Box and Won Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not sure, but I didn't think the City had any ownership in it. Unlike some other cities that fell for that model, they got a private developer to fund most of it. I'm anxious to see whether the boutique hotels over at the Chemical Building and the one next door work out. This is the third or fourth time they've tried to put one in the Chemical Building. I believe the city issued bonds to help finance the hotel, and the hotel did not generate enough income to pay the interest payments back to the bondholders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willie Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I believe the city issued bonds to help finance the hotel, and the hotel did not generate enough income to pay the interest payments back to the bondholders.The city issued the bonds which were partially backed by tax credits which were bought by a fortune 500 company . After a few years the company walked away from their payment and the bonds defaulted . It has since been reorganized with the bondholders not the city taking the hit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Not sure, but I didn't think the City had any ownership in it. Unlike some other cities that fell for that model, they got a private developer to fund most of it. I'm anxious to see whether the boutique hotels over at the Chemical Building and the one next door work out. This is the third or fourth time they've tried to put one in the Chemical Building. The city put in $74 million into the convention center hotel project. This article covers a lot of the details and an opposing plan put fourth by Schoemehl late in the process. The whole thing was a mess from the start. http://www.riverfronttimes.com/stlouis/no-sell-hotel/Content?oid=2475346 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Except the Dome is unique even among all large-scale urban renewal projects in terms of wastefulness and empty promises. No other city has ever given a team as quick and easy of an out while spending so much money as St. Louis did. And how many other cities have broken ground on a publicly funded stadium before a team is even lined up? It's probably more common than you think. Kansas City built the Sprint Center with no tenant; it's been teased as an occasional possible NHL destination, which is weird to me. Of already existing ones, the stadium deal in Cincinnati is probably a little worse in terms of overall cost to local taxpayers. And more are on the way elsewhere and in other sports. In terms of empty promises, though, I agree that the Dome is unique. I remember hearing about more conventions because of the increase in space - the opposite of which turned out to be true, as the NFL schedule comes out 6 months before the season and conventions take years to plan; so we were convention-free from August through January every year. Or all the development that was supposed to happen around the stadium and didn't. Or all the other events we were supposed to get - concerts (there were some), Final Fours (one and done), Super Bowls (ha!), and so forth. That's why it was so painful to see the City scramble to make another stadium deal with another list of promises that wouldn't have come true. Memories are frighteningly short. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Cincinnati at least made sure they would keep their team longer than 20 years. And, whatever you think the value is of a football team as a civic asset, they were preventing the loss of one they already had rather than desperately giving in to attract a new one. I understand the argument about throwing good money after bad re: doubling down with a new stadium, but that doesn't change the fact that paying the note on a football stadium with no football tenant was the worst possible scenario. That was going to be true whether the Dome was replaced with a new stadium or whether the team simply left, and it was inevitable from the very beginning. The horribleness of that deal went way beyond the standard talking points about the substitution effect and pro sports' overall impact on a region. Even though it should have been seen as the PR charade it was instead of a serious proposal for a stadium that would actually get built, the riverfront stadium plan wouldn't have given the Rams another out like the Dome did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbofive Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The Rammer has come down from the mount to speak on this issue. holy shi.t, dude brought it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufan13 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Who gives a ? The Rams suck. Football is boring. Fisher is a loser. The stadium plan sucked. The city will survive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 I'd like to see local leadership come out and say that STL has no plans to pursue another team or build a stadium, basically withdrawing STL from the whole future relocation charade. I don't know if anyone here has the stones to do that though. Fuock the NFL. http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt-and-politics/st-louis-mayor-slams-nfl-says-he-s-done-with/article_84fc433c-e0ab-5f5b-9250-9e5d5913fffe.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Who gives a ######? The Rams suck. Football is boring. Fisher is a loser. The stadium plan sucked. The city will survive. Apply the $150m in City funds to a new CBB coach. Enough should be left over to buy Crews out and throw a big party inducting him into the Billiken HoF to boot. Would have to do a public vote of course, but I don't see how anybody could possibly oppose it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnbj14 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Use the 150m to revive SLU football, then make an innovation similar to when we invented the forward pass. Or use remaining funds to hire Nick Saban and start football program out of pocket. Win championships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
milwaukeebill Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yeah, and it was stupid when Peacock said it too. But his scenario is not the one that came to pass. Now we're stuck paying the bonds on a former NFL venue without an NFL team to show for it. The anti-stadium aldermen are the ones who got their wish, so we'll see what they do about putting lipstick on this albatross of a dome we've got now. I don't know I lived downtown last year and it was far busier when conventions were in town vs. Rams game day. I don't think you'll see any increase in conventions in 2016. This is a fall 2017 play. I believe the plan has always been to renovate the center as soon as the Rams are gone to increase convention business. That'll be easier because I believe the county gives money to RSA and the RSA has some renovation reserves. Rest of the bonds are going To be refinanced as well too I think now that we know we don't have to pay for another stadium Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yeah, it's busy when there are conventions in town. You can tell by the groups of religious people and Asians walking around in packs. The trouble is there just aren't many of them, even when it's not football season. The schedule thing was an issue less than half the year. The refinancing was going to happen regardless of whether new bonds were added for the new stadium, but it's still going to be an albatross. Reminds me of the scene in Roger & Me with the old ladies' Scrabble convention being the only group that wanted to come to Flint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Pelican Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Yeah, it's busy when there are conventions in town. You can tell by the groups of religious people and Asians walking around in packs. The trouble is there just aren't many of them, even when it's not football season. The schedule thing was an issue less than half the year. The refinancing was going to happen regardless of whether new bonds were added for the new stadium, but it's still going to be an albatross. Reminds me of the scene in Roger & Me with the old ladies' Scrabble convention being the only group that wanted to come to Flint. Hey, I love Scrabble. Flint, you say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bizziken Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The debt service on the Dome is roughly $5 mil (including interest) per year for the next 7 years. You would assume refinancing would cut into that a little bit (like in 2003 and 2013), but according to recent estimates (which don't take into account the Rams departure) conventions would account for $23 mil in total tax revenue to the city...this would certainly cover the debt as is. Who knows if these estimates are correct, but there is definitely some room for over-estimate with those projections. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Box and Won Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Hey, I love Scrabble. Flint, you say? If you thought Mexican ice cubes were bad... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bay Area Billiken Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Has anyone seen or heard which were the 2 teams that voted No (in the 30-2 final vote) to Kroenke moving the Rams back to LA? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moytoy12 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The Rammer has come down from the mount to speak on this issue. Dear Rams, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hsmith19 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 The debt service on the Dome is roughly $5 mil (including interest) per year for the next 7 years. You would assume refinancing would cut into that a little bit (like in 2003 and 2013), but according to recent estimates (which don't take into account the Rams departure) conventions would account for $23 mil in total tax revenue to the city...this would certainly cover the debt as is. Who knows if these estimates are correct, but there is definitely some room for over-estimate with those projections. The numbers the P-D used were 21 conventions a year for $23 million in total tax revenue (including City, County, state). I'm still not clear on how exactly the County gets any of that revenue directly. Also saw somebody (I think it was Bernie) retweeting the claim that the initial projections for the Dome ca. 1995 ended up overestimating incoming revenue by 40%. No idea where that figure comes from exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billikenfan05 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 nm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMM28 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Has anyone seen or heard which were the 2 teams that voted No (in the 30-2 final vote) to Kroenke moving the Rams back to LA? Speculation on deadspin said one was probably Mark Davis of the Raiders for obvious reasons. The other is speculated to be Mike Brown of the Bengals. Because apparently Mike Brown doesn't want the league revenue to grow because he'd have to pay players more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
majerus mojo Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Mizzou announces details of NCAA review, vacates all wins from 2013-14 season, imposes postseason ban & more: http://vbs.cm/V0SrDa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pistol Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Speculation on deadspin said one was probably Mark Davis of the Raiders for obvious reasons. The other is speculated to be Mike Brown of the Bengals. Because apparently Mike Brown doesn't want the league revenue to grow because he'd have to pay players more. I would believe this. Bengals fans would, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianstl Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Mizzou announces details of NCAA review, vacates all wins from 2013-14 season, imposes postseason ban & more: http://vbs.cm/V0SrDa They already had banned themselves from the tournament this season by sucking on the court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo027 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 Mizzou announces details of NCAA review, vacates all wins from 2013-14 season, imposes postseason ban & more: http://vbs.cm/V0SrDa Well done posting this in the professional sports thread. What a hero. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MB73 Posted January 13, 2016 Share Posted January 13, 2016 They already had banned themselves from the tournament this season by sucking on the court. Should Anderson be fired, right now? 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.