cheeseman Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Clock_Tower said: Hard to see how allowing a unknown transportation board to quietly approve the previously discussed public funds, a relative nominal amount, for real changes to the underused, existing infrastructure would have alienated him with rural voters. The ownership group is bringing professional soccer to town, instantly creating a rival with KC and privately building the stadium. The issue is not rural voters but the political leaders in those rural areas. They really only seethe two metro areas as a cash register for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, cheeseman said: The issue is not rural voters but the political leaders in those rural areas. They really only seethe two metro areas as a cash register for them. Yes. But was it worth it? $15 million of “savings” for the rural areas? And in return Parsons looks like a heal in the largest metro area? I get opposing $400 million for an NFL stadium. But $15 million for road improvements around a privately built MLS stadium ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 11 hours ago, ARon said: Parson doesn’t need STL and he knows it. St, Louis City or the St. Louis metro area. I'd say your statement may be right regarding the city but the county? Jefferson County? St, Charles county? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 I don't know what Parsons' end game was or why he pulled his support for the tax breaks after previously indicating he was on board with them... But in addition to the general political rift between STL and the rest of the state (which goes back centuries), there's the far more recent history of the Dome financing which was a terrible con job where the state financed a $280M stadium on spec - no one has every really dug into how that happened but if you look at who stood to benefit from the project we can assume HOK and the unions were influential - which ground had already been broken by the time STL missed out on the NFL expansion - at which point the region had zero leverage in negotiations with any team looking to relocate (i.e. the Rams) which led to the awful lease that didn't even cover maintenance costs in the short term and allowed the team to leave before the debt was paid off in the long term. So yeah, while this MLS deal appears to be win-win for all involved with the ownership group covering the vast majority of the costs and only asking for "pocket change" tax breaks...the fact that the state got burned on the Dome, and also how the MLS and the STL ownership group are pot committed at this point, I understand why there's hesitation to give them the $30M in tax breaks. dennis_w likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 I assume Parsons isn't counting on any contributions from Enterprise Holdings PAC for the November election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 6 minutes ago, HoosierPal said: I assume Parsons isn't counting on any contributions from Enterprise Holdings PAC for the November election. He could not do anything until election day and he’s still winning 60/40. It’s Missouri Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Band Legend Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 15 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: He could not do anything until election day and he’s still winning 60/40. It’s Missouri Missouri is not a 60-40 state-- more like 53-47, and any Republican could get crushed if turnout in the two metro areas hit its full potential. Every decision like this one is a value judgement that could come back to bite the politician who miscalculates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ARon Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 3 hours ago, slufanskip said: St, Louis City or the St. Louis metro area. I'd say your statement may be right regarding the city but the county? Jefferson County? St, Charles county? City no. County no. If he starts losing St Charles and Jeff co (he won’t) he’s in trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 3 hours ago, slufanskip said: St, Louis City or the St. Louis metro area. I'd say your statement may be right regarding the city but the county? Jefferson County? St, Charles county? Agree. And him losing in the City is expected. But the goal is to contain the extent of the loss. Losing 30% to 70% vs 40% to 60% would be 30,000 vote swing assuming 300,000 total votes cast. Same with St Louis County, St Charles County, Jefferson County... wins or loses are important but it is the margin of the wins and losses which would make him elected Governor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slufanskip Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 The thing is the stadium will still be built so it won't hurt him. However, if this prevented the stadium from being built, I believe it'd affect him more than just the City of St. Louis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 49 minutes ago, Duff Man said: I don't know what Parsons' end game was or why he pulled his support for the tax breaks after previously indicating he was on board with them... But in addition to the general political rift between STL and the rest of the state (which goes back centuries), there's the far more recent history of the Dome financing which was a terrible con job where the state financed a $280M stadium on spec - no one has every really dug into how that happened but if you look at who stood to benefit from the project we can assume HOK and the unions were influential - which ground had already been broken by the time STL missed out on the NFL expansion - at which point the region had zero leverage in negotiations with any team looking to relocate (i.e. the Rams) which led to the awful lease that didn't even cover maintenance costs in the short term and allowed the team to leave before the debt was paid off in the long term. So yeah, while this MLS deal appears to be win-win for all involved with the ownership group covering the vast majority of the costs and only asking for "pocket change" tax breaks...the fact that the state got burned on the Dome, and also how the MLS and the STL ownership group are pot committed at this point, I understand why there's hesitation to give them the $30M in tax breaks. Understood. But that was 1994? 24years ago? And if you have a principled stand, then take it from the beginning and dont be silent with their funding proposal and stand with the ownership group in the celebratory photo if you are holding a knife waiting for them to turn their backs. Reinert310 likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Band Legend said: Missouri is not a 60-40 state-- more like 53-47, and any Republican could get crushed if turnout in the two metro areas hit its full potential. Every decision like this one is a value judgement that could come back to bite the politician who miscalculates. Trump won by 19%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 46 minutes ago, Clock_Tower said: Understood. But that was 1994? 24years ago? And if you have a principled stand, then take it from the beginning and dont be silent with their funding proposal and stand with the ownership group in the celebratory photo if you are holding a knife waiting for them to turn their backs. The bonds don't mature until 2022. From my recollection, it's $12M/yr and when the team was here the state was coming out narrowly ahead ($12.6M in additional tax revenue) but even with the Battlehawks about to begin play, it's still a bleeding wound on the state's books and has been since 2016. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, RiseAndGrind said: Trump won by 19%. I believe he is referring to non president races. Mcaskil did not lose by 19%. Blount did not win by 19% nor did Greitens normally statewide races are more lie the 6-7% he is talking about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiseAndGrind Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 minute ago, cheeseman said: I believe he is referring to non president races. Mcaskil did not lose by 19%. Blount did not win by 19% nor did Greitens normally statewide races are more lie the 6-7% he is talking about. I know, I was just illustrating that Missouri is getting more and more red. An incompetent candidate for Auditor almost beat Galloway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 Just now, RiseAndGrind said: I know, I was just illustrating that Missouri is getting more and more red. An incompetent candidate for Auditor almost beat Galloway. She ran when Trump had a big coat tail. I was amazed she won. RiseAndGrind likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 24 minutes ago, Duff Man said: The bonds don't mature until 2022. From my recollection, it's $12M/yr and when the team was here the state was coming out narrowly ahead ($12.6M in additional tax revenue) but even with the Battlehawks about to begin play, it's still a bleeding wound on the state's books and has been since 2016. Any idea what the full payoff would be? Assume the lawsuit against the NFL will try to recoup monies for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted January 25, 2020 Author Share Posted January 25, 2020 I doubt if there are enough soccer fans that won’t vote for Parsons to make a difference. But he pulled in my opinion a state wide gaff when he caved to the MO Board of Tourism (Branson) by moving the start of school back a week so (Branson) can have an extra weekend of tourism. This pushes first semester finals back to after Xmas break, unless the schools take action such as WG will do by extending each school day by 20 min. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheeseman Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, HoosierPal said: I doubt if there are enough soccer fans that won’t vote for Parsons to make a difference. But he pulled in my opinion a state wide gaff when he caved to the MO Board of Tourism (Branson) by moving the start of school back a week so (Branson) can have an extra weekend of tourism. This pushes first semester finals back to after Xmas break, unless the schools take action such as WG will do by extending each school day by 20 min. Adding time to the day only meets the requirement but has little if any impact on student learning. When will we start making educating our children a priority and not simply a babysitting service. It is possible to meet both needs. I only wish people had gotten together and worked it out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duff Man Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 2 hours ago, Clock_Tower said: Any idea what the full payoff would be? Assume the lawsuit against the NFL will try to recoup monies for this. That has been brought up and my guess - without knowing anything about how the plaintiffs are structured - is that the bonds with be paid off by the time the money arrives but the settlement/payout will factor in the debt payments from 2016-onward. Regardless, the state felt like they got burned on the Dome long before the Rams moved. The Cardinals were denied direct stadium funds by the state in 2000/2001 (remember they briefly bluffed that they might move to the east side) and while they ultimately got $30M in tax credits (pocket change) and some state money went towards demolishing/rebuilding highway ramps, the Dome was the deal that effectively ruined STL's credit when it comes to any kind of state funding for stadiums. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clock_Tower Posted January 25, 2020 Share Posted January 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Duff Man said: That has been brought up and my guess - without knowing anything about how the plaintiffs are structured - is that the bonds with be paid off by the time the money arrives but the settlement/payout will factor in the debt payments from 2016-onward. Regardless, the state felt like they got burned on the Dome long before the Rams moved. The Cardinals were denied direct stadium funds by the state in 2000/2001 (remember they briefly bluffed that they might move to the east side) and while they ultimately got $30M in tax credits (pocket change) and some state money went towards demolishing/rebuilding highway ramps, the Dome was the deal that effectively ruined STL's credit when it comes to any kind of state funding for stadiums. Thanks And by the way, I am told that Kansas City has come out far better than St. Louis over the years with their stadiums for the Royals and Chiefs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 There will be an announcement Monday. As many have heard the St. Louis team will be pushed back a year to 2023. The team name has been chosen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeSmetBilliken Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 14 minutes ago, courtside said: There will be an announcement Monday. As many have heard the St. Louis team will be pushed back a year to 2023. The team name has been chosen. Is the announcement to announce the name, or is the announcement to confirm the one year delay, with the name, colors, and crest to be announced at a later date? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted July 18, 2020 Share Posted July 18, 2020 5 minutes ago, DeSmetBilliken said: Is the announcement to announce the name, or is the announcement to confirm the one year delay, with the name, colors, and crest to be announced at a later date? (For purposes of full disclosure, I am friends with a few people on the committee.) My understanding is that it will be both the delay but also other positive nuggets to offset that. It will not simply be a delay announcement. Not sure what specifics they will share Monday. DeSmetBilliken likes this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HoosierPal Posted July 18, 2020 Author Share Posted July 18, 2020 44 minutes ago, courtside said: There will be an announcement Monday. As many have heard the St. Louis team will be pushed back a year to 2023. The team name has been chosen. I believe Charlotte will be allowed to announce their name and crest first, followed by STL. So very likely no name announcement Monday. Maybe some teasers? The Charlotte name "finalists" are kind of crazy. The Charlotte owner has filed for patent and trademark rights for the following names. The "Charlotte Fortune FC" was an eighth name on the list, but has reportedly been crossed off already. All Carolina FC Carolina Gliders FC Charlotte Athletic FC Charlotte Crown FC Charlotte FC Charlotte Monarchs FC Charlotte Town FC 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.