urbanSTL

Here's another thought, and purely speculative... A major issue with BPV, and other sports-related developments in MO, has been and still is sports gambling. All pro teams look at gambling as a new revenue source, first from advertising, second from hosting wagering at their venues. BPV would be a perfect place for an off-track style venue for people to drop some money on a Cards game prior to the first pitch, as well as other games. 

I think it's highly probable that BPV Phase 3 would be underway already if sports gambling was legal in MO, bringing in a new revenue stream that would supplement other site-related revenues. With that, and pure theory: it's possible that its recent failure in the General Assembly compelled the developers to raise their requested rents for office space, e.g. Rawlings, pushing costs above what they would consider paying while furthering a development whose own revenues would be near constant. Therefore: No gaming, then higher rents; rents too high, so Rawlings goes to Westport. 

Looking ahead, I do see the biggest impetus to Phase 3's start being a drop in interest rates, lowering loan terms as well as raw materials costs. Once the FOMC lowers rates at least 50bps, I'd expect to hear news on Phase 3 shortly thereafter. If the State can get sports gambling, then I'd be a whole lot more confident. Plus, when considering the potential exodus of both the Chiefs and Royals from KC MO to KC KS, any new revenue streams to support new facilities development is now top of the conversation statewide. 

^I think this is a very rosy view to think the Cardinals would lower rents with gaming money pouring in.  With additional headcount may even raise it for retail. 

I sincerely hope we vote down any measure that includes video poker/arcade gambling machines. 

Yeah, I’ve seen them regularly as well.

But there in lies the catch 22, right? If they sell a stake to get funds that mechanism is available in banking/PE already. And they only need put up the collateral, whether team or property rather than sell it. So your proposal isn’t likely palatable. The idea of making them open their books to justify the “NEED” for public help means, in my view, they will never ask. Stan had to pay +$900m because the other owners got really itchy when their finances got subpoenaed.

These team owners relish keeping their private ownership just that, private.

The only way a team would EVER give up an ownership stake in order to receive public funds would be if every viable market locked arms in solidarity for the same terms.  In a free market they will always have a sword of Damocles to drop if they want to.

In fact the even if an owner WANTED to sell his team to a public entity I don't think its wild speculation to say the other owners would block it so this whole discussion is moot.

The real question will always be is what tangible benefit does have a sports franchise in any particular league have to a particular metro and if its stadium funding can you account for a benefit  of having a stadium beyond what the team brings to it (concerts, other leagues etc.)  From a purely dollars a cent perspective i believe the current trends are well out of bed with what makes financial sense for the metros and they SHOULD in many cases be rejecting the exorbitant terms that amount to giveaways to private entities.

^Which is exactly why i think the "make your books public to get public money" rule would have the same chilling effect.