Bills_06 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 8 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: New management blows. Took out Golden Tee. Whoever works the door at Fieldhouse has done a terrible job recently. The past few games it's like they aren't expecting a crowd and are understaffed so nobody is covering the door. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wgstl Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, Bills_06 said: Whoever works the door at Fieldhouse has done a terrible job recently. The past few games it's like they aren't expecting a crowd and are understaffed so nobody is covering the door. Cant even imagine the struggle next year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Bills_06 said: Whoever works the door at Fieldhouse has done a terrible job recently. The past few games it's like they aren't expecting a crowd and are understaffed so nobody is covering the door. Apparently, she used to be behind the bar. They need to send her back there. I had a big run in with her before the last home game. A real piece of work! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deutschkind Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Couple things: The Diablitos T-Rexes need to stay. Maybe they can end up in the dog park. Any word on whether the guy who owns the last remaining house near Diablitos has sold to SLU finally? They tore down the other townhouses recently, and I feel they want to use all of that land. It'd be a decent plot with Diablitos and the 4 townhouses. UCBC for pre-game isn't bad. Pretty_Ricky and I used to go there before pep band Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_06 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 John Ammann from SLU law has done a good job of getting SLU's name out there associated with preventing progress and updates to local sports team facilities. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/lawsuit-challenges-public-funding-of-scottrade-center-renovations/article_b86129e3-5c04-55ea-bdc3-5127b9200df5.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, Bills_06 said: John Ammann from SLU law has done a good job of getting SLU's name out there associated with preventing progress and updates to local sports team facilities. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/lawsuit-challenges-public-funding-of-scottrade-center-renovations/article_b86129e3-5c04-55ea-bdc3-5127b9200df5.html "Preventing progress"? You obviously know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. There is no pay-off for public subsidies, all the benefits are limited and private. There is no public benefit for subsidizing rich owners and not providing basic services to said public. Also, this is a private business and if it was profitable it would build and make all the facilities to the standards it wants or needs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cgeldmacher Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, kwyjibo said: "Preventing progress"? You obviously know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. There is no pay-off for public subsidies, all the benefits are limited and private. There is no public benefit for subsidizing rich owners and not providing basic services to said public. Also, this is a private business and if it was profitable it would build and make all the facilities to the standards it wants or needs. No benefit? So, the State of Missouri is actually not out the $9 million in tax revenue from not having the Rams ($150 million salary cap X 6% state income tax)? Also, the City is not out $1.5 million in tax revenue ($150 million salary cap X 1% City income tax)? Also, the State and City are not out the additional income taxes from all the executives, coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, field maintenance employees, vendors, etc., etc., etc? Drives me crazy when someone who reads one or two flawed personal agenda driven studies that only discuss things like sales tax (which you'll notice I didn't mention above), thinks other people know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. Putting aside the fact that the Rams were probably going regardless of the region putting money into a stadium, the State and City are worse off to the tune of $15 million to $20 million a year simply in lost income taxes. Stop being blind to the economic impact of sports teams just because you read an article about how revenues for local bars don't change much when government doesn't help invest in a stadium or arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills_06 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, kwyjibo said: "Preventing progress"? You obviously know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. There is no pay-off for public subsidies, all the benefits are limited and private. There is no public benefit for subsidizing rich owners and not providing basic services to said public. Also, this is a private business and if it was profitable it would build and make all the facilities to the standards it wants or needs. I am not going to act like I can rattle off all the ins and outs of the money Scottrade brings in but I can tell you it definitely has hosted a bunch of NCAA events (basketball, wrestling and hockey), concerts and other events throughout the year other than hockey. The ownership of the Blues is 16 local individuals and they continue to give back and help the community with their money. Right now it's reported that Scottrade generates 14 million in taxes annually with 6 million going to the city of St. Louis. The events generate 55,000 hotel room stays each year and they project it could increase to 75k a year with renovations. Other cities including Indy just down the road have newer buildings so St. Louis has to improve in order to stay competitive drawing these events. St. Louis was a finalist in getting the world cup of hockey here which would've drawn in a bunch of people to the city. I don't see how they can compete for events if they let buildings they own continue to decline. It is a 20 year old building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, cgeldmacher said: No benefit? So, the State of Missouri is actually not out the $9 million in tax revenue from not having the Rams ($150 million salary cap X 6% state income tax)? Also, the City is not out $1.5 million in tax revenue ($150 million salary cap X 1% City income tax)? Also, the State and City are not out the additional income taxes from all the executives, coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, field maintenance employees, vendors, etc., etc., etc? Drives me crazy when someone who reads one or two flawed personal agenda driven studies that only discuss things like sales tax (which you'll notice I didn't mention above), thinks other people know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. Putting aside the fact that the Rams were probably going regardless of the region putting money into a stadium, the State and City are worse off to the tune of $15 million to $20 million a year simply in lost income taxes. Stop being blind to the economic impact of sports teams just because you read an article about how revenues for local bars don't change much when government doesn't help invest in a stadium or arena. You probably need to divide this by 7. Players, coaches, etc. only had to pay 1/7th of their salaries towards the city earnings tax because they practiced, or "worked", in the county the remaining six days of the week. This is why some of the city's alderman were rightly arguing the practice facility should be in the city if the city was to fork over the entire bill. I think people also need to understand the difference between benefit and net benefit. Just throwing #s out there, but if it costs a city $1.0 million to keep a team and it only derives $500K in revenue, then there is no net benefit to the city other than a little pride and notoriety. So while the city and state might be out a little revenue for the moment, not having to make bond payments for the next 30 years on something that will be fully depreciated in 20 isn't so bad either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, majerus mojo said: You don't need he "Humphrey's" stained glass that could have been an awesome centerpiece of the replacement? Chyeah sure. I'll believe it when I see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Humphreys is attacking SLU big J journo professors Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, cgeldmacher said: No benefit? So, the State of Missouri is actually not out the $9 million in tax revenue from not having the Rams ($150 million salary cap X 6% state income tax)? Also, the City is not out $1.5 million in tax revenue ($150 million salary cap X 1% City income tax)? Also, the State and City are not out the additional income taxes from all the executives, coaches, assistant coaches, trainers, field maintenance employees, vendors, etc., etc., etc? Drives me crazy when someone who reads one or two flawed personal agenda driven studies that only discuss things like sales tax (which you'll notice I didn't mention above), thinks other people know nothing about the economics of sports facilities. Putting aside the fact that the Rams were probably going regardless of the region putting money into a stadium, the State and City are worse off to the tune of $15 million to $20 million a year simply in lost income taxes. Stop being blind to the economic impact of sports teams just because you read an article about how revenues for local bars don't change much when government doesn't help invest in a stadium or arena. The state and city collect nowhere near that kind of revenue (although apparently they do collect game day revenue on away teams). They are not being taxed on the whole of their income. St. Louis dodged a bullet with the Rams because they were offering the kind of money they were never ever getting back (particularly in present value). Also, the issue is not revenue it is NET revenue and ADDITIONAL revenue. In the absence of sports facilities people still spend money (generally the same) and cities collect the exact same amount of tax revenue. You also ignore all the costs (the bulk is the subsidy but a lot of cities spend lots of money on peripheral improvements which cost tons of money and make bad deals worse). As someone who is actually trained in economics I have read several consistent and well researched treatises on the scam that is sports facilities (Victor Matheson, Rodney Fort, Roger Noll, Judith Grant Long, etc). The best writer on the subject is the excellent Neil deMause. Now there are economic benefits to a well educated public (way more than any stadium could provide) including the ability to reason correctly that the benefits of sports facilities are dramatically overstated and the costs largely ignored. I suggest St. Louis spend more money on that so they can get elect smarter politicians and have a better informed electorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kwyjibo Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 49 minutes ago, Bills_06 said: I am not going to act like I can rattle off all the ins and outs of the money Scottrade brings in but I can tell you it definitely has hosted a bunch of NCAA events (basketball, wrestling and hockey), concerts and other events throughout the year other than hockey. The ownership of the Blues is 16 local individuals and they continue to give back and help the community with their money. Right now it's reported that Scottrade generates 14 million in taxes annually with 6 million going to the city of St. Louis. The events generate 55,000 hotel room stays each year and they project it could increase to 75k a year with renovations. Other cities including Indy just down the road have newer buildings so St. Louis has to improve in order to stay competitive drawing these events. St. Louis was a finalist in getting the world cup of hockey here which would've drawn in a bunch of people to the city. I don't see how they can compete for events if they let buildings they own continue to decline. It is a 20 year old building. The kind of NET extra visitors to a city and particularly the tax revenue generated is tiny compared to the public outlay of $100s of millions. The generally accepted experts think you need 250 events a year at an arena to break even on operating expense (maybe a few less if you get a lot of concerts as sports makes less money than better concerts) so you are not going to have any positive income when the capital depreciates so fast. Scot Kielvis is not getting that kind of numbers so they will not even break even on operating revenue--that is why they need to extort cities. The public benefit is even less as sports largely captures disposable inocme that would go somewhere else in the economies (so sports does provide economic winners and losers, its just that there is no public economic gain). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old guy Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 Now let's get real here. A set sum of $1.5 M / year in taxes may sound like a large sum. However it means nothing unless you compare it to the city's budget for the year. The same applies for the sum total of income derived by the city from all sports complexes. Unless you compare this sum of money with the total budget of the city you have no idea of the impact the sports activities have upon the income and well being of the city as a whole. Anyone wants to rise to the occasion and provide real numbers for comparison? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChosenOne Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 22 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said: You don't need he "Humphrey's" stained glass that could have been an awesome centerpiece of the replacement? Chyeah sure. I'll believe it when I see it. True, I was really hoping that would make an appearance at the new bar. That is a rather aggressive response to that woman's tweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, TheChosenOne said: True, I was really hoping that would make an appearance at the new bar. That is a rather aggressive response to that woman's tweet. She was one of my journalism professors at SLU. I think it was Audio Storytelling. Really good professor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slu72 fan Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I think most of you are right. Let the City's asset continue to fall in disrepair, lose outside events, and eventually the Blues. Knock it down, build another parking lot and complain when the region doesn't have job growth, because employers are going to other regions that do offer the things their employees desire. Its not about the economics, it's not about rewarding rich people with subsidies. The City chose to be in this business. You either are or you fall further behind. As long as other cities are willing to do the things they need to develop their regions, you do the same or you lose. Doesn't matter to me, I'm too old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 16 minutes ago, slu72 fan said: I think most of you are right. Let the City's asset continue to fall in disrepair, lose outside events, and eventually the Blues. Knock it down, build another parking lot and complain when the region doesn't have job growth, because employers are going to other regions that do offer the things their employees desire. Its not about the economics, it's not about rewarding rich people with subsidies. The City chose to be in this business. You either are or you fall further behind. As long as other cities are willing to do the things they need to develop their regions, you do the same or you lose. Doesn't matter to me, I'm too old. Cities and regions have to make choices on what kinds of investments are necessary to stay competitive. A dollar spent on a hockey arena or a soccer stadium is a dollar not spent on public safety, education, transportation, etc. It's true that we're probably falling behind, but our lack of investment in stadiums is not the reason. I think if you ask major employers (who, by the way, aren't typically the main source of employment growth) why they locate within a certain region, sports teams are at the very bottom of the list. It's also probably worth pointing out that in the same year St. Louis lost the Rams, the region also had its best year of job growth since the 1990s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 2 hours ago, cgeldmacher said: nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 -I wonder what it would take for Tom Stillman and his fellow investors to say thanks city, we can use the St Louis name on our jerseys in the building we will construct in Maryland Heights or Fenton or in what place we select and without our 41 dates we wish you good luck with the city-owned arena that we will very aggressively compete with for events? I am not saying they are thinking this, I have no way to know, but from what I have gathered from the media the Blues ownership group has been playing their hand very cautiously and yes I realize part of their math is coming up with 10 times the amount they want to contribute for renovations versus the cost of building new Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SShoe Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, Cowboy said: -I wonder what it would take for Tom Stillman and his fellow investors to say thanks city, we can use the St Louis name on our jerseys in the building we will construct in Maryland Heights or Fenton or in what place we select and without our 41 dates we wish you good luck with the city-owned arena that we will very aggressively compete with for events? I am not saying they are thinking this, I have no way to know, but from what I have gathered from the media the Blues ownership group has been playing their hand very cautiously and yes I realize part of their math is coming up with 10 times the amount they want to contribute for renovations versus the cost of building new A huge offer from the county and/or participating municipality to help subsidize a new stadium. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 I don't think there is any correlation between adding or keeping sports teams and job growth in any metro area. Portland, Raleigh, Nashville, Austin, etc aren't exactly hubs for professional sports. When they do get a pro sports team it is in response to growth that was occurring without any major league sports. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 10 minutes ago, Cowboy said: -I wonder what it would take for Tom Stillman and his fellow investors to say thanks city, we can use the St Louis name on our jerseys in the building we will construct in Maryland Heights or Fenton or in what place we select and without our 41 dates we wish you good luck with the city-owned arena that we will very aggressively compete with for events? I am not saying they are thinking this, I have no way to know, but from what I have gathered from the media the Blues ownership group has been playing their hand very cautiously and yes I realize part of their math is coming up with 10 times the amount they want to contribute for renovations versus the cost of building new About $500 million in public money and a bunch of tax breaks. Plus, the cost to break their 99 year lease at the Kiel site. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigMouthBilliken Posted February 21, 2017 Share Posted February 21, 2017 1 hour ago, billikenfan05 said: She was one of my journalism professors at SLU. I think it was Audio Storytelling. Really good professor. Not sure why SLU doesn't want bars near campus. They should have (if they didn't already) bought the blueprints for the Humphreys renovation project. They already serve booze at the Fetz and used to (idk if still do) sell at the Billiken Grill on campus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.