Jump to content
Billikens.com Message Board
Sign in to follow this  
Bills_06

MLS 4 the Lou

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Box and Won said:

It's a way of acknowledging their constituents' needs and concerns about the issues that affect them.

I'm pretty much all for this deal and I think some of the opposition by the public (as laid out by sluletthedogsouts) is silly, but I have little to no problem with some of the concerns brought up by the BOA.  Call it grandstanding if you will, but the structure of these lease agreements is critical to ensuring the city is not left holding the bag in 20ish years if the MLS goes under or the team decides STL can't support an MLS franchise. 

It should be noted that we may still have the Rams if certain language regarding the stadium being in the top 25% of the league had just been left out of the lease agreement.  It should also be noted that the city had to spend a considerable amount of money upgrading Scottrade/Enterprise because someone wasn't smart enough 20+ years ago to ensure the tenant pays for the improvements and not the landlord.  

Cities get bad deals when they don't negotiate and/or ask for various concessions.  This deal is already very good, but not carefully scrutinizing a project of this magnitude is just plain stupid.  I consider it progress that city leadership is learning from past mistakes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

I've come full circle. I've gone from defending city dwellers/hipsters against county folk who complained and trashed the city for pretty much everything (while offering no solutions whatsoever), to now criticizing the city folk/hipsters for doing the very same thing. Kind of shocked at the amount of them opposed to this stadium/team. I get that the sting is still there from the Rams and that public handouts for stadiums, in general, are not a good deal for cities in the long run. But this isn't a normal deal. This ins't a public handout. The Taylor's aren't doing this to increase their bottom line. There is not 1 city in the United States that would turn this deal down. Not 1.  Funny thing is, there sure didn't appear to be much of an uproar in 2016 when the city approved tax incentives for BPV Phase 2. Or in 2012 when they approved tax incentives for BPV Phase 1. Or in 2018 when the city approved tax incentives for Del Boca Vista Phase 3. Maybe because those tax incentives went to a cause a majority of St. Louisans liked? Funny how malleable outrage can be, isn't it?

Sorry, had to rant. Please return to your regularly scheduled Tilk outrage.

no apologies needed good rant. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, SShoe said:

I'm pretty much all for this deal and I think some of the opposition by the public (as laid out by sluletthedogsouts) is silly, but I have little to no problem with some of the concerns brought up by the BOA.  Call it grandstanding if you will, but the structure of these lease agreements is critical to ensuring the city is not left holding the bag in 20ish years if the MLS goes under or the team decides STL can't support an MLS franchise. 

It should be noted that we may still have the Rams if certain language regarding the stadium being in the top 25% of the league had just been left out of the lease agreement.  It should also be noted that the city had to spend a considerable amount of money upgrading Scottrade/Enterprise because someone wasn't smart enough 20+ years ago to ensure the tenant pays for the improvements and not the landlord.  

Cities get bad deals when they don't negotiate and/or ask for various concessions.  This deal is already very good, but not carefully scrutinizing a project of this magnitude is just plain stupid.  I consider it progress that city leadership is learning from past mistakes.

Agree 100%. Although I fully believe Rams are still in LA right now even without top tier clause in the contract. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Slu let the dogs out? said:

Agree 100%. Although I fully believe Rams are still in LA right now even without top tier clause in the contract. 

You may be right, but that stupid top tier clause gave them an easy out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ol' ignore list just got a little longer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even the alderwomen who have asked some tough questions are not exactly against the deal.  Just doing some sensible due diligence,

If Bosley and the board of alderman had done the same during the 90s the “top-tier” clause would never had made it in the Rams lease.  The Rams negotiatiors flat out said years later they asked for it as a way of shooting for the moon and having something to give up during negotiations. Bosley and the city quite literally said yes to anything and everything with no thoughts to the consequences.

I’m glad they are doing their jobs and in a fairly sensible way and this deal should still pass easily.  The biggest threat now is SLU’s own professor buzzkill sueing to force a public vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ARon said:

Even the alderwomen who have asked some tough questions are not exactly against the deal.  Just doing some sensible due diligence,

If Bosley and the board of alderman had done the same during the 90s the “top-tier” clause would never had made it in the Rams lease.  The Rams negotiatiors flat out said years later they asked for it as a way of shooting for the moon and having something to give up during negotiations. Bosley and the city quite literally said yes to anything and everything with no thoughts to the consequences.

I’m glad they are doing their jobs and in a fairly sensible way and this deal should still pass easily.  The biggest threat now is SLU’s own professor buzzkill sueing to force a public vote.

That lawsuit would have no chance.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ARon said:

Even the alderwomen who have asked some tough questions are not exactly against the deal.  Just doing some sensible due diligence,

If Bosley and the board of alderman had done the same during the 90s the “top-tier” clause would never had made it in the Rams lease.  The Rams negotiatiors flat out said years later they asked for it as a way of shooting for the moon and having something to give up during negotiations. Bosley and the city quite literally said yes to anything and everything with no thoughts to the consequences.

I’m glad they are doing their jobs and in a fairly sensible way and this deal should still pass easily.  The biggest threat now is SLU’s own professor buzzkill sueing to force a public vote.

Tom Eagleton was responsible for the lease. He did the negotiating for the City, County and the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, brianstl said:

Tom Eagleton was responsible for the lease. He did the negotiating for the City, County and the state.

Brilliant job on that lease.  Good thing he was never involved in hostage negotiations or anything like that.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Box and Won said:

Brilliant job on that lease.  Good thing he was never involved in hostage negotiations or anything like that.  

Typical politician. Just make any deal and take credit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, stlwaino50 said:

Without the top 25 percent stadium clause the Rams probably don’t come to Saint Louis.

I doubt that. Just something they threw in and we were stupid enough to agree to. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, stlwaino50 said:

Without the top 25 percent stadium clause the Rams probably don’t come to Saint Louis.

They were coming here even with a sensible lease.  Georgia was from St. Louis and wanted to be here.  But area politicians treated it like we had 0 leverage since Civic Progress completely screwed up efforts both to keep the Cardinals and get one of the expansions teams.  Expansion teams that the league had all but earmarked for us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ARon said:

They were coming here even with a sensible lease.  Georgia was from St. Louis and wanted to be here.  But area politicians treated it like we had 0 leverage since Civic Progress completely screwed up efforts both to keep the Cardinals and get one of the expansions teams.  Expansion teams that the league had all but earmarked for us.

Revisionist history  - John Shaw said that the deal would never have happened without the top tier stadium clause.  Civic Progress did not screw up the expansion team bid - that was the two competing groups not wanting to work together.  Knight had the money and the guy who owned Grey Eagle had the Stadium lease. Neither wanted to give up their bids so we lost the team.  As far as the Cardinals go - that was a major screw up - by whom I am not sure.  The powers to be insisted that the stadium had to be in the City and when that was not happening, McNary offered to build it in Earth City and the powers to be said no and called Bidwell's bluff or at least they thought they did.  Like said that was the big screw up.  Bidwell really did not want to leave he just wanted a stadium and he did not care where it was.  Even when he moved to Phoenix he had wait 20 years before he got the one in Glendale.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Virvus Jones was the only city, county or state politician that had a problem with top 25% clause at the time of the deal. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Danny Mac had an interesting interview with our town's Taylor Twellman.  Bottom line is he would be shocked if STL doesn't get an MLS franchise.  He has spoken with 11 to 12 MLS owners, and they all want STL.  One reason is that KC has no rivals, and Chicago has no rivals.  He said Chicago is a franchise that needs to be fixed, and getting a rival will help.

He offered that the Columbus 'debacle' could mess up the timing.  If the stadium deal doesn't get done, then the sale of the Columbus franchise likely gets derailed.  The MLS wants this to get resolved first.  Austin was never on an expansion list, but due to the relocation clause inserted into the sale from the Hunt family, it has forced itself to be tops on the list.

He also said that the MLS likely will relook at the Detroit Ford's Field situation, now that the Atlanta United is outdrawing the Falcons.  He offered that Phoenix has plans for a $300 million air conditioned stadium, which will raise their status.

He said the Taylors and Kavanaugh need to force the issue.   As Nashville and Cincy did, present the MLS with the plan, and then the ball is in their court to react.  Twellman said the STL project is moving faster than the MLS thought it would move and maybe faster than they want it to move.

Bottom line, Twellman believes STL gets a franchise.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×