Jump to content

Soccer in Nashville

Nashtitans

By Nashtitans
in Nashville

 Share

Recommended Posts

DDIG Hamlet

DDIG

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

What does the article say? I've hit my limit.

Former Councilman Mike Freeman inserted an amendment that puts the team in default of its 99-year ground lease if it fails to play Major League Soccer games in the new stadium "for any single period of 24 consecutive months during the first 30 years of the ground lease." If the team defaults on its lease, the land slated for the development would revert to Metro.

The developers are finding because of that banks are not financing the mixed-use component because basically Banks are saying they can't control what the soccer team does and they aren't willing to risk having the project taken away from them if something happens with the soccer team. This screws up the whole economics of the deal. They'll  need to go through a brand new council to have it changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

MidTenn1
MidTenn1

Let me know if I got the basic facts right. If so, feel free to share on FB. It is simple, understandable and to the point. Maybe it can go viral.

titanhog
titanhog
thenorthchannel
thenorthchannel

Logo flexes hard 

Posted Images

nashvylle City

nashvylle

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, DDIG said:

Former Councilman Mike Freeman inserted an amendment that puts the team in default of its 99-year ground lease if it fails to play Major League Soccer games in the new stadium "for any single period of 24 consecutive months during the first 30 years of the ground lease." If the team defaults on its lease, the land slated for the development would revert to Metro.

The developers are finding because of that banks are not financing the mixed-use component because basically Banks are saying they can't control what the soccer team does and they aren't willing to risk having the project taken away from them if something happens with the soccer team. This screws up the whole economics of the deal. They'll  need to go through a brand new council to have it changed.

Article mentions three solutions:

1. Resolution (21 needed council votes)
2. Developer personal guarantee (I do not think this will happen)
3. Developer self financing (I do not think this will happen)

I believe this issue will force the Nashville owners to the negotiation table with Cooper. I pray and hope that Cooper will not be in this to destroy the deal and hope that he wants soccer to be successful. 

There will be changes, though, to the 10 acres, in my opinion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nashvylle City

nashvylle

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, PaulChinetti said:

Oh good lord. 

Well they wouldn't go back to the table with Cooper, they would go back to the table with the Council.

Considering it passed 31-7 last time, I don't see why the current council wouldn't just pass a resolution. 

50% of the council is new. Council for the most part listens to the mayor. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulChinetti Town

PaulChinetti

Posted
Posted

Yeah, I'm not sure Cooper and some of the council people there are still there will ever see eye to eye.

Him and Glover will be the best of buddies I'm sure. 

Though like you said if the developers think the council isn't going to vote favorably for them, they could just finance it themselves, build it in steps or even scale the project way back. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulChinetti Town

PaulChinetti

Posted
Posted
38 minutes ago, titanhog said:

From the very beginning, Ingram should have chosen ANYWHERE but this cursed piece of land.  I hope he has a Plan B lined up, just in case.

I’m not sure where else they could have chosen. 

Did they not read this part of the contract?? Agreed @BnaBreaker 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DDIG Hamlet

DDIG

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Melrose said:

That's not an accurate analysis, especially with the dynamics of this new council and new mayor.

Does anyone really know the dynamic yet? It hasn't quite been tested so we are in uncharted waters. Cooper thinks he has a complete mandate with the election results.

1 hour ago, titanhog said:

From the very beginning, Ingram should have chosen ANYWHERE but this cursed piece of land.  I hope he has a Plan B lined up, just in case.

Any Plan B I assume would take several additional years to come together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
titanhog Metropolitan Area

titanhog

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, PaulChinetti said:

I’m not sure where else they could have chosen. 
 

I still wonder if he could have found some land closer to downtown.  Maybe he tried...but I just feel like Mayor Barry convinced him this would revive the fairgrounds...and the city would help out financially...and he bit.  I seriously doubt the fairgrounds was his first choice...but it probably became the politically expedient choice to get the mayor and her supporters to back the project.  If she were still mayor, I would imagine this thing would have already been put to bed with a nice clean diaper and bottle by now.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
PaulChinetti Town

PaulChinetti

Posted
Posted

I see what you are saying, but when all this was happening I think the consensus was that this was the best place, barring some miracle with the PSC site. 

Metro Center was the only other area with large swaths of available land but it's unsuitable for large scale construction and that location and surrounding area leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of bars/restaurants/population. Just not a lot going on up there at all.

This problem seems like it's more on the NSC group than it is on the city or anyone else. Where they not in communication with their banks/backers about all of the contract. If this was a late amendment they would have known about it later on in the process but it would have been an addition so it would have been under more scrutiny and I don't remember any objections being raised over it. 

I just looked and this isn't on WSMV or the SoF facebook page, so I wonder how serious this is? They would be frothing at the mouths if they thought this was serious wouldn't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Popular Post
DDIG Hamlet

DDIG

Posted
  • Popular Post
Posted
1 hour ago, PaulChinetti said:

I see what you are saying, but when all this was happening I think the consensus was that this was the best place, barring some miracle with the PSC site. 

Metro Center was the only other area with large swaths of available land but it's unsuitable for large scale construction and that location and surrounding area leaves a lot to be desired in the realm of bars/restaurants/population. Just not a lot going on up there at all.

This problem seems like it's more on the NSC group than it is on the city or anyone else. Where they not in communication with their banks/backers about all of the contract. If this was a late amendment they would have known about it later on in the process but it would have been an addition so it would have been under more scrutiny and I don't remember any objections being raised over it. 

I just looked and this isn't on WSMV or the SoF facebook page, so I wonder how serious this is? They would be frothing at the mouths if they thought this was serious wouldn't they?

Oh just give Nancy Amons time to confirm with her sources. I'm sure her doomsday article is coming.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hirtme Unincorporated Area

hirtme

Posted
Posted

Anyone see Mike Freeman's tweet. He's basically boasting that he inserted this clause. Tweet is,

"I've learned that my MLS amendment is finally putting in work. @ Nashville Business Journal calls it "unintended consequences." That's NOT correct! I knew exactly what I was doing and what the amendment would show. We spent a lot of time trying to get it right."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Melrose Whistle-Stop

Melrose

Posted
Posted

Exactly,  so is Freeman saying his intent was to place a provision in there that would make lenders not finance the private development?  So it was an intentional poison pill? 

Obviously, I'm joking, but that is the absurdity of this posture.  The City should remain protected that games will be played here,  but if they can tweak this provision to work out the lender issues,  then this is not a big deal.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
MidTenn1 Town

MidTenn1

Posted
Posted

I mentioned at a UP meeting a few months ago hat the Town of Kingston Springs required a contractor who was using excavation material from the fairgrounds site as fill for an apartment project in KS to submit samples for testing for contaminates. The local paper reported the samples showed asbestos and concrete in the fill. The contractor will be required to clean up that fill. 

I wouldn't think that finding would impact any construction at the fairgrounds.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nashvylle City

nashvylle

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, PHofKS said:

I mentioned at a UP meeting a few months ago hat the Town of Kingston Springs required a contractor who was using excavation material from the fairgrounds site as fill for an apartment project in KS to submit samples for testing for contaminates. The local paper reported the samples showed asbestos and concrete in the fill. The contractor will be required to clean up that fill. 

I wouldn't think that finding would impact any construction at the fairgrounds.

 

Sorry I’m confused as to what this means. 

There is asbestos and other contaminants at the fairgrounds, but you don’t think it will add cost to the project? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MidTenn1 Town

MidTenn1

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, nashvylle said:

Sorry I’m confused as to what this means. 

There is asbestos and other contaminants at the fairgrounds, but you don’t think it will add cost to the project? 

I doubt it will stir up controversy or hold up the stadium project. I'm not an expert in these matters, but it seems to be a manageable problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.