MLS2STL

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
First unread post1255 posts
.
robertn42 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:01 pm
STLrainbow wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:08 pm
^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.
From my perspective its unfortunate that a segment of the city's population was hoodwinked by the narrative of TeamTIF and a handful of aldermen/alderwomen resulting in a missed opportunity to add a regional asset and revenue generating project.

Dave Peacock essentially confirmed that the group has moved on in an interview with Tim McKernan yesterday.
No one was hoodwinked. You highlighted the primary concern of most city voters in you post. This was another REGIONAL asset that the city would have assisted in financing alone. You're right, it would've generated revenue. It would've generated revenue for St. Louis restaurants, gas stations in Fenton, and hotels in St. Charles. Yet, 11% of our regions population (40% of which is considered in poverty) would've been the only contributing.

Also, hosting STL FC games in Fenton isn't a great way to convince city voters that its a worthwhile investment. I like soccer, but not enough to drive 40 minute to Fenton at 6pm on a weeknight.
addxb2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:13 pm
robertn42 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:01 pm
STLrainbow wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:08 pm
^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.
From my perspective its unfortunate that a segment of the city's population was hoodwinked by the narrative of TeamTIF and a handful of aldermen/alderwomen resulting in a missed opportunity to add a regional asset and revenue generating project.

Dave Peacock essentially confirmed that the group has moved on in an interview with Tim McKernan yesterday.
No one was hoodwinked. You highlighted the primary concern of most city voters in you post. This was another REGIONAL asset that the city would have assisted in financing alone. You're right, it would've generated revenue. It would've generated revenue for St. Louis restaurants, gas stations in Fenton, and hotels in St. Charles. Yet, 11% of our regions population (40% of which is considered in poverty) would've been the only contributing.

Also, hosting STL FC games in Fenton isn't a great way to convince city voters that its a worthwhile investment. I like soccer, but not enough to drive 40 minute to Fenton at 6pm on a weeknight.
Good points. I can only hope that these missed opportunities drive us to work and think regionally. Anecdotally, I feel like momentum is building in this area and it is refreshing to hear area political and business leaders advocate for it.
addxb2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:13 pm
Yet, 11% of our regions population (40% of which is considered in poverty) would've been the only contributing.
Am I still confused in thinking that it would have been funded from various angles from the ticket sale use tax?

Please clear up for me if you can. I know there has been a lot of noise from both sides of it back in April.
bwcrow1s wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am
addxb2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:13 pm
Yet, 11% of our regions population (40% of which is considered in poverty) would've been the only contributing.
Am I still confused in thinking that it would have been funded from various angles from the ticket sale use tax?

Please clear up for me if you can. I know there has been a lot of noise from both sides of it back in April.
As I understand it, It was a two layered vote.

First, voters had to approve prop 1. Prop 1 was sales tax for MetroLink. The increase in sales tax automatically increases use taxes (I think thats what they're referred to as). That additional tax, which I think totaled around $4 million annually, would've been (and is being) directed to public services that already receive funding from existing use taxes. Voters said yes to prop 1, generating revenue for MetroLink expansion, which then triggered the increase in use tax ($4 million in additional revenue).

Prop 2 was seeking approval to redirect the use tax ($4 million or so) to fund the stadium and other smaller economic development projects. Voters said no, therefor all the NEW use tax money SHOULD go to the original public services.
I just don't have a lot of nice things to say about the MLS2STL ownership group. As Ray Hartmann said in his article, it might be unfair to expect this wealthy men to just pony up for the whole thing because that just doesn't happen, but these wealthy, supposedly wise businessmen did have other options. There were other ways to seek financing. They could have worked harder, used their influence more.

Instead they settled on a really awful funding mechanism, and lit fire to anyone who spoke ill against it. And once it didn't work, they essentially packed up their soccer ball and went home.

First they said they'd still be interested in bringing a team to town, they just weren't willing to make any adjustments to make it happen.

Dave Peacock is a great talker about St. Louis. Jim Kavanaugh is a good short-term thinker for the region and a solid proponent of soccer for it.

But these two are capable of doing so much for St. Louis, and they've repeatedly done less. I wouldn't say I dislike them, but when they start talking about ideas for making St. Louis better anymore, I'd certainly have trouble listening.
robertn42 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:01 pm
STLrainbow wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:08 pm
^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.
From my perspective its unfortunate that a segment of the city's population was hoodwinked by the narrative of TeamTIF and a handful of aldermen/alderwomen resulting in a missed opportunity to add a regional asset and revenue generating project.

Dave Peacock essentially confirmed that the group has moved on in an interview with Tim McKernan yesterday.
If the 4 finalists all could put proposals on the table without a sales tax vote then it my mind that's on the ownership group. Nashville proposal would have been fine even yet they wouldn't budge. My guess is their risk tolerance wasn't as high as the other groups and that's where we are at this point.
addxb2 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:57 am
Prop 2 was seeking approval to redirect the use tax ($4 million or so) to fund the stadium and other smaller economic development projects. Voters said no, therefor all the NEW use tax money SHOULD go to the original public services.
right, and people read this and go "see! it would have been paid for by the use tax!" without considering that the city would have had to take out a 60-something million $ loan (or was it more? 100 million?) and then *hope* to be able to divert enough from the use tax to cover the payments over a 30-year period.
For context, the annual St. Louis City budget is $1.053 Billion. The $4 million which would have been allocated on an annual basis to a civic asset downtown and adding social collateral to our region would have represented 00.38% of that. Our treasurer brings in over twice that amount in parking revenue and only $600k is turned over to the city.

Maybe, just maybe, any negative financial impact of the MLS project was blown out of proportion by a political group that has ulterior motives.
IF there was only a $4 million a year financial gap, why didn't the ownership group look at other ways to finance? People should really stop trying to blame the city and really question why the ownership group tried to rush the deal and only presented one plan for financial success.
robertn42 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:29 am
For context, the annual St. Louis City budget is $1.053 Billion. The $4 million which would have been allocated on an annual basis to a civic asset downtown and adding social collateral to our region would have represented 00.38% of that. Our treasurer brings in over twice that amount in parking revenue and only $600k is turned over to the city.

Maybe, just maybe, any negative financial impact of the MLS project was blown out of proportion by a political group that has ulterior motives.

Of that $1 billion. 48% is the general fund. So $510 million with $290 million of that being used for public safety (police, prisons etc). Basically the city's budget looks massive it has it's own water division ($50+ million budget) and city runs the airport ($150 million). So after subtracting public safety you have about $220 million in the general fund to use. Subtract from the rest of the city's operations and you can see how just $4 million is actually a good amount of money for the city


Parking division had $6 million in operating income in 2015.....before bond payments. They ended the year up about $2.5 million.
robertn42 wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:29 am
For context, the annual St. Louis City budget is $1.053 Billion. The $4 million which would have been allocated on an annual basis to a civic asset downtown and adding social collateral to our region would have represented 00.38% of that. Our treasurer brings in over twice that amount in parking revenue and only $600k is turned over to the city.

Maybe, just maybe, any negative financial impact of the MLS project was blown out of proportion by a political group that has ulterior motives.
For fuller context, the real budget is about $485 million annually. The rest of that $1 billion is for the airport and water facilities. And with that $485m budget, we're still unable to pay for many essential services. Also with that $485m we repeatedly fail to pay a $5m annual fund for affordable housing which is supposed to be tied to the, you guessed it, Use Tax.

We can talk about it being just $4m per year, but responsibility has to start somewhere. We're going bankrupt. We're not serving our citizens well enough. And it's reasonable to say that we can't just giveaway $4m and forget about it just for some entertainment.

And as chaifetz10 points out, this can go the other way too. Everyone involved in that ownership group does pretty well for themselves and their businesses. That $4m is just a drop in the bucket for their overall expenses as well. If they wanted to make this work—really wanted to make this work—it could have.
I just saw they are probably pushing back the announcement on team 2 until at least March now. Maybe this pushes round 2 back further and gives us more time to figure things out. Not that I am super optimistic but if they are having issues just getting team 2 then maybe 3 and 4 will stretch out.
Don't get your hopes up... This seems like they're giving Sacramento a bit more time bring in a new ownership partner.
Darn it.... I wonder if we missed the boat....

http://start.att.net/player/category/ne ... -bloomberg
I can't wait for the STL ownership group to reveal its plan B. With so much time under wraps now it's bound to be HUGE.
San Luis Native wrote: I can't wait for the STL ownership group to reveal its plan B. With so much time under wraps now it's bound to be HUGE.
Is that a joke or do you think they actually have a plan B. I'm clueless so I don't wan to get excited again.
Wait, people still believe that there was a "Plan B"? The owner's only had one plan: make the city pay. Once that plan fell apart (and for good reason with it being rushed through) that was it.
I think the plan B pathway was paved thanks to Cara Spencer's board bill that allowed them to leverage ticket sale for sports teams based on added ticket fees. Now, the real question... is the investment group willing to start a conversation where they add ticket fees to their ticket pricing to pay for their own construction.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... 0d7a1.html
courtland wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 11:45 am
Darn it.... I wonder if we missed the boat....

http://start.att.net/player/category/ne ... -bloomberg
There does appear to be evidence that team values are climbing rapidly - even more than expected. An 8.63% stake of Orlando City was just sold for $42.3 million. That would make the value of the club $490.53 million.

https://www.prosoccerusa.com/mls/orland ... o-city-sc/
rheights wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:03 pm
San Luis Native wrote: I can't wait for the STL ownership group to reveal its plan B. With so much time under wraps now it's bound to be HUGE.
Is that a joke or do you think they actually have a plan B. I'm clueless so I don't wan to get excited again.
Sorry dude, dry humor, sarcastic comment on my part not showing thru too well without tone voice... Thought everyone was on the same page that there is no plan B and the owner group was made up of a bunch of self serving a holes.
San Luis Native wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:20 pm
rheights wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:03 pm
San Luis Native wrote: I can't wait for the STL ownership group to reveal its plan B. With so much time under wraps now it's bound to be HUGE.
Is that a joke or do you think they actually have a plan B. I'm clueless so I don't wan to get excited again.
Sorry dude, dry humor, sarcastic comment on my part not showing thru too well without tone voice... Thought everyone was on the same page that there is no plan B and the owner group was made up of a bunch of self serving a holes.
Ha, I think my optimist side got the best of me thinking there was a chance the group wasn't a bunch of self serving a holes.
San Luis Native wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 6:20 pm
rheights wrote:
Wed Mar 28, 2018 2:03 pm
San Luis Native wrote: I can't wait for the STL ownership group to reveal its plan B. With so much time under wraps now it's bound to be HUGE.
Is that a joke or do you think they actually have a plan B. I'm clueless so I don't wan to get excited again.
Sorry dude, dry humor, sarcastic comment on my part not showing thru too well without tone voice... Thought everyone was on the same page that there is no plan B and the owner group was made up of a bunch of self serving a holes.
SMH. I get that a lot of people on these boards hate giving money to sports but wow.
dmelsh wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:05 pm
SMH. I get that a lot of people on these boards hate giving money to sports but wow.
Who said that a lot of us hate giving money to sports? I'm a huge fan of the Blues and Cardinals and give them plenty of money through tickets and concessions. I believe many people on this forum do the same.

The difference is that the STL MLS prospective ownership group drew their line in the sand and then walked away when the city refused to cross it. There were false arguments made, a rush to vote, and then they left soccer fans high and dry when they could have easily made up the difference through private financing. Look, if an MLS team was that great of a deal, why couldn't they have just found one more investor? Because that would dilude their profit margins. It was never about passion, but always about making a decent ROI through the use of tax dollars under the guise of another silver bullet project to fix downtown.
chaifetz10 wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:33 pm
dmelsh wrote:
Thu Mar 29, 2018 3:05 pm
SMH. I get that a lot of people on these boards hate giving money to sports but wow.
Who said that a lot of us hate giving money to sports? I'm a huge fan of the Blues and Cardinals and give them plenty of money through tickets and concessions. I believe many people on this forum do the same.

The difference is that the STL MLS prospective ownership group drew their line in the sand and then walked away when the city refused to cross it. There were false arguments made, a rush to vote, and then they left soccer fans high and dry when they could have easily made up the difference through private financing. Look, if an MLS team was that great of a deal, why couldn't they have just found one more investor? Because that would dilude their profit margins. It was never about passion, but always about making a decent ROI through the use of tax dollars under the guise of another silver bullet project to fix downtown.
Sorry, clarify that hate for cities to give money to sports.

If you thought it was never about passion you are mistaken, go down to soccer park and talk with Jim Kavanaugh (when he is walking around the parking lots greeting fans) and tell me it's not about passion with that guy. I'm sure he is only thinking about ROI in the USL. The man loves soccer and this city and would have made a great owner.

The MLS was a business decision, to this ownership group it didn't make sense without help from the city so they pulled out of the MLS and "Plan B" is to run the USL team. Soccer fans were not left high and dry unless you think MLS / EPL is the only acceptable form of soccer.