I think a glass roofed stadium like that would have the unintended consequences of trapping in the heat. I like the air swoop idea they have with the current stadium. Also stadium deal signed today. Woop Woop
Garber on TV today. Crew home opener March 2nd (burr!). Austin is likely for 2021. It would be more than likely with anyone but PSV. I doubt even he and Greeley can mess this up totally. Still, it would not surprise me if he sells some equity shares to help fund the construction, like Cincy is doing.
I dunno............Precourt is not a very smart businessman. He NEVER wanted to be in Columbus in the first place, and always wanted to be in Austin, or anywhere else not named Columbus upon buying the Crew. Seriously..........the Crew will be playing in a downtown, prime location stadium in 2021.................PSV complained about Maphre being too far from downtown..... McKala place is actually further from downtown Austin then Maphre is from downtown Columbus......... He wanted out so bad that the ACC fleeced him. Seriously, he's a f'n moron. He's going to foot the bill for the stadium ($225M & counting), then GIVE IT to the city of Austin, and then pay rent on the facility? PSV also has to help fund affordable housing in the area.......I have a feeling PSV is going to end up paying to build a parking facility too when this is all said and done. He'll also end up footing most of the bill for the team facility/Academy (if he builds one) too if the surrounding municipalities have been paying attention. PSV might have a difficult time finding someone to take on the Stadium mortgage (wonder what those interest rates will be like?) & rent payments for him.
What's funny is that during the Austin negotiations everyone on here was talking about how Austin is getting screwed. Then Columbus gives $100M+ of public subsidy! This stadium is in a good location for Austin, regardless of "distance from downtown". I'm not sure how one was supposed to build a downtown soccer stadium in Austin. I've yet to hear a credible plan for how that could be done (Butler Shores was probably the very best, but that was ridiculously difficult politically), and I don't think substantial public financing would have ever happened in Austin, either. That said, I also don't think that Columbus/Ohio cave the way they did without an extremely real threat to move the team. I'm skeptical of the idea that Precourt could have negotiated this same deal if he was a nicer guy. MLS needed a bad cop here, and Precourt executed that role quite well. From Precourt's perspective he bought a floundering franchise in a rickety stadium for $65 million, and is about to be in his preferred city in a brand new stadium. So I'm sure he's happy enough with how it's worked out. The real winner is MLS, getting two brand new SSS and a new billionaire ownership group, and soccer fans in Columbus and Austin.
LOL. Especially adorable coming from ignorant of the facts fans who have to trek to god forsaken Chester. The reason he can "foot the bill" is that the economics justify it. The sponsorship/tickets sales/concerts/ancillary revenues are projected to be so good that it will easily pay for the investment. Plus franchise values continue to rise so the enterprise value is solid. Chase Bank has already said they will lend the entire? amount of the cost of the construction so you wrong there too. BTW UT is getting a new $338m basketball arena for free too and gets 60 free dates. Will be paid for privately. How? Economics 101.
Columbus would certainly not have given Precourt any special subsidies. If he wanted to privately finance a downtown stadium here they would have contributed the usual infrastructure upgrades and fast tracked the permits and inspections. Once it became clear it was Austin or bust for him, especially after the Modell law was rediscovered, he had no friends up here (apart from some weak support from Kasich). The 100 mil+ number for subsidies is a bit exaggerated. The city's 50 mil is a combination of buying the state land at Mapfre (more than the current leasehold) plus donating a city owned lot to the new stadium project (or actually the office buildings to the west of the proposed stadium) plus the programming costs to the parks and recreation department once the new soccer park is open. Some of it may also be infrastructure upgrades. The county's 45 mil is sort of vague at the moment. It's probably not going to stadium costs but seems like more than is needed for infrastucture. The state's 15 mil is likely going straight to stadium costs. The New Community Authority is kicking in 30 mil which are likely going to stadium construction since it will own the finished product. There are various tax abatements involved which include some intragovernmental payments. Why couldn't Precourt have bought and built his stadium at the Statesman site? Apart from the 70 mil cost, were there any barriers?
Neighborhood Associations would have fought that tooth and nail. NA's in that part of Austin have some serious political sway too - see Butler Shores discussion for ex. Plus COA has larger plans of a huge mixed use development in mind.
That would have cost much more than $70 million. The statesman lot was not enough, you would have had to buy the neighboring lots as well. You also would have needed to do it as a public/private partnership to get tax relief. I would guess that the City would also need to build a pedestrian bridge to Rainey St to make it feasible to get 20k people in and out of there. It's probably $200 million in addition to the stadium costs at the end of the day.
Basically. It's a quasi-governmental entity with taxing power for the site. It will be the owner of the stadium which will make it free of property taxes. Currently the vacant lot where the stadium will go is owned by Nationwide realty. I believe it's being currently taxed, but they may have have an abatement, there are a lot of those downtown. Anyway, the schools, library, etc will expect Payment in Lieu of Taxes from the stadium at the current amounts at a minimum. Maybe double or triple. The amounts are fairly small. The lot to the west of the stadium will turn into offices and housing. It's currently owned by the city and thus not paying taxes. It's likely to get a tax abatement for at least a few years. It's not clear yet if the team will pay a market level of rent to the NCA or a nominal amount (since the team owners are paying for the stadium). The NCA has authority to collect sales taxes generated onsite and use them for stadium maintenance.
im assuming this this the other "Public contribution" you were talking about a while back, but does this money come from a state fund or the City (who has a stake in the NCA)
Water taxis would be cool. The Statesman site is 19 acres which is enough for a stadium plus a bit of development and a little onsite parking. If there is parking in the surrounding area, then you'd be set. As a point of comparison, Mapfre sits on 15 acres with about a thousand parking spots included in that. It's adjacent to the state fairgrounds parking lots with another hundred acres. I've never been to Austin but if your downtown has as much parking as ours, then the Statesman site would seem to fit Precourt and MLS's criteria better than McKalla.
Yeah, at times the state contribution was described as 45 mil but it seems to really be 15 mil directly from the state plus 30 from the NCA.
What is downtown parking? the statesman was a Beautiful piece of property, but it was privately owned which involved two issues: 1. Precourt actually wanted to do business with the city. It exemplified a commitment to being good neighbors and being held responsible for not only the team but the community involvement. 2. The last number I heard for the statesman property was in the $100m+ range WAY overpriced for the stadium they wanted to put on it. More geared towards high rise developers. And in the end he would have to go to the city for zoning and planning anyways.
The fact that you have never been to Austin begs the question "why do you post in this thread?". In any case, you should consider the shape of that property. It's not rectangular at all. To fit a stadium on that lot alone it would really have to be shoehorned in there. To really make that work you would need to buy the lots all the way to Riverside Dr. Regarding "MLS's criteria", I think you are missing the point. The goal is to have stadiums in locations that people will otherwise already be, not surrounded by a sea of parking lots. The McKalla location when it is developed will fit that criteria perfectly. It is surrounded by multiple corporate HQs, thousands of apartments, bar, restaurant, and brewery districts, and the city's main shopping destination. It's also a much less congested area to get to than Downtown. That location is nothing at all like Mapfre, and making that comparison is pure trolling.. (The equivalent of Mapfre would have been the expo center site some discussed).
Yeah I've "treking" to Chester for 10 years watching pro soccer, bite me. Don't get me started on the Union's majority owner either........... Projection versus actual.............economics 101. Let's see hwta the actual numbers are in a few seasons. I am not denying that Austin has a lot of potential as a MLS market. Chase Bank isn't loaning that money for free.............again, wonder what those interest rates will be like.............bank has to make money too you know. Again, economics 101.........why pay for something yourself when you can get someone else to pay for it? The Haslam group will make out very well, and quickly on their deal. It'll take PSV quite a while longer to pay off everything he is outlaying. The City of Austin made out like Bandits in this deal, just like Cincinnati did in there deal with FCC.
yes we know, at the expense of taxpayers. One of the biggest issues STC fans wanted to harp on our stadium deal, because we really weren't being shafted at all by big business, yet they were Oh most definitely. But also a good deal for precourt long term, we have to keep in mind all those tech companies that Precourt is moving next to have a BIG marketing/advertising budget, and are ready to spend money.
I'd be cautious of the Big Tech companies using their Marketing/Advertising budgets on a soccer team. Amazon and Apple don't spend a ton of money on advertising and sponsorship's. If they haven't spent advert and sponsorship dollars with their hometown teams in Seattle and the Bay Area what makes anyone believe they'll start doing so in new markets? Now, tech workers spending their own discretionary income the first 2-3 seasons*, I totally see that happening. *could be longer if AFC has a winning team, but we've seen how quickly rabid fan bases lose interest when a team doesn't perform well on the field and the new team smell has faded (Orlando, Philadelphia, Montreal, San Jose)
Indeed (HQ in Austin) sponsors Eintracht Frankfurt in the Bundesliga. Also Seattle is sponsored by Microsoft, so not sure I get your point there. HomeAway, Whole Foods, and Dell are also possibilities for Austin, among others.
The Statesman site was sold for 62 mil a couple of years ago, ie well after Precourt got his Austin clause. I agree that building a stadium anywhere involves cooperation with local governments but he seems to have Adler in his pocket or at least as an ally. I'd be surprised if Adler opposed a proposal from a sports team owner to bring his team to Austin while paying fair value for his site. Is parking in short supply in downtown Austin? Here in Columbus we have privately owned surface lots (that come and go as buildings are torn down or built) plus below and above ground publicly owned parking garages. And some private garages too. The on street parking has mostly gone away as we've added bus and bike lanes.
Deal done. https://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2018...lam-edwards-families-operate-columbus-crew-sc FWIW, bet the city/county/state make their $$ back via increased tax revenue on the Mapfre/new stadium sites over time. Certainly versus what they were getting at the stadium site (vacant lots into stadium, housing, and commercial) and at what was going to be at Mapfre (abandoned stadium vs community park). There is no tax increase or any such thing that I have heard of, as all the $$ is from community development/economic funding that was already set aside. So any calls on the taxpayers getting screwed seem pretty weak. Though we do not have all the details yet, to be sure.
Hope everyone had a good christmas break. Drafting a memorandum of understanding instead of an actual contract that allows emergency taxpayer spending is the reason you don't know if your getting ********ed over or not. I believe the county is funneling money into the community sports park over a 30 year period to keep it sustainable, which means they expect not to be making money on that property. And on the topic of taxation(theft), it will end up coming out of the citizens pocket one way or another. If you expect the government wants to see any of that money back, then expect higher ticket prices from Ownership group. If they don't tax the project (at or above market rate), then they just gave away $145million dollars.
No doubt they will get some additional tax money flowing from the ancillary office/apartments/retail developments (though I thought someone mentioned on the Crew thread those get breaks for a while) and increased hotel/sales tax from the stadium and as it spurs further development around the area and at Mapfre (soccer tournaments etc). However those developments must be serviced by police/fire/general city stuff and that costs money so the net effect may be not material. Still kind of amazing how much money got thrown at the project. The discounted present value of the $145m is a lot lower of course. As a soccer fan I'm all for it but one can only conclude that Columbus was dealing from real weakness. Probably a combo of Haslams being tough traders, realizing Modell Law was more quickly going to be a loser and that the Columbus soccer market needed subsidies to compete as it wasn't projecting the strong revenue potential compared to the other city/county deals cut recently including Austin. No way Precourt would of ever gotten close to that deal.
You're certainly right that Haslam (or really Edwards) got a better deal than Precourt would have been given. Precourt didn't make any effort to build relationships in Columbus. He initially said he'd buy a house here and live here part of the year but only ended up attending less than 10 games during his 5+ years as owner. He was made a member of the Columbus Partnership but never attended a meeting. His loss as it's one of the places where deals get done around here. Just as nature abhors a vacuum, politics abhors a surplus. The city, county, and state are all sitting on extra money they didn't expect to get. If this had happened in 2010, nobody would be spending big on the Crew. Columbus used to be referred to as a donut city with a dead downtown surrounded by neighborhoods and most new development along I-270 that surrounds the city. The former mayor and council made a big effort to redevelop and repopulate downtown. It's how we ended up with 2 modern 19K arenas about 3 miles apart, OSU wanted theirs on campus and the mayor wanted his downtown. City council hands out partial and full tax abatements pretty freely. You'll be shocked to learn that their biggest campaign donors are city unions and real estate developers. The land where the new stadium will go is currently a vacant lot and not paying much if any tax. The land where the new office buildings and apartments will go is currently a city owned vacant lot used for storage. It's not paying taxes currently and even with abatements will generate additional revenue for the city, county, and state. The city's 50 mil is being split between some infrastructure upgrades around the new stadium (the sorts of things they do for all new development) and redeveloping and programming costs for the new soccer park to replace Mapfre. Dee Haslam has pledge tens of millions of dollars over the next 30 years for community benefits related to the park so in effect they're subsidizing the city rather than vice versa. Presumably the city will buy the land from the state expo board so there may be an intra-governmental transfer payment of some sort at some date. Or maybe DeWine will have the board donate the land to the city. He appoints them so it's up to him. The state's current 15 mil in cash plus an expected additional 30 mil seems to be going straight toward stadium costs. It's more than FCC got but less than the state spent on Jacobs field in Cleveland. I think Huntington park got some minor state support but Nationwide Arena was privately built and OSU's athletic department pays for all their various stadia. So the state contribution seems in line with other Ohio cities. The county approved 45 mil and it's a mystery where that money is going. Since it depends on a MOU with Haslam/Edwards, I'd guess it goes directly to stadium costs. But it could be other things too. Columbus didn't negotiate from weakness. Once we found potential buyers, we had the upper hand. There were other offers for the team besides Haslam/Edwards and the city could have just taken it via eminent domain. Even if the Modell law were found to violate the Interstate Commerce Clause, it makes clear that under Ohio law, sports teams can be taken by local governments. Columbus wanted a stadium that will top Cincinnati's in amenities if not capacity. We wanted new ownership with deep pockets and which is willing to spend to keep up with the MLS Joneses. Forbes had the Crew's 2017 revenue at $27 mil comparable to a half dozen other teams. It has the league average at $36 mil. The Columbus Partnership came up with a proposal to give Columbus better than average (ie 37+ mil) revenue with increased sponsorships from local businesses. So we'll have plenty of resources, it's a matter of spending them well.