6 replies to this topic

[cleeland]

http://www.kcur.org/ListenLive.html

[Trekguy5570]

ugh, i just called and asked a question, and she really didnt answer my question, she just gave a general response.  they just dont want to see the positive return that the tour really brings.  they are in pure denial and its really sad for the state that they are doing this.  the hosue approved the money, the senate approved the money, it really is disappointing its going this way.  and i understand it would be fantastic if it could be all privately funded, however, there are private sponsors, but they want to see that the state supports this before they jump on board.  when the state doesnt want anything to do with such a wonderful race, its hard to get commitment.  this really is shady practice and makes me very upset iwth my state.  we have such a great event, somethign that brings people in from around the country, and around the world, and if they want to say that the return isnt that great, that people dont spend money, that is a pure lie.  I live in St. Louis, and when i go watch stages of the race, ive spent money on local businesses that would never had seen a penny of mine if not for the race.  i guess we have done what we can do, but they obviously have made their decision already.

[cleeland]

Out of spite, I would like to see the legislature rescind the additional $1M in the Tourism budget if not spent supporting the Tour of MO.

Amazing that she was allowed to say that the economic impact numbers aren't correct, but when asked what the correct numbers are she couldn't say.  Completely disingenuous.

Bah.

governor: 573-751-3222
danner's assistant: 573-751-3051

[Trekguy5570]

yea, just called the tourism number and left a message saying i did not think it was right for her to shoot down the 30 million in revenue the tour supposedly brings when she in fact has no clue how much.  

i agree, if not used for the Tour, they should just take it away.  They approved it for one thing, and one thing only, if not used for that, take it back.

[Coathangeroflove]

*slaps forehead with palm*

[Weide]

One thing that bothers me – that some of the race's critics have pointed out – are the inflated attendance figures.

Having been on-site last year at the race myself, there is absolutely no way there were 71,000 people in Jefferson City (or along the race route that day, for that matter) for the finish of that stage. So when you fudge the numbers on something that's fairly clear to estimate accurately, it calls into question other figures generated by the economic impact report.

I'd like to see this race return. But I don't see it happening without a corporate title sponsor.

[cleeland]

Sean, I understand the skepticism of the numbers.  I, too, am skeptical.  But, let's suppose that they actually ARE inflated.  Are you willing to accept that half of the published numbers might be correct?  Because even those numbers look pretty damn good to me.

I also agree that long-term a corporate sponsor needs to be courted, but considering that one of the biggest benefactors is the state of Missouri, it makes sense for its Division of Tourism to be a sponsor as well.  I think that it would be easier to attract corporate sponsors if there were a long-term plan and commitment from the state, e.g., have a 3 year plan where they provide $1M this year, $750k next, $500k the year after.  This would demonstrate to corporate sponsors that their investment would be long-term as well.