprecedented. And yeah, that'll cost Pinnacle some money. I wonder, how much? Could it be enough to make a reasonable contribution to new casino construction?
Personally, I foresee some form of this being built along pretty even allocations between the Rams, the NFL, and the City/County/State, as well as taxes on tickets going up. If we could throw in Pinnacle money towards this, that'll only help.
- 2,386
^I posted about the G4 fund a page or two back, GC. Going off the Viking's model, they agreed to pay 50% of the stadium cost. The NFL's G4 contribution was included in their 50% contribution, as the team technically pays this off as opposed to taking the revenue (interest free loan).
So, if the Rams could indeed get $250M from the program, that would leave Stan paying $100 to get to $350M. It would be amazing if he felt like being generous and going beyond that, but I certainly would not count on it.
(Also noted was that the CVC has $80M saved. Are there any sources to corroborate this?)
Your Lumiere Place idea is interesting, but I wonder why they would pay the Rams more money beyond your average sponsorship agreements. The tunnell is existing and has already been built. I don't think they would close it or move it, and I don't think they would "owe" the Rams any money for having the tunnell there. Do you mean the city imposing more taxes on their revenue for their proximity? The tunnell is already right across the street as it is...
So, if the Rams could indeed get $250M from the program, that would leave Stan paying $100 to get to $350M. It would be amazing if he felt like being generous and going beyond that, but I certainly would not count on it.
(Also noted was that the CVC has $80M saved. Are there any sources to corroborate this?)
Your Lumiere Place idea is interesting, but I wonder why they would pay the Rams more money beyond your average sponsorship agreements. The tunnell is existing and has already been built. I don't think they would close it or move it, and I don't think they would "owe" the Rams any money for having the tunnell there. Do you mean the city imposing more taxes on their revenue for their proximity? The tunnell is already right across the street as it is...
- 2,386
Ah so that makes sense. Make Lumiere pay big $$ to have the tunnell literally connect inside the stadium. Gotcha.
- 2,929
^There we go. Considering that no major pro sports teams are ever going to be based in Las Vegas for the specter of sports gambling, having an NFL stadium lead directly into a casino is monstrous. And, I'd assume, expensive.
I had read your work on the G4, and I dig it. But, for this scenario, I think the NFL could consider putting forth money to promote the stadium without having it be considered part of the team's contributions.
Quid pro quo: The NFL wants the Rams in STL. The Rams are owned by a billionaire and are the ones seeking these expensive improvements. Meanwhile, STL is a poor city. The country is still in the "Great Recession" (more like a Depression). The NFL can use G4 to subsidize the stadium construction costs, doing so on an individual basis based on need, which would keep the Rams in STL like the NFL wants.
If STL can only pay a fractional share of the costs, and the billionaire can pay much more out of personal wealth, then why would the NFL use its third party contributions to reduce the amount owed by the billionaire owner?
Instead, I see the Rams, the NFL, and the City/County/State being near-even contributors towards the costs.
As for the $95M amount, I think I got it out of a Post-Dispatch story, but I don't remember my source at this second. Will verify.
I had read your work on the G4, and I dig it. But, for this scenario, I think the NFL could consider putting forth money to promote the stadium without having it be considered part of the team's contributions.
Quid pro quo: The NFL wants the Rams in STL. The Rams are owned by a billionaire and are the ones seeking these expensive improvements. Meanwhile, STL is a poor city. The country is still in the "Great Recession" (more like a Depression). The NFL can use G4 to subsidize the stadium construction costs, doing so on an individual basis based on need, which would keep the Rams in STL like the NFL wants.
If STL can only pay a fractional share of the costs, and the billionaire can pay much more out of personal wealth, then why would the NFL use its third party contributions to reduce the amount owed by the billionaire owner?
Instead, I see the Rams, the NFL, and the City/County/State being near-even contributors towards the costs.
As for the $95M amount, I think I got it out of a Post-Dispatch story, but I don't remember my source at this second. Will verify.
- 2,386
^Sorry, the $80M I was referencing was posted by rawest (I think) a while back. Should have clarified. However, if you saw $95M and that is legit that is awesome! Should make this MUCH more doable.
Re G4 again: Just judging from my way too extensive experience with the stadium situation up here in Minneapolis, the owner (Wilf) was asked if he thought his contribution was enough or fair after the bill was signed. He basically took the stance that his contribution was/is the full $477M the team and NFL are contributing. Paraphrasing - "My money/revenue is paying back he loan, therefore this is my money, not the NFL. They are just providing it up front. The NFL is not paying for the stadium, I am." He obviously put it slightly differently, but the point was clear. He is considering that his contribution as the team is paying it back, and therefore thinks he did more than enough.
While Stan K has significantly more $$ than Zygi Wilf, I wouldn't be surprised to see him take a very similar stance regarding the fund, and by extension any further contribution he would make beyond that. I do not know what the NFL bylaws are regarding the fund, but from my understanding they have to offer the "loan" to the franchise, and not the city. Therefore I don't think they could effectively provide "charity" to the city in order to ensure the deal gets done. I am sure they could politely ask Stan to pony up more cash to help out, but beyond that I would think their hands would be tied.
Of course, they could always tell Stan that they would flat out reject the Rams moving anywhere, which I am SURE he would not take kindly to, thereby forcing him to pay more to get the rehab done. This would be pretty much unprecedented, however. And he could always just say no improvements, sign a lease for 500 years and dump the team just to spite the NFL
Re G4 again: Just judging from my way too extensive experience with the stadium situation up here in Minneapolis, the owner (Wilf) was asked if he thought his contribution was enough or fair after the bill was signed. He basically took the stance that his contribution was/is the full $477M the team and NFL are contributing. Paraphrasing - "My money/revenue is paying back he loan, therefore this is my money, not the NFL. They are just providing it up front. The NFL is not paying for the stadium, I am." He obviously put it slightly differently, but the point was clear. He is considering that his contribution as the team is paying it back, and therefore thinks he did more than enough.
While Stan K has significantly more $$ than Zygi Wilf, I wouldn't be surprised to see him take a very similar stance regarding the fund, and by extension any further contribution he would make beyond that. I do not know what the NFL bylaws are regarding the fund, but from my understanding they have to offer the "loan" to the franchise, and not the city. Therefore I don't think they could effectively provide "charity" to the city in order to ensure the deal gets done. I am sure they could politely ask Stan to pony up more cash to help out, but beyond that I would think their hands would be tied.
Of course, they could always tell Stan that they would flat out reject the Rams moving anywhere, which I am SURE he would not take kindly to, thereby forcing him to pay more to get the rehab done. This would be pretty much unprecedented, however. And he could always just say no improvements, sign a lease for 500 years and dump the team just to spite the NFL
this is stated elsewhere in the forum but the new stadium must be good news for at least part of City to River's vision. Even if we're stuck with the trench, the elevated lanes would almost certainly need to be removed under this proposal.
^ I don't believe that is the case under this proposal. This simply move N. Broadway to the East to the point where it is essentially a frontage road.
Still hoping that someone embraces the idea removing the raised section of I-70 through the process, through the study that is being undertaken or even McKee who became the major stakeholder of Bottleworks. Someone, anyone, who will have influence and a stake. At this point it seems to be a no-brainer when the Rams throws out the proposal that they did.
Still hoping that someone embraces the idea removing the raised section of I-70 through the process, through the study that is being undertaken or even McKee who became the major stakeholder of Bottleworks. Someone, anyone, who will have influence and a stake. At this point it seems to be a no-brainer when the Rams throws out the proposal that they did.
- 11K
The Ram's proposal closed Broadway next to the stadium and simply puts traffic on existing 4th Street.
Financing football stadiums
Bread, circuses and leather balls
Gouging taxpayers for sport
http://www.economist.com/node/21555606?frsc=dg|a
Bread, circuses and leather balls
Gouging taxpayers for sport
http://www.economist.com/node/21555606?frsc=dg|a
Of the 20 stadiums built since the Georgia Dome opened, four have been privately financed. Of the rest, the average public share is 73% of the total cost. Often the public money comes from hotel or rental-car taxes (the former in Atlanta’s case), giving legislators the appealing option of picking visitors’ pockets rather than those of their constituents. Evidence that publicly financed stadiums generate significant economic development is shaky, particularly when the stadium houses an existing team rather than one new to the city.
- 3,433
I was just thinking, why don't we tax the Gateway Arch users to pay for the improvements to the Arch grounds? That way we'd be taxing visitors. If it is OK to use a local tax to fix National Park Property, then should it not be OK to tax national visitors to improve a local monument? A $5 tax per visitor * 1 million visitors for 30 years would generate $150,000,000.
- 2,386
This is going to be a very interesting dilemma for MO voters. Either A - Pay tax to subsidize national park land that should be funded by the Federal Government or B - Pay tax to subsidize a billionaire private citizen with an NFL team. (Or I guess C - neither. Probably most likely from MO voters)
If they both come down to a vote, that is.
If they both come down to a vote, that is.
I cannot get over how idiotic this aspect of the proposal is.Alex Ihnen wrote:The Ram's proposal closed Broadway next to the stadium and simply puts traffic on existing 4th Street.
Rams Employee: "Let's pour $700M into a new stadium with an all glass Eastern facade and have it look directly into a multi-story interstate deck."
City/MoDot Official: "Brilliant!"
- 3,433
Since I am a Rams Charter PSL holder and hence have purchased 2 Season tickets every year since 1995, I read the Rams proposal to see what it would do for me specifically. Maybe the Rams acutally did dial back a little to try to create something that the CVC and the Rams could use as a starting point to get to a compromise. I say this because a few things I was hoping the Rams might propose -- as a reasonable request for fans -- are not in their proposal. Things that would make my experience in Section 120, Row L, Seats 7 & 8 more comfortable and enoyable, are not in the Rams proposal.
1. Seats are no bigger, no better. The proposal says:
3. Seats are red, not blue. The Rams did not ask for blue seats -- even in the totally new and rebuilt sections. In fact, they could re-use the old red seats.
4. The lower bowl South end concourse is way too narrow and very dark. The Rams did not propose improving that at all. The architects of the current dome centered the arena on the property without planning for space for the large South End egress ramps. So the current South End concourse and concession area under the stands is very narrow and dark. The new Rams proposal doesn't fix this as near as I can tell from the plans.
5. On the plus side (?) My currents seats -- currently the first non-retractable row -- have no cup holders. The Rams propose making my row one of the retractable rows, which presumably would include a cup holder in the armrest.
So out of all this, I think I get nothing more than a field-size lid that opens, on nice days, for some sunlight -- and a cupholder. Indy fans say theirs was only opened for 2 games, and it was so hot that the fans wanted it closed again. Am I missing something here? Is this not for the fans?
1. Seats are no bigger, no better. The proposal says:
- 33" treads with 19" seat widths, consistent with the existing general seating in the retained portions of the Edward Jones Dome.
- Plastic back and plastic seat design
- Chair back drink holders with dual ad panels
3. Seats are red, not blue. The Rams did not ask for blue seats -- even in the totally new and rebuilt sections. In fact, they could re-use the old red seats.
4. The lower bowl South end concourse is way too narrow and very dark. The Rams did not propose improving that at all. The architects of the current dome centered the arena on the property without planning for space for the large South End egress ramps. So the current South End concourse and concession area under the stands is very narrow and dark. The new Rams proposal doesn't fix this as near as I can tell from the plans.
5. On the plus side (?) My currents seats -- currently the first non-retractable row -- have no cup holders. The Rams propose making my row one of the retractable rows, which presumably would include a cup holder in the armrest.
So out of all this, I think I get nothing more than a field-size lid that opens, on nice days, for some sunlight -- and a cupholder. Indy fans say theirs was only opened for 2 games, and it was so hot that the fans wanted it closed again. Am I missing something here? Is this not for the fans?
- 2,386
^St. Charles residents will probably vote to build them a brand new $300M stadium.
- 11K
I think it's a great location. Any event with 60K people that occurs 8x a year shouldn't be in a downtown or central city.