RadDad1999 Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Why are they allowed to play at SLU when they won't schedule SLU? I'm aware of the Illinois/Missouri thing, border battle and all, but this is the Bills house! This benefits Missouri, not SLU. I wonder why that's allowed? That said, it was a good game, but it makes SLU look second rate to take a backseat to them for this game in our house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidnark Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Since SLU doesn't have any ownership interest in the Savvis Center, they have zero control over the other events there. In fact, the Savvis Center is owned by one of Mizzou largest boosters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadDad1999 Posted December 24, 2003 Author Share Posted December 24, 2003 Aha. Hence the new building. They should hurry up and get that thing built. SLU shouldn't be sharing anything with a competing team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Because it isn't technically "SLU's house" since it's an off-campus arena. Kind of like how UW-Madison played a game at the Bradley Center a few years ago. Unfortunately, SLU doesn't have taxpayers to fleece for a new arena. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 No, the MO taxpayers had to pay for the cheats from Gooberville's new digs. Whatever they are paying Randy Pulley...he's way overpaid after viewing last night's fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Yeah, Pulley sure looked impressive! I love his new tattoo - "914" which is the Charlotte area code. Is that that dense that he might forget where he lives or how to call home?? I will say this, once Conley gets his groove going again that team is going to be good. He is a natural scorer but seemed to be going out of his way to not score as to better "fit in." I'm sure he'll make Quin happy with his investment by season's end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 "Unfortunately, SLU doesn't have taxpayers to fleece for a new arena." Perhaps we shouldn't go there. There's still $5M in TIF in the arena plan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 the missouri team is loaded. what is scary is that it is possible that conley and klieza are the two best players and neither starts! that said, pretty q pretty much f'd that game up from the beginning. funny how once they actually played defense they controlled the game. hey quin, here's an idea, play defense from the opening tip. the job mckinney did on dee brown after the opening 10 minutes was impressive. pulley was an embarrassment. augustine and nick smith both exceeded my expectations. smith's pass at the end of the game and the big free throws when no one else was making them were huge. if illinois had one of missouri's three pf's they would be pretty good as well. illinois is really strong at the guard spots. and that was without their top 2 guard even playing. all in all a pretty fun game to watch. but then again any tiger loss is fun to watch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billikan Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 I try to ignore the huge subsidy to the new MU arena because I want to keep my blood pressure down. However, there is absolutely no comparison between a direct contribution of my tax dollars in the $30-40 million dollar range to support pretty Quinn's group of "pros" --(In the Illinois postgame coach Weber actually said that MU was like an NBA team!!)-- and our paltry $5 mil in TIF benefits which are nothing more that monies taken from the revenues of the new project if it succeeds. People do not understand that TIF money is not a direct payment of funds but is merely money that is part of the revenues of the project. If there are no revenues then there is no TIF benefit. On the other hand, The new palace for Quinn is being directly subsidized by taxpayer money. Our state taxes are very high and it is a joke that the MU fans brag insufferably about their team and we have to pay the bill. What a joke! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadDad1999 Posted December 24, 2003 Author Share Posted December 24, 2003 UW playing Maryland at the Bradley Center was part of the ACC/B10 challenge, ESPN picked the venue as a neutral site, not Maryland or Wisconsin. This wasn't a made for TV game, that was. You knew that, but of course your agenda to to midlead and distort the truth when it comes to The University of Wisconsin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taq Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Interesting. What's the justification, as simple as public v. private schools, or lot's of Jeff City politics? Also, I haven't made it down there yet and am not familiar enough with the exact location of the new building. Do you think that there is opportunity for development/recovery in the immediate area or is this neighborhood already strong? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Schasz Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Oh Boy, a UW VS MU cat fight...just in time for Xmas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadDad1999 Posted December 25, 2003 Author Share Posted December 25, 2003 Actually I'm not a Marquette hater. In the 60's and 70's I was a big MU fan, but got closer to the Badger program after that. I want them to do well, as well as UWM and UWGB. Flamers like him just get my blood boiling from time to time. I'll try harder to ignore him in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 25, 2003 Share Posted December 25, 2003 Yes, a 3rd party chose the BC for that game, just as a promoter chose the SAVVIS Center (and previously The Arena) to stage this battle. Just like the Braggin Rights game a neutral site was chosen and it happend to be an arena where another college basketball team plays - kind of like Maryland playing the BBT Classic at G-town's arena or the Jimmy V Classic at Seton Hall's arena, or Duke/Texas playing at St. John's arena this past weekend. Did all of the weed smoked at UW-Madison make you paranoid for life??? You need a life, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadDad1999 Posted December 25, 2003 Author Share Posted December 25, 2003 Merry Christmas. (BTW- I did not attend the University of Wisconsin, obviously you didn't either.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonwich Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 "and our paltry $5 mil in TIF benefits which are nothing more that monies taken from the revenues of the new project if it succeeds. People do not understand that TIF money is not a direct payment of funds but is merely money that is part of the revenues of the project. If there are no revenues then there is no TIF benefit." I am pleased to see that someone still believes in the Easter Bunny. The U. will be given $5M (in public money, raised by a bond sale secured by a quasipublic agency) to construct the arena, but "if there are no revenues," I guess that $5M never existed in the first place. Your key words are "if it succeeds," and the definition of "success" is a bit vague. I had to do a bit of research, but from what I can tell, the TIF is designed to be paid off by a revenue stream from "half the increases in payroll, property, local sales and other taxes collected within the TIF district for a period of 23 years - or until the total reaches a certain cap." Now, the best I can tell (and some public policy experts can overrule me here), SLU pays no property taxes on its buildings. The marginal increase in payroll taxes will probably be quite tiny, limited to a facilities-management staff and a finite number of assumedly low-paid event personnel. The "local sales and other taxes" is a really hinky issue, since it's arguable that this entire number simply represents events that would have generated the same amount at Savvis. So where is this revenue stream of incremental increases in taxes supposed to come from? (By the way, for everyone who thinks that TIFs are a low-risk financing solution, take a look locally at West County Mall, the St. Louis Marketplace and the Robert E. Lee.) And as much as I hate subsidizing Mizzou, they are, after all, the state university. The state issuing $35M in bonds to finance the Cracker Barrell/Wal-Mart Center is a little, but not a whole lot, different than our tax dollars also going to subsidize a $45M student rec center in Columbia. I do wonder, however, what the fiscal-conservatives and other anti-tax folks on this board think of tax dollars going to underwrite $5M in expenditures by our dear, but decidedly private, alma mater. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 >(BTW- I did not attend the University of Wisconsin, >obviously you didn't either.) And that's something I'm damn proud of (in fact, turned down LaFollette for grad school) By the way, which UW System campus didn't you attend? There are 26 of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 Fiscal conservative here! I don't have a problem with SLU getting $5 million from the TIF as the objective of a TIF is urban and neighborhood revitilization which STL desperately needs. Plus, the $5 million should be repaid many times over if the arena is a successful enterprise. When I worked in the political field in WI and MI a big issue for me was Enterprise/Renaissance zones (tax breaks and benefits for locating a business within blighted areas) in jumpstarting economic redevelopment. When I lived in Ireland I saw the benefits of those zones on economic development on the city, and country, as a whole. I don't know all of the exact details of the TIF and repayment - I'm taking a land use class this semester so I'm sure I'll learn that in due time. However, since taxpayer money is being used for the arena the public should be allowed access to the arena for functions other than hoops games. Using TIF money for a purely private endeavour is wrong, IMHO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 I know Louisville fans are thrilled when UK plays neutral court games at Freedom Hall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billiken Law Posted December 26, 2003 Share Posted December 26, 2003 again, that's not an on-campus arena - it's owned and operated by the Kentucky State Fair and UL just happens to play there. I know there has been talk of UL building an on-campus arena but nothing seems to have come of that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
courtside Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 I am well aware that it is not an on-campus arena. Gotta like a place where they serve whiskey and bourbon. The reference was that U of L fans do not like when UK plays ther like they did yesterday. On-campus or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lobo Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 Freedom Hall is definitely the Cardinals home court and has been for years (60s). And they pack it for most games. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billiken_roy Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 the cardinals in freedom hall are phenomenal. talk about a home court advantage! i would say that the louisville team would not have beaten uab last year in that championship game without the "6th man" fans. what an atmosphere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted January 1, 2004 Share Posted January 1, 2004 In fact, in addition to the TIF, the SLU arena will receive taxpayer support by the issuance of double tax free bonds to cover the $25 million that remains after the initial private contributions. The bonds will be a win-win situation for the University and the bondholders. That makes the involuntary contribution that we are making to the Columbia arena more palatable. 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.