Could NBA return to STL after nearly 50 years?

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
SLU alum Dr. Richard Chaifetz is apart of group trying to buy Atlanta Hawks. He was also apart of a groups to buy the Milwaukee Bucks and St. Louis Rams.

As some know SLU's basketball arena is named after Chaifetz.

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/S ... Hawks.aspx

The big knock on STL not having an NBA team was we couldn't support 4 sports franchises. Well it seems like we might have a vacancy soon.

Junior Bridge is also apart of Chaifetz group who owns Wendy's franchises around St. Louis.
http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/ne ... joins.html
It would be unfortunate if he bought the Hawks......NOW..... I was hoping that there was something to the rumors that he is interested in being part of Dave Peacock's ownership group, if either the Rams leave, Stan sells or Dave leads the charge to get another NFL team here (expansion or relocation).
Hawks aren't leaving ATL.
stlien wrote:
Hawks aren't leaving ATL.


That was my understanding. I can't find it now, but I want to say I read an AJC article that said the Hawks have arena bond payments and lease agreements that are north of $250 million. Plus the current owners are only taking calls from Atlanta people.
dweebe wrote:
That was my understanding. I can't find it now, but I want to say I read an AJC article that said the Hawks have arena bond payments and lease agreements that are north of $250 million. Plus the current owners are only taking calls from Atlanta people.


The NBA won't allow them to leave. Unless the new owners buy them for say, an outrageous amount of money, then maybe, maybe they'll allow a relocation.
Atlanta just lost their NHL team a few years ago (the second NHL team they've lost), so you'd think the city would put up quite a fight to keep the other major professional sports teams around.
JNOnSTL wrote:
Atlanta just lost their NHL team a few years ago (the second NHL team they've lost), so you'd think the city would put up quite a fight to keep the other major professional sports teams around.


Plus
-Braves already moving to the suburbs.
-there's no way Atlanta wants an empty arena (Philips Center) they're still paying on.
-Turner HQ nextdoor and TNT television contract with the NBA could play into things.
stlien wrote:
dweebe wrote:
That was my understanding. I can't find it now, but I want to say I read an AJC article that said the Hawks have arena bond payments and lease agreements that are north of $250 million. Plus the current owners are only taking calls from Atlanta people.


The NBA won't allow them to leave. Unless the new owners buy them for say, an outrageous amount of money, then maybe, maybe they'll allow a relocation.


The same group that sold the Thrashers to the Winnipeg group.....

Also the Hawks had the worst attendance in the NBA up until this magical season they're having.

Just thought it was interesting though.
-there's no way Atlanta wants an empty arena (Philips Center) they're still paying on.


Wonder what that's like :roll:
You could argue that the Hawks should move (although you could simultaneously argue that St. Louis couldn't support them), but it's a near certainty that they're not.

I'd love to have them back. But mostly just a dream.
I'm trying to dig up the link but I know i saw a quote from an NBA official who stated that the Hawks are not relocating. No matter who buys the team.

And it's a moot point because the Seattle groups are first in line for a team.
I actually believe we could support 5 teams but that doesn't mean it'll happen anytime soon. I'm also hoping we don't have a vacancy to fill as I wouldn't trade the Rams for the Hawks.

They'll never win a Championship in ATL anyway and I'd rather bring back the Spirits than steal someone else's team, no matter how awful Atlanta is as a sports city or how successful the Hawks were in St. Louis.

Besides, I think the NBA is, culturally, too african-american to gain widespread support here. I'm content with the local talent making their way in the league. In two years we might possibly have our first #1 overall pick.
I think St. Louis would struggle to support a team for racial reasons, too, though not because of racIST reasons*. Nothing wrong with it, but black Americans tend to be more into the NBA in larger numbers than white Americans.

And in St. Louis (and the whole country) blacks tend to be less wealthy than whites. That makes it harder to support a team, even if there are plenty of fans in number.

But St. Louis isn't alone in that. Atlanta suffers from the same socio-economic issue. Their owner actually said as much, which combined by a dumb scouting report passed on by their GM created a whole whirl-wind of controversy. The basis for what the owner said made sense, but the context of it got hairy. Basically, he wanted to attract more white fans to games because he thought that's where the money was. Maybe a reality, but not a pleasant thought. I'm not sure, but he may be selling the team due to this controversy.

Anyways, St. Louis would probably struggle to financially support an NBA team for the same reason. Although, I'd like to think we're finally going to start addressing our socio-economic issues. And I'd also like to think there would be a decent amount of support from our non-black community as well. I know, I would support them.

None of this has a practical application, though, as St. Louis simply isn't on the NBA's radar.

(* If you follow the trail all the way back, you can say it's for racist reasons. Just not overtly racist reasons. Basically, it's many of the problems we've been talking about since Ferguson.)
Just out of curiosity, based on the above two thoughts, how does Memphis fit into that argument?
Fair point, but I think the argument there is that they're not competing with any other major league team.
Does anyone think it is ironic on the political front that Gov Walker up north is essentially making the same pitch for Bucks that Gov Nixon is for the Rams? Only that Walker has gone with a cheaper tag line and half the cost. While I don't see St Louis getting a NBA team anytime soon. I do see this as an outside outside shot for KC and to lesser extent Seattle. I'm convinced that Clippers will make their way to Seattle in due time.

http://fox6now.com/2015/06/04/gov-scott ... cks-arena/
dredger wrote:
Does anyone think it is ironic on the political front that Gov Walker up north is essentially making the same pitch for Bucks that Gov Nixon is for the Rams? Only that Walker has gone with a cheaper tag line and half the cost. While I don't see St Louis getting a NBA team anytime soon. I do see this as an outside outside shot for KC and to lesser extent Seattle. I'm convinced that Clippers will make their way to Seattle in due time.

http://fox6now.com/2015/06/04/gov-scott ... cks-arena/


How does Milwaukee support baseball, basketball, football (Packers), and now a likely NHL expansion team with the new arena being pushed by Governor Walker? Ray Hartman says a town that size such as St. Louis should only be able to support two sports, not four. Also, why are the Tea Party limited government folks in Wisconsin, such as Governor Walker, not opposed to using state money for this they way they are in Missouri? My guess is they don't have a rich guy (Kroenke) guiding the local media the way we do. And the local media here oppose all capital improvements, because that is the "sophisticated" non-sports fanatic schtick. They can look smart and their prestige advances when they can preach to us about how badly we've made our city and how they would fix things, if they had a billion dollars. Which they don't. Also Milwaukee doesn't have a competing city on the other side of the state thinking one side advances if they other side regresses.
gary kreie wrote:
dredger wrote:
Does anyone think it is ironic on the political front that Gov Walker up north is essentially making the same pitch for Bucks that Gov Nixon is for the Rams? Only that Walker has gone with a cheaper tag line and half the cost. While I don't see St Louis getting a NBA team anytime soon. I do see this as an outside outside shot for KC and to lesser extent Seattle. I'm convinced that Clippers will make their way to Seattle in due time.

http://fox6now.com/2015/06/04/gov-scott ... cks-arena/


How does Milwaukee support baseball, basketball, football (Packers), and now a likely NHL expansion team with the new arena being pushed by Governor Walker? Ray Hartman says a town that size such as St. Louis should only be able to support two sports, not four. Also, why are the Tea Party limited government folks in Wisconsin, such as Governor Walker, not opposed to using state money for this they way they are in Missouri? My guess is they don't have a rich guy (Kroenke) guiding the local media the way we do. And the local media here oppose all capital improvements, because that is the "sophisticated" non-sports fanatic schtick. They can look smart and their prestige advances when they can preach to us about how badly we've made our city and how they would fix things, if they had a billion dollars. Which they don't. Also Milwaukee doesn't have a competing city on the other side of the state thinking one side advances if they other side regresses.


Because Ray Hartman's wrong. I showed in the Rams thread (I think, have to dig it up) a while back that if you compare the STL metro area to Denver (where there's no problem supporting 4 major sports plus soccer) that there's as much as, if not more corporate dollars here. Now those corporate owners may be unwilling to spend as much as Denver owners. Or the non-Cardinals sports teams may be worse at marketing to them. But the money's there. Despite some significant corporate losses incurred STL still punches above it's weight as a region in terms of companies either located here or with significant job centers here.

EDIT: Here it is. Quoting myself:

rbb wrote:
EDIT - wow I really screwed up the formatting on this one. Sorry about that...

beer city wrote:
JuanHamez wrote:
NBA is probably out of the question - It depends heavily on big corporate support - boxes etc... We do not have that kind of presence to be a big 4 city - MLS different story - requires much less money to operate


Since Denver was discussed upthread, here are Fortune list of the largest companies in the St. Louis and Denver area. Per this thread on City-Data, as of May 2013 Denver has 10 Fortune 500 companies and 5 of the largest privately-held companies; St. Louis has 9 Fortune 500 companies and 5 of the largest privately held companies:
Denver: 10 +5 = 15
141 Arrow Electronics $20.4 Billion
189 DISH Network $14.3 Billion
256 Liberty Global $10.6 Billion
270 Liberty Interactive $10.1 Billion
274 Newmont Mining $9.9 Billion
301 Ball $8.7 Billion
311 DaVita HealthCare Partners $8.5 Billion
398 Level 3 Communications $6.4 Billion
415 C2HM Hill $6.2 Billion
445 Western Union $5.7 Billion
17 TransMontaigne $14.2 Billion
63 CH2M Hill Cos $5.6 Billion
128 Sports Authority $3.4 Billion
129 ProBuild Holdings $3.3 Billion
169 Leprino Foods $2.7 Billion
193 Hensel Phelps Construction $2.3 Billion


St Louis:+5 = 14
24 Express Scripts Holdings $94.4 Billion
123 Emerson Electric $24.5 Billion
206 Monsanto $13.5 Billion
275 Reinsurance Group of America $9.8 Billion
303 Centene $8.7 Billion
315 Peabody Energy $8.3 Billion
373 Ameren $6.8 Billion
465 Graybar Electric $5.4 Billion
491 Jones Financial $5.0 Billion 
20 Enterprise Holdings $13.5 Billion
65 Graybar Electric $5.4 Billion
81 Edward Jones 4.6 Billion
85 Apex Oil $4.4 Billion
93 World Wide Technology 4.1 Billion
182 Schnuck Markets $2.5 Billion
190 McCarthy Holdings $2.4 Billion



Look at the revenues and you'll see that Denver's 15 companies total $132.3B in revenue. The St. Louis-area companies total a whopping $213.3B

The argument that there's not enough big companies in St. Louis to feasibly buy corporate boxes for 4 different teams rings hollow. Heck, Express Scripts alone might be able to do it all by itself...

-RBB


^ That's a bit simplistic too in that it only looked at companies that are headquartered here. It doesn't include A-BInBev, for example, which has just a bit of influence in the local sports scene, or WWT which has grown by leaps and bounds of late. The point is there's a lot of money to be had 'round here.

-RBB
I think the reality of NFL having shared revenue on huge TV contracts relatively to other pro sport teams puts its particular business model in a different class, league. Another way to put it, I don't think you can lump NFL together with NBA, NHL, MLB, etc.

A good example might the Raider's who are losing out in every which way in the Bay area market to 49er's even though they are paying minimal, under a million dollars, for playing & training facilities are at the end of the day making some dollars for Davis family solely because of NFL TV revenue share. The value in NFL is the team itself not so much the facilities/concessions and or the immediate market. Very much different from the other sport franchises.

The question is, can St. Louis support MLB, NHL and NBA as well as pro soccer in addition to Rams. I would say yes. Would you have a lot of winning teams? I think that would be tough because the corporate, cable TV dollars would be stretched out between NHL, NBA and MSL.
dredger wrote:
The question is, can St. Louis support MLB, NHL and NBA as well as pro soccer in addition to Rams. I would say yes. Would you have a lot of winning teams? I think that would be tough because the corporate, cable TV dollars would be stretched out between NHL, NBA and MSL.


I disagree. The Cardinals are the 300 lb bully that pushes everyone else in this market around: it's especially bad since they're an 81 game draw. I can't help to think that if the Rockies or Twins owned the market like the Cardinals do, Denver or the Twin Cities would lose one of the other pro teams in their town.
St. Louis can support teams in all 5 leagues in theory. But it would take the right effort from those teams (NBA in particular because the truth of the matter is that the biggest number of NBA fans in the area right now might not be able to afford to come to games, so they'd have to build an even larger fan base). But I certainly believe we're capable.

Is it relevant? As it pertains to the NFL and MLS, yes. As it pertains to the NBA? Still not really. We are not on the NBA's radar and aren't likely to be.
^ agree, in theory it is doable but I also think it is very unlikely St. Louis would be in running for NBA team. I think it would really take a single owner (ownership group)/facility model like Stan K's Avalanche/Nuggets for both a NHL/NBA team to work in St. Louis. Anything to pare down back office costs such as payroll & facility management while maximizing days of Scottrade use which of course has its own added costs of changing from putting down a basketball court on top of the ice and then removing again.

But fun to speculate what happens if Buck's stadium falls through. I think their might be a NBA team to be had out there

Yes, Cardinals is the 300 lbs gorilla but different seasons which is a biggie. Pro sports have their schedules worked out. A great example of that is the argument against a new warrior stadium in the San Fran mission district. Those against are calling it year around traffic gridlock if it goes through. A study of schedules shows that their would be only 6-8 overlapping home games if Warriors and Giants are both in the playoffs for a given season and the supporters are more then glad to point out that a NBA crowds would be at least 1/2 the size (42,000 Giant fans @ ATT park vs. 18,000 seat Warrior stadium). The big question, can MSL and or a NBA team pull more corporate sponsors into the mix or will they simply argue for some kitchen scraps?
Milwaukee has an NBA team and MLB. (And Packer Football). And their baseball team (Brewers) draws more fans for the size of their metro than St. Louis does, or any other MLB team.
gary kreie wrote:
Milwaukee has an NBA team and MLB. (And Packer Football). And their baseball team (Brewers) draws more fans for the size of their metro than St. Louis does, or any other MLB team.


Cardinals 2014: 3.5 million, Brewers 2014: 2.8 million.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance/_/year/2014

2014/15 Milwaukee Bucks: 611K. 2014/15 St. Louis Blues: 760K
http://espn.go.com/nba/attendance
http://espn.go.com/nhl/attendance

The Packers are also a statewide draw for Wisconsin.

St. Louis MSA: 2.8 million. Milwaukee MSA: 1.5 million
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas
But it's not uncommon for northern Chicago people to be Bucks, Brewers and/or Packers fans due to lower cost and easier access.
I'm originally from Milwaukee.

Milwaukee does not have 3 teams to support they have 2. And those 2 play in opposite seasons.

The packers do get a fair amount of Milwaukee fans to their games but it is really more of statewide team. Nothing really comparable anywhere else in pro sports that I can think of.

I could see Milwaukee supporting an NHL or MLS team .It would be as bout a difficult draw as a 4th team in STL would be.