Sticking with Brad and this team

[bonwich]

Nahh, I was just trying to provide you with data points that you obviously can't understand.

Savvis: Home to Blues, Billikens (and, for what it's worth, Steamers). Also 7TH BEST IN THE WORLD for secondary events. Doesn't make money.

SLU Arena: ONLY potential positive cash-flow generator is Men's Basketball. Kool-Aid salesmen say "concerts, circuses, prizefights." Uh-huh. See also: Clear Channel.

Keep drinkin' and sellin' that Kool-Aid, kshoe.

[bonwich]

Sorry, Roy, that dog won't hunt either. Laurie doesn't and never will own the Savvis. The City of St. Louis owns it and Laurie operates it on a long-term lease. (Something in the back of my mind says that he pays all of $1 a year for the privilege, but since I can't cite sources instantly and will no doubt be challenged by the Kool-Aid brigade, I'll only list that particular piece of data as anecdotal.)

I do agree, of course, that Laurie (and all professional sports franchisees) flim-flam the numbers all the time to cry poor. I stand by the basic premise, however, that sporting venues rarely if ever actually generate a true profit.

[kshoe]

Using your own data, once the Blues were revenue neutral the net negative you were talking about was $5mm. The Steamers just began this year so they wouldn't be in any of your numbers.

Again, the 7th Best in the World statement is about concerts only, not all secondary events. If the Savvis is really that good I don't suppose its unreasonable to believe the SLU arena can pick up some of the concert crumbs.

I for one don't believe the SLU arena will be a huge money generator but I have a problem with people that piece together pieces of "evidence" from various sources (another one is DW's "continue" comment) which to me sounds like a politically correct statement but in your mind is some sort of fact that SLU presently has no problem scheduling.

[billiken_roy]

one dollar more than saint louis university now earns at savvis would be a huge lift. i still say if you have no or little debt, the cost of running that building wont be one that is profit impossible.

but of course i also admit i know very little about the x's and o's of managing an event center. i leave that up to our board of directors to make the right decision. it is my guess there is a reason they insisted on at least a $50m fund raising before allowing construction. and profitability screams out to me.

[bonwich]

The original:

'Blues owner Bill Laurie loses $40 million a year running the team and Savvis Center, Sauer told the Association for Corporate Growth, and "no owner is going to lose money indefinitely to entertain you folks."

'He said the Blues could get "close to break-even" if they could pare salary costs by $25 million to $30 million and cut $4 million from their state and local tax bills. The team has complained that it pays the highest ticket tax in the league.'

Claimed loss: $40 million

Maximum noted Blues cuts for "revenue neutrality" = $30 million + $4 million.

"Net negative": $6 million.

Hey, you're only off by 20 percent. I guess you'll have no problem at all, then, if the total cost for the new arena rises from $75M to $90M.

Forgive me for "having a problem" with people who claim to "have a problem" with "piecing together pieces of evidence" but can't even do the fundamental math.

Also, for your apparent inability to distinguish shades of grey: I didn't say SLU presently has "no problem" scheduling. You share the facility, you don't have access to every single scheduling block for the 5 months of the season. If you have any evidence at all that SLU has lost games and/or had to schedule games in poor time slots over the past several seasons, please present it.

[billiken_roy]

doug woolard used to tell us all the time at billiken club meetings that not having a clean slate to schedule games was the one angle that top programs would constantly throw at him on why they couldnt play us in st louis. since saint louis university was behind the blues, the circus, disney on ice, etc., the savvis would give us the list of available dates and our athletic dept had to build around that. if woolard would contact illinois for example, they might say, "well yeah we would love to play you, what days do you have available?" then when we shot them the dates, amazingly they were all wrong. now if ms levick says, "anytime anyday" what is their excuse then? we dont even need to go into the nit fiasco the last 10 years. imo, disney on ice cost us a number of trips to the nit.

[kshoe]

(some of which are extremeemly misleading) were used to make this picture.

"The new arena, in a nutshell, comes down to ego and perceived prestige, and -- at least at this point -- not much more, other than the actual advantage of being able to practice in the same facility where you play. Better dates, ability to generate revenue -- those are myths."

I'll keep drinking my kool-aid you keep drinking the hatorade.

[bonwich]

Yeah, of course. Someone objects to the really dubious claim that the new arena is in "Grand Center," coupled with putting the City of St. Louis on the hook for $5-$10M for a PRIVATELY OWNED facility, and it's hatin'. Which, if you go back a good year or so in this whole arena debate, is pretty much my entire objection to the SLU arena.

Now, if the U. would simply make its case as "We want to be a top 25 program, we want to continue the terrific improvements we've made in the on-campus environment, we want to have first-class practice and conditioning facilities to draw the best possible athletes" -- no objections from me. Any claims that Savvis (one of the nicest basketball facilities in the country, all of 20 blocks east of the proposed new arena) is inadequate, or that this new arena will somehow have ancillary benefits for "Grand Center," or that (contrary to evidence of the Jones Dome, Savvis Center and Family Arena) it will somehow "make money" for SLU, or that public money should be spent for the benefit of a private institution -- well, if objecting to this makes me a "hater," I'm wondering what that makes a fiscal conservative?

[kwyjibo]

It is very likely that all of the things you listed below:

"We want to be a top 25 program, we want to continue the terrific improvements we've made in the on-campus environment, we want to have first-class practice and conditioning facilities to draw the best possible athletes"

could be purchased for less than $75 million dollars.

Advocates act as if every dollar is "new money" (which it is not--as all money fundraised here comes at the expense of altenate uses of the money for SLU, St. Louis, or society). It is probably true that SLU would not be able to capture all of this money in alternate projects (but don't kid yourself, this fundraising comes in part at the expense of the wider community at SLU--in the loss of funding for other campaigns and having to cover the operating losses in the future). The use of public money in alternate ways, considering the kinds of social problems a city can actually help solve, makes this rampant "arena boosterism" even sadder.

[slufanskip]

Sure it makes a difference in dates ... there is NO question that a Sat night game draws more than a 1:00 Sat afternoon game. What did you think Woolard would say ... hey our dates suck now and we expect them to get worse with an NBA team so we better build a new arena. They have been second fiddle to the Blues and cannot schedule a game at the same time the Blues are playing (the ice makes getting good traction very difficult)

There are probably games we cannot get because we don't have the Savvis when needed.

I don't know the economics but comparing the Savvis and a 40 mil arena doesn't seem to be a relevent comparison.

Way to put a negative spin on it.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[slufanskip]

Your post didn't say secondary events or concerts ... go back and reread ... you seem to take a negative stance on any and everything. Or are you in charge of the "realist" brigade.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[bonwich]

> There is NO question that a Sat night game draws more than a 1:00 Sat afternoon game.

No? Then why does Mizzou, which can schedule any time it pleases, choose to schedule some Saturday afternoon dates and some Saturday evening dates? (And, for that matter, why would any college team play on Saturday afternoon? Do you think they all do because there's something else scheduled for Saturday night?)

> There are probably games we cannot get because we don't have the Savvis when needed.

I'm guessing Marquette has the same problem. It doesn't seem to have hurt their ability to compete.

>I don't know the economics but comparing the Savvis and a 40 mil arena doesn't seem to be a relevent comparison.

How 'bout a $60M arena? $75M? How high should we go?

[slufanskip]

I know Woolard has said they would prefer Sat evening dates. Why do the Blues play Sat evening dates?

I don't know what it has to do with Marquette ... do you think there are games we would like but can't get due to the Blues playing in the Savvis.

How much would the Savvis cost today? Are you saying you think the cost of the Bills arena will be over 75 mil.? My understandin is that we are not trying to build anything near the level of the Savvis. Also will we not have donations to pay for a part of it.

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman

[bonwich]

Current stated budget for the SLU arena is $70M.

[slufanskip]

and what would it cost to build Savvis today?

Official Billikens.com sponsor of H. Waldman