IMO, let the SC STL die then. Peacock and that group are rushing through a proposal and are trying to use the same city only tax mechanisms that this project needs to avoid. SC STL know that the City is pretty much the only entity in the STL region (excluding Illinois here because for some reason it's never discussed anymore) who would be willing to give them tax incentives at all. Now they want to put pressure on the city to pass it or it will fail?! The reason they're not trying to build it in the county is they know they'd have even less public money to play with. Ugh.
That's not what he is saying at all. Did you even listen to the entire interview? What Peacock said is that if they don't get public support then the deal doesn't make financial sense. They are investing over $300 mil in a team that won't be worth more then $150 mil. They are projecting the lose money for the next 10 to 20 years. They are looking at this deal for its long term benefits for both the investor and the city. If they don't get a partner in the city the risk is too high to proceed for the investors. Now that doesn't mean the deal can't be reworked in another location (county) if the MLS allows a new location.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2017IMO, let the SC STL die then. Peacock and that group are rushing through a proposal and are trying to use the same city only tax mechanisms that this project needs to avoid. SC STL know that the City is pretty much the only entity in the STL region (excluding Illinois here because for some reason it's never discussed anymore) who would be willing to give them tax incentives at all. Now they want to put pressure on the city to pass it or it will fail?! The reason they're not trying to build it in the county is they know they'd have even less public money to play with. Ugh.
IMO, from someone that is very invested and has some inside sources to the inner workings of SC STL. If this doesn't happen, STL will not get a MLS team. 100% private is not an option with this group at $150 mil expansion fee.
- 734
Dmelsh, was there ever an effort to talk to Stenger, St. Chuck, or Jeffco about helping out on this?
That I do not know, assumption is no. My understanding is they been working with City Hall only the whole time. Might have put feelers out to the county but didn't receive a positive response.whitherSTL wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2017Dmelsh, was there ever an effort to talk to Stenger, St. Chuck, or Jeffco about helping out on this?
- 1,792
The city can only afford to give what they can afford to give though. The city seems to have their head on straight when they targeted a revenue neutral contribution, so personally I hate to see it go to a vote. People tend to vote emotionally on issues like this. "They cut us out of voting on the Rams stadium so f them!" or "My neighborhood is falling apart and they want me to approve tax money for a GD soccer stadium??!!?" The people aren't equipped with enough experience or information to analyze proposals like this and they aren't detached enough to vote solely on sound economic principals of return on investment.dmelsh wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2017That's not what he is saying at all. Did you even listen to the entire interview? What Peacock said is that if they don't get public support then the deal doesn't make financial sense. They are investing over $300 mil in a team that won't be worth more then $150 mil. They are projecting the lose money for the next 10 to 20 years. They are looking at this deal for its long term benefits for both the investor and the city. If they don't get a partner in the city the risk is too high to proceed for the investors. Now that doesn't mean the deal can't be reworked in another location (county) if the MLS allows a new location.
The state who would see significant tax revenue from an MLS team, needs study what is a reasonable contribution to the project. As mayor slay said the state would see more revenue benefit than the city would yet they are saying they don't want to invest anything.
I'm not giving the county a pass as I'm certain they could get something out of it, but the economic bump they would see is probably pretty marginal. The best way to get them to contribute is through higher use taxes like ticket taxes. Even if the city was part of the county i don't think there should necessarily be a larger contribution, just a stronger financial position from which to make it since the county isn't as stretched on its credit for big projects as the city is. The regional boost is only so much. Just because you have a deeper pot of money to pull from doesn't mean you should spend more.
I also think SLU needs to be brought on board. Getting them to contribute or sign some kind of long term lease that amounts to a reliable revenue stream in exchange for reasonable use of the facility could make up a little ground.
PSLs could also be another opportunity for funding if the team would pass on that revenue stream.
The private ownership also needs to consider how confident they are in this investments growth potential. That they don't see this team as worth 300M+ within 5 years is a little sad. Several MLS teams have already exceeded that mark on paper at least.
Today could be the day that lets the People Vote. But I can imagine the BOA won't have a agreement today and thus we will have no MLS team.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,864
Agreed that the county wouldn't see a huge financial benefit from supporting the stadium, BUT isn't that a microcosm of the issue? If a majority of the benefits for an MLS team are purely intangible, then why should the city alone be paying for the region? Actually, we might be saying the same thing just from different specific viewpoints? Either way, the fact that the County and the State don't want to invest should be a major red flag for the proposed deal. If SC STL doesn't have the financial pockets to get a deal done without a huge subsidy, then do we really want them to be the ownership group? I'm tired of hearing the argument that this might be the death of MLS to STL. A bad deal is a bad deal and it shouldn't be rushed through because some fans in the county want the city to pay for their team.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Jan 23, 2017I'm not giving the county a pass as I'm certain they could get something out of it, but the economic bump they would see is probably pretty marginal. The best way to get them to contribute is through higher use taxes like ticket taxes. Even if the city was part of the county i don't think there should necessarily be a larger contribution, just a stronger financial position from which to make it since the county isn't as stretched on its credit for big projects as the city is. The regional boost is only so much. Just because you have a deeper pot of money to pull from doesn't mean you should spend more.
I also think SLU needs to be brought on board. Getting them to contribute or sign some kind of long term lease that amounts to a reliable revenue stream in exchange for reasonable use of the facility could make up a little ground.
Side note, San Diego has announced a $200 million privately funded stadium plan. How is it that STL can only work with subsidies when other cities are able to figure it out? Yes, the STL and SD economies are different, but SC STL can't claim that public financing is the only way stadiums get built.
- 1,792
Basically as i see it NO government entity, be it city, county, or state, should PAY for intangible benefits. If a private enterprise can't demonstrate probable real monetary returns for the public its not something the public should subsidize. Intangibles make giving up SOME of the real returns worth considering.chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2017If a majority of the benefits for an MLS team are purely intangible, then why should the city alone be paying for the region?
San Diego stadium is a joint-use stadium that would be the home of a future MLS expansion team and could also serve the San Diego State football team. So more events means more revenue means no public money needed. Can SLU use this stadium and bring football back to STL?chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2017
Side note, San Diego has announced a $200 million privately funded stadium plan. How is it that STL can only work with subsidies when other cities are able to figure it out? Yes, the STL and SD economies are different, but SC STL can't claim that public financing is the only way stadiums get built.
Soccer Stadiums like the one that is proposed here is a good size for a College Team. That's a idea.dmelsh wrote:San Diego stadium is a joint-use stadium that would be the home of a future MLS expansion team and could also serve the San Diego State football team. So more events means more revenue means no public money needed. Can SLU use this stadium and bring football back to STL?chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2017
Side note, San Diego has announced a $200 million privately funded stadium plan. How is it that STL can only work with subsidies when other cities are able to figure it out? Yes, the STL and SD economies are different, but SC STL can't claim that public financing is the only way stadiums get built.
- 118
Would be great to see SLU join this effort and start a D1 football team. Probably would be 1AA (or FCS I think its called now) which is good football and might eventually be what gets them into the right conference for basketball too (Missouri Valley).
Bill back on for Thursday. If this doesn't make it out of committee, STL will not get a team. Other cities are now moving pass us. This is the only time or no MLS in the near future and STL loses out again.
dmelsh wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2017San Diego stadium is a joint-use stadium that would be the home of a future MLS expansion team and could also serve the San Diego State football team. So more events means more revenue means no public money needed. Can SLU use this stadium and bring football back to STL?chaifetz10 wrote: ↑Jan 24, 2017
Side note, San Diego has announced a $200 million privately funded stadium plan. How is it that STL can only work with subsidies when other cities are able to figure it out? Yes, the STL and SD economies are different, but SC STL can't claim that public financing is the only way stadiums get built.
Well, San Diego State believe is public university so I wouldn't say no public money is needed. Is it a unique and better avenue? It makes sense to me to expand upon use.
Cal, UC Berkely, down the freeway from my new home has a $22 million dollar atheletic budget shortfall in part to stadium upgrades. The budget is being covered in part with public funds. Not directly, but $22 million is coming from somewhere in the UC budget.
If this funding bill passes Thursday, I'll be surprised. If it doesn't, the Board of Aldermen will probably be arguing for the next several years
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Unless there is some adjustments to the funding I'd say this bill won't make it through the committee
- 2,430
^ Not even sure there'll be a meeting... Ingrassia still says the bill isn't ready to move forward in committee.
STLrainbow wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2017^ Not even sure there'll be a meeting... Ingrassia still says the bill isn't ready to move forward in committee.
It's showing up for tomorrow's meeting now. I just don't get how they can think this is revenue neutral. No amusement tax, abated sales tax, and giving the extra business use tax to fund this. The 5% amusement tax needs to stay no matter what then at least if/when MLS actually starts getting up there in ticket prices the city can reap those benefits.
Now MLS is saying we would get at least an all-star game in 5 years, hurray! That was pretty obvious that it would happen. It happens with all new stadiums. Gotta show it off. SC STL will use that during the committee meeting I'm sure but the state application for tax credits already showed them expecting that as well so nothing new really
- 9,566
MLS allstar game isnt really anything special, its the best MLS players vs a Euro club....which really just shows how bad the MLS product is.
- 170
- 2,430
^ pretty much.... that's why we need a new tax to pay for it. And the bean counters aren't confident that that revenue source is enough to cover the bonds. As for Cards, no we gave that away for the new Busch, which is millions of $$ a year in needlessly foregone revenue. There is an amusement tax assessed on Scottrade, but my understanding is that revenue goes to pay off the bonds for the Peabody Opera renovation.
Makes me sick on how much loss revenue that is for the city with the Cards, especially on how much revenue they take in.
- 1,864
MLS is actively looking to improve the All-Star game and eventually get it up to the same level as NHL, MLB, NBA, etc. They want to eventually have an entire Fan Fest and associated events with it, but it's just not quite there yet. I could actually see the MLS All Star Game being a decent draw in 5 years if they get it up and running they way it should be.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jan 25, 2017MLS allstar game isnt really anything special, its the best MLS players vs a Euro club....which really just shows how bad the MLS product is.