MLS2STL

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
First unread post1195 posts
The rumors are starting to show again. Do any of our posters who claimed to know a little something about what may be or have been done in bringing this back have any info for us?

Seems like the news cycle is prepping for some type of announcement with a 90 day timeline....

What we have learned:

*The group did not disband.

*They have been talking about other options (plan B)

*They still need money

*They are still in if we can find funds...

Let us know what you got!!!!

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/edgerley ... 8abe0.html
STILL talking about public money, huh? :roll:

We shot that down once, wanna see it go down again?
I am going to wait till I see the “MLS2STL Group Makes Triumphant Return with new Proposal” headline shared either on here or Twitter.
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/busin ... iwkJzS1MN/

34 million for a retirement house, but of course he needs help from tax payers for soccer.
The city is not going to devise a plan in 85 days to get this group their $60MM. Not now, not in this city, not with these politicians. There is a theme of not "helping the rich" that is super pervasive in our city, right or wrong.

The only way this gets done is if the MLS allows the stadium to be built in the county, whether it be in STL, St. Chuck, or across the river and that said county gets it done.

I believe what Krewson and crew will do is play a game of chicken and see if the ownership group throws in the $60MM last minute. I am told they will not, and the MLS will be dead here for long time.
This does not get done if the MLS allows the stadium to get built in the County. Neither of the counties listed, nor any county anywhere in the country, is going to devise a plan in 85 days to get this group their $60mil.

Why is this group still together and why is it making news today, if their only plan relies on $60million of public monies?
I'm in agreement with you Moorlander. I'm just saying that it does not get done in 85 days. Why are they still together? Who knows. Maybe the MLS will reduce expansion fee? Maybe a last minute investor who wants no return for 10 years will jump into the fray.

I don't know.
reducing the expansion fee is the only (and right) way to go. I've thought that all along. considering that the MLS has yet to make a profit makes one believe that this whole league is nothing more than a "ponzi scheme". if the league really wants STL, just simply reduce the expansion fee and get on with it!
courtland wrote:reducing the expansion fee is the only (and right) way to go. I've thought that all along. considering that the MLS has yet to make a profit makes one believe that this whole league is nothing more than a "ponzi scheme". if the league really wants STL, just simply reduce the expansion fee and get on with it!
Hard to do when the expansion fee is covering the red ink on the leagues balance sheet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
downtown2007 wrote:
Wed Sep 06, 2017 2:42 pm
courtland wrote:reducing the expansion fee is the only (and right) way to go. I've thought that all along. considering that the MLS has yet to make a profit makes one believe that this whole league is nothing more than a "ponzi scheme". if the league really wants STL, just simply reduce the expansion fee and get on with it!
Hard to do when the expansion fee is covering the red ink on the leagues balance sheet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Wait, what? Did you just say this actually is a ponzi scheme? Because that's exactly what expansion fees providing the make it or break it net revenue sounds like. If there is nothing else to generate hope of a profit then this is a scam and we need no part of it. Frankly, the league needs to find a way to live in the black as is (from television, marketing, or some kind of profit sharing for instance) or it's time to fold the thing up and go home. It's already got a better coverage map than most of the major cellular networks. If they can't make it with the current twenty two teams then why would four (or six or ten) more make a difference? We should be darn glad we haven't been suckered into it. You're making this sound like a tech startup that's not quite ready for prime time. We have more than enough minor league soccer already and there's PLENTY of genuinely not-for-profit stuff more deserving of public subsidy. Including but not remotely limited to amateur soccer.
^If he's not saying it, then I am. Yes, the current major league soccer effort appears to be a ponzi scheme. It just ain't gonna fly in the U.S., and the last-folks-in are going to lose millions.
Their TV contact expires in 2024. They want to expand in as many markets as possible in hopes to gain enough viewers for a large TV contract. That could make it profitable without expansion and hefty fees.

If not, it will have to contract.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Pro sports in general is in for a rough time.

MLS's "interesting" financial situation has been discussed very well here.
NASCAR reached it's height in oh....2007 or so, and has declined precipitously since.
The jaws are closing in on the NFL, with the youth talent pool starting to dry up, viewers falling, and attendance as well.
NHL has been seeing falling attendance for a while now.

Really only the NBA and MLB have been doing well the last few years.

However, the big kahuna for the sports leagues is the cordcutting movement, taking big chunks out of the viewership and profitability of cable every year. ESPN is a few years from collapse. Think about that.

When the TV revenues dry up, eventually the money pipeline to the leagues themselves is going to dry up too. MLS planning on TV revenues saving their league in 2024 is.......a fragile strategy, to say the least.
Listening to the Kevin Wheeler show on ESPN radio yesterday during lunch... one caller proposed the easiest solution:

The city and county build the MLS stadium in Fenton. Boom. Easy. Problem solved. Just take the city tax incentive money and move it out of the city! :roll:

But seriously, this is just a microcosm of the entire issue. People don't understand that the city and county just can't play nice together. Why we don't have a regional sports stadium authority to manage all these venues and proposals is just odd. I'd gladly accept the city help pay for an MLS stadium in the county IF the county would help pay for the Scottrade Center renovations.
chaifetz10 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:00 am
Listening to the Kevin Wheeler show on ESPN radio yesterday during lunch... one caller proposed the easiest solution:

The city and county build the MLS stadium in Fenton. Boom. Easy. Problem solved. Just take the city tax incentive money and move it out of the city! :roll:

But seriously, this is just a microcosm of the entire issue. People don't understand that the city and county just can't play nice together. Why we don't have a regional sports stadium authority to manage all these venues and proposals is just odd. I'd gladly accept the city help pay for an MLS stadium in the county IF the county would help pay for the Scottrade Center renovations.
MLS doesn't want a stadium in the county though. They want it in the urban core, as far as I know. Did this ever change?
They've never let on if it has changed. That's not to say MLS wouldn't consider a county stadium though. They're also against football stadiums and artificial turf...except when billionaires in desirable markets say that's the stadium they're getting (bc that's the stadium they fleeced the taxpayers for, of course).

But, in this case, I think the MLS is right to want it in the urban core, so I hope we don't push back on that.
No new news pertaining a St.Louis quest for a new MLS team however it looks like the Columbus Crew might being relocating from there to Austin.
Can someone explain when there were two ownership groups, why some or one of the other members from the 2nd group didn't come over and fill in the 60 mil gap? Ego? They weren't serious about the investment?
ImprovSTL wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:27 am
Can someone explain when there were two ownership groups, why some or one of the other members from the 2nd group didn't come over and fill in the 60 mil gap? Ego? They weren't serious about the investment?
One group never shared enough information to be taken seriously by the public. They made claims of which many were skeptical (I wasn't one of those people) but because the process was largely closed and in cahoots with the SC St Louis group, there was never much advancement or real need for them to share how serious they were.

They at one point offered to close the $60m, but again, they never needed to back up that claim as the SC St. Louis group was never open to having them join the group. (It would have diluted their investment shares, and this is all about greed, not about getting St. Louis a team.)

Personally, I think MLS expansion fee will need to go down by the $60m now. With the USMNT missing the World Cup, and a founding member planning a move out of their market, I don't see how MLS can make the claim they're worth the expansion fee that they want.
jstriebel wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 am
Personally, I think MLS expansion fee will need to go down by the $60m now. With the USMNT missing the World Cup, and a founding member planning a move out of their market, I don't see how MLS can make the claim they're worth the expansion fee that they want.
I know the Forbes valuation of sports franchises aren't to be taken as gospel truth, but if they are even remotely true, then $150M for a MLS team seems like a bargain. They have the average value as $223M with all but two teams in the league worth at least $150M. Sporting Kansas City, which I think many people believe a STL team should at least match, is valued at $260M:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith ... b761cb815d
Grover wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 2:58 pm
jstriebel wrote:
Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:55 am
Personally, I think MLS expansion fee will need to go down by the $60m now. With the USMNT missing the World Cup, and a founding member planning a move out of their market, I don't see how MLS can make the claim they're worth the expansion fee that they want.
I know the Forbes valuation of sports franchises aren't to be taken as gospel truth, but if they are even remotely true, then $150M for a MLS team seems like a bargain. They have the average value as $223M with all but two teams in the league worth at least $150M. Sporting Kansas City, which I think many people believe a STL team should at least match, is valued at $260M:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith ... b761cb815d
If STL only had to pay $150M for a team that would be a bargain. STLFC was proposing spending $200M on expansion fees and $200M for a stadium/first couple years of team operations.

The expansion fee number is absolutely outrageous right now.
I'm pretty sure the expansion fee is $150M:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expansion ... gue_Soccer

They originally floated out the $200M figure (which was never officially announced), but it later came out that the fee would be $150M. Even with that change, MLS2STL didn't lower their public funding amount, which irritated many people. I think there is speculation that the next round of expansion (teams 27 and 28) would cost more (potentially $200M).
Grover wrote:
I know the Forbes valuation of sports franchises aren't to be taken as gospel truth, but if they are even remotely true, then $150M for a MLS team seems like a bargain. They have the average value as $223M with all but two teams in the league worth at least $150M. Sporting Kansas City, which I think many people believe a STL team should at least match, is valued at $260M:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chrissmith ... b761cb815d
I don't really agree. Beyond the franchise fee, there is the cost to build a venue, the cost to hire staff and players, practice facilities, etc. Realistically the owners investment would probably be far higher than any valuation. Consider also that profitability isn't exactly a foregone conclusion. To me 150mil is ridiculous. Even 100 is a hard swallow.

The Forbes valuation might be real in that that is the price you would have to pay to get the ownerships to let go of their shiny objects, but from a pure bussiness case, I am not convinced.
The owners were quoted (don't have time to find it) that with their final offer to the city, it would take over 10 years to make any potential profit.

This was a business decision, they had their max number, STL didn't pay to cover what was needed so it was a no go for them.

In my opinion this is still a huge lose for the city compared to the NFL stadium. Sadly the people were misinformed and Kroneke successfully burned two leagues in STL.
dmelsh wrote:
Tue Oct 31, 2017 1:30 pm
Sadly the people were misinformed and Kroneke successfully burned two leagues in STL.
Remind me how the people were misinformed? (Serious question.)