MLS in STL

Got love for St. Louis sports? Let's talk Pro, College, High School, or otherwise.
First unread post1384 posts
^ If aldermen are so concerned about how a yes vote looks in terms of their reelection then why did 26 of them vote yes the other day? Even the two that voted no offered praise for the plan. SLPS is even on board, and they're the ones losing out on the property taxes. Also, how is this just a "show?" I understand it's a non-binding resolution but without showing the MLS that at least the framework of a deal is in place (and that the City's legislative body and the potential ownership group are on the same page) then what incentive does the MLS have to award St. Louis a team? These last two votes by HUDZ and the BoA are still very important to the process. Especially considering the MLS may fill that final expansion spot by next month, maybe earlier. Almost certainly before the next board sits.

And who's to say Reed won't win reelection? He probably shoudn't, but based on his competitors that have filed thus far, I can't see him losing.
The Mayor wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:51 am
^ If aldermen are so concerned about how a yes vote looks in terms of their reelection then why did 26 of them vote yes the other day? Even the two that voted no offered praise for the plan. SLPS is even on board, and they're the ones losing out on the property taxes. Also, how is this just a "show?" I understand it's a non-binding resolution but without showing the MLS that at least the framework of a deal is in place (and that the City's legislative body and the potential ownership group are on the same page) then what incentive does the MLS have to award St. Louis a team? These last two votes by HUDZ and the BoA are still very important to the process. Especially considering the MLS may fill that final expansion spot by next month, maybe earlier. Almost certainly before the next board sits.

And who's to say Reed won't win reelection? He probably shoudn't, but based on his competitors that have filed thus far, I can't see him losing.
they voted yes because it doesnt mean anything, yet. the lease is whats going to decide this.

Not to get to too much into poltics but I would put Senator Nasheed as the favorite. she's got most money ($400,000 last i checked MEC), shes (like reed) has won all citywide and has a very organized team.


its going to take 5-7 weeks to pay an ordinance, there will be multiple ordinances and also a lease to be negotiate...this just isnt happening before March, unless MLS gives STL a team in the meeting next Friday...
dbInSouthCity wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 10:00 am
The Mayor wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 9:51 am
^ If aldermen are so concerned about how a yes vote looks in terms of their reelection then why did 26 of them vote yes the other day? Even the two that voted no offered praise for the plan. SLPS is even on board, and they're the ones losing out on the property taxes. Also, how is this just a "show?" I understand it's a non-binding resolution but without showing the MLS that at least the framework of a deal is in place (and that the City's legislative body and the potential ownership group are on the same page) then what incentive does the MLS have to award St. Louis a team? These last two votes by HUDZ and the BoA are still very important to the process. Especially considering the MLS may fill that final expansion spot by next month, maybe earlier. Almost certainly before the next board sits.

And who's to say Reed won't win reelection? He probably shoudn't, but based on his competitors that have filed thus far, I can't see him losing.
they voted yes because it doesnt mean anything, yet. the lease is whats going to decide this.

Not to get to too much into poltics but I would put Senator Nasheed as the favorite. she's got most money ($400,000 last i checked MEC), shes (like reed) has won all citywide and has a very organized team.


its going to take 5-7 weeks to pay an ordinance, there will be multiple ordinances and also a lease to be negotiate...this just isnt happening before March, unless MLS gives STL a team in the meeting next Friday...
The election is in March but when does the next board sit? It is a couple months after that I would assume, so that is more time for it to get done before they do. If Reed loses you have to imagine he will be pushing to get it done before he leaves. I think the team will be awarded before the end of January.

I doubt enough alderman change that it will make a difference anyway, but the BOA doesn't have to approve the lease. So if they REALLY needed to go around them they could. They would just have to find another way to get the 3% taxes they want. And probably wouldn't get the amusement tax exemption. Either way I personally am not all that worried about this getting done. I have a hard time seeing 10+ people changing their mind.
^ For what it's worth, March 5th is just the primary. Now as we all know because of St. Louis' democratic tendencies most of the races will be decided on that day, however there would still be a general on April 2nd. I can't quite find any information on when those newly elected board members actually take their seat, but I would guess sometime in May at the earliest, if not later. Maybe after the fiscal year changes over, which would be after June 30th.

Either way, I'm with you. If the MLS awards a team in relatively short order, then I suspect this will sail through before the general, if not the primary too. If the MLS drags it's feet and doesn't award a team until February or later next year, then yes it'll likely be after the fact. I also don't know where people are getting the vibes that voting yes on this is somehow going to be a reelection killer. In addition to the City, the public seems to be behind this too. I have a very hard time seeing a 26-2 vote suddenly turning into a 14-14 deadlock.

Provided the MLS gives St. Louis a team, I don't suspect any real hurdles for this one. Of course that didn't stop Tony Messenger from weakly attempting to connect this to Kroenke in today's paper, but whatever lol.
New Board is sworn in 3rd week of April.
The Mayor wrote:
Mon Dec 03, 2018 12:55 pm
Of course that didn't stop Tony Messenger from weakly attempting to connect this to Kroenke in today's paper, but whatever lol.
oh, c'mon. that was a peripheral jab at Kroenke and not at all the meat of Tony's argument, which is supported by a considerable body of research.
Four Reasons Taxpayers Should Never Subsidize Stadiums

Elected officials have been played by team owners and sports leagues.
By Barry Ritholtz
July 16, 2018, 12:00 PM EDT

Priceless doesn’t begin to describe it. Photographer: Michael Chang/Getty Images North America
Barry Ritholtz is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist.

Your tax dollars are being wasted, on an enormous scale, by un-competitive socialist enterprises that ignore the basic rules of economics.

I refer, of course, to the practice of politicians who give taxpayer dollars to subsidize the business of sports by paying for the construction and/or renovation of stadiums and arenas. These exercises in crony capitalism make no sense whatsoever. There has never been a decent reason to subsidize these successful businesses, which rarely produce a real return on the public’s investment. Nor is civic pride a justification.

The bottom line here is very simple: The cost of building and maintaining these facilities should be borne by the people who attend these events via their ticket purchases, and not the people of an entire state and/or metropolitan region, the vast majority of whom will never set foot inside these enormously costly structures.

This was brought into focus once again by a recent New York Times column, which looked at the five sports stadiums and six sports arenas within 60 miles of midtown Manhattan, with a combined 335,271 seats. Of the total cost of $7.5 billion, taxpayers provided more than a third, or about $2.75 billion. That’s about $8,200 per seat.

Sadly, our leaders never learn, and there are many proposals for more stadiums to be built or renovated with taxpayer backing.

For a nation allegedly concerned with mounting deficits and debt this is a colossal waste of resources. Here are four reasons why:

1. Competition: Sports and live music are incredibly successful and profitable businesses overall. These venues should be able to compete on their own for consumer dollars. If a venue can’t generate the needed revenue, that tells you that it is either poorly managed or not needed by the marketplace. In either case, the local tax base should not subsidize it.

2. Riches for the rich: Sports teams are extremely valuable properties. Why should nonowners subsidize businesses that can easily afford to build their own facilities? The taxpayer subsidies also distort the market calculus, destroying the signals that supply and demand are supposed to send. So not only do rich owners avoid the full cost of paying for their venues, but they also get all of the appreciation in the value of their teams. And by lowering the actual cost of operation, the subsidies make it much easier for rich owners to earn a profit.

3. Economic impact: The academics have looked at the data, 1 and there is little doubt: Stadiums add little or nothing to the local economy. It certainly isn’t worth giving away billions of dollars to these businesses. The return on investment for the public is nil. These wasteful subsidies have demonstrated little if any positive economic impact on the municipalities and states.

4. Priorities: Given the state of the nation’s infrastructure, one would imagine that there might be projects with higher priority for taxpayer dollars. Bridges are collapsing, tunnels are on the verge of failure, highways are not being properly maintained, rail lines are obsolete, the electrical grid is an antiquated patchwork and our ports are still vulnerable to terrorist attacks. This is before we even consider making our transportation system smart and capable of handling self-driving cars — or even just more efficient at traffic management.

Anyone who thinks the taxpayer should be paying for building new stadiums should spend a little more time studying the state of America the rest of us deal with. Build all the stadiums all you want. But pay for them yourself.

I lay most of the blame for this on the sport leagues, who helped the owners perfect the art of playing one city or region against another. Had the leagues either not condoned or shrugged at this kind of hard-nosed bargaining, we might never have seen local leaders dangling financial goodies in front of owners or engaging in the one-upmanship that so often comes when a team decides its old home wasn’t quite good enough (never mind the total disregard and disrespect for the long-suffering fans).

Team owners and sports leagues during the past 30 years have proven themselves masters of plundering the public coffers. America’s mayors and governors need to catch up. It should have happened a long time ago.
Expect a new design to be released soon with a "neighborhood" vibe. I don't mean a BPV style thing but something where different parts of the stadium are different. HOK is still the architect. The new design could be released tonight at the Blues Game.

This all comes from a source familiar with the project and backs up Kavanaugh's comments in the local media recently.
^Sweet, can't wait to see the new renderings. Will be watching the Blues (and Binnington, yes!) intently tonight.
Carolyn Kindle Betz was on in between periods and she said they are still working on the design. She mentioned they took a tour of all the stadiums and that the design would be forthcoming along with a formal presentation for the MLS owners.
Well, this is not good! Sacramento caught it's whale.

https://www.sacbee.com/sports/mls/article224873330.html
^I don't know. I feel like they find a way to add more teams. If I had a business where there were multiple billionaires trying to give me cash through expansion fees, I think I'd find a way to make that happen.
How is it bad? They found a billionaire investor, but have no formal plan or agreement with the city yet. The article linked here even says a 2020 timetable is pretty much unrealistic at this point. Most of what I have read about the expansion process said MLS is expected to award that final spot before 2020. St. Louis' ownership group is also worth quite a bit more money and is much more advanced with their plan and their talks with the MLS. I wouldn't say it's panic time yet.
^ STL group's billionaires have more money (female majority a bonus), better geography with regards to rivals, better soccer history, amongst other things. These give us the edge over Sacramento IMO. Now, saying that, Sacramento has the advantage with regards to the Republic and fan support, which far exceeds that of FCSTL. They sellout games, 11K plus and have been for some time. They also have been snubbed a few times for an expansion team. This all makes it too close to call. Then you throw in PHX with their own billionaire owner and stadium plan. I'm nervous. I think most polls would have STL & SAC tied.

I like the idea of 30 teams; add STL, PHX, SAC and whichever 4th city that steps up, maybe DET if they can get a venue outside of Ford Field.
The Mayor wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 2:59 pm
How is it bad? They found a billionaire investor, but have no formal plan or agreement with the city yet. The article linked here even says a 2020 timetable is pretty much unrealistic at this point. Most of what I have read about the expansion process said MLS is expected to award that final spot before 2020. St. Louis' ownership group is also worth quite a bit more money and is much more advanced with their plan and their talks with the MLS. I wouldn't say it's panic time yet.
The 2020 date in the article was in reference to the stadium being completed, not the plan being finalized. One of the big selling points for Sacramento in the past was that their plan was supposedly shovel ready. They have already had extensive talks with MLS. It sounds like they still have some details to work out (especially with a new investor), but I would think that they are further along in the process than the current St Louis group, which hasn't released a current rendering yet.

Austin starts play in 2021, so that is when MLS would be looking for team 28 to join them. I would think Sacramento might have a better shot of completing a stadium by then.

I think Sacramento may have just moved ahead for spot 28, but it seems pretty clear the league won't stop there. I think 30 will be right behind, with 32 happening before too long.
DogtownBnR wrote:
Tue Jan 22, 2019 3:13 pm
I like the idea of 30 teams; add STL, PHX, SAC and whichever 4th city that steps up, maybe DET if they can get a venue outside of Ford Field.
I think you are forgetting about 1 team. It would only take 3 more cities to get to 30 teams (assuming Miami doesn't get delayed again).

I think SAC might be 28, with STL and PHX the favorites for 29 and 30. Detroit, Charlotte/Raleigh, San Diego, and more of a long shot for Indianapolis (which just put out a new stadium plan) would be vying for 31 and 32, or possibly jumping ahead if SAC, STL, or PHX falter.
I’ve thought for awhile now they will go to 30. SAC/STL/PHX. Just makes too much sense.

I still think we will be 28. The main reason is because I think STL is who MLS has coveted for too long now. Maybe not NFL to LA level but they have wanted to be here. They need to get a team here while they have the chance because if they don’t then who knows the next time. Maybe another 20 years from now? I think as long as the group here is making quick progress they will let them have their shot.

Sac is more shovel ready but I don’t think it would take us much time to catch up. They have basically been stagnant the last 18 months or so. Sac isn’t going anywhere (as in their bid isn’t going to get pulled if they aren’t 28)
I have seen many people comment here, on twitter and elsewhere that St. Louis is somehow behind because we don't have a rendering of a stadium. I just don't get that. The land is nowhere near ready to be built upon. I think at this point if you can say "We have the land, the money and the ability to build a 20,000 seat stadium." that's really all you need. Renderings are nice PR centerpieces but hardly necessary at this stage. Since there is no public vote, there is no need to rush out a rendering when the details can be revealed slowly over time in order to keep and build public interest over the next 14 - 26 months (depending on when the team starts playing).
^ Have to agree with most of the comments. From the outside looking in it seems like a no-brainer for a St Louis MLS team with Taylor Family/Enterprise behind it and ready to write the league a franchise check for what I understand from the reporting.

For all we know, their might be a lot more work being done behind the scenes for west downtown stadium and if not mistaken, believe 2019 is the year that MoDOT starts working on the expanded Jefferson Ave interchange and the old 22nd parkway idea can go away and what was built can be ripped up once and for all.
Black02AltimaSE wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:39 am
I have seen many people comment here, on twitter and elsewhere that St. Louis is somehow behind because we don't have a rendering of a stadium. I just don't get that. The land is nowhere near ready to be built upon. I think at this point if you can say "We have the land, the money and the ability to build a 20,000 seat stadium." that's really all you need. Renderings are nice PR centerpieces but hardly necessary at this stage. Since there is no public vote, there is no need to rush out a rendering when the details can be revealed slowly over time in order to keep and build public interest over the next 14 - 26 months (depending on when the team starts playing).
MLS will definitely want to review and compare renderings before awarding a franchise. Maybe that is currently being done behind closed doors, but the fact that there are no public renderings seems to put us behind the curve.

You make a good point about the land not being ready to be built upon, and I think that is the bigger factor. Sacramento Republic already owns the land for the stadium. The land is clear and they even started some preliminary site prep (although more as a publicity stunt than anything).

MLS has also been flirting with Sacramento for a long time and Don Garber previously all but guaranteed them a team (in a more public manner than with STL). MLS would be happy to have both markets and as long as the ownership groups and stadium plans don't fall apart, both cities should get teams. It is just a matter of who starts in 2021 and who begins a year or two later.

I don't think either bid has a large advantage in the eyes of MLS, so I think it will come down to which stadium will be more likely to be completed by 2021, with less potential red tape or hurdles. That is where I think Sacramento currently has an edge.
Grover wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 12:01 pm
Black02AltimaSE wrote:
Wed Jan 23, 2019 8:39 am
I have seen many people comment here, on twitter and elsewhere that St. Louis is somehow behind because we don't have a rendering of a stadium. I just don't get that. The land is nowhere near ready to be built upon. I think at this point if you can say "We have the land, the money and the ability to build a 20,000 seat stadium." that's really all you need. Renderings are nice PR centerpieces but hardly necessary at this stage. Since there is no public vote, there is no need to rush out a rendering when the details can be revealed slowly over time in order to keep and build public interest over the next 14 - 26 months (depending on when the team starts playing).
MLS will definitely want to review and compare renderings before awarding a franchise. Maybe that is currently being done behind closed doors, but the fact that there are no public renderings seems to put us behind the curve.
On a recent podcast, ownership group mentioned that MLS has been extremely involved in redesign of stadium proposal and it is very close to being released publicly. Also mentioned that they are adjusting the design to be a better community (Downtown specifically) asset. With HOK and the extremely engaged ownership group, I think it is very likely that we see one of the best stadium designs, both architecturally and operationally, the US has seen.

Nationally, stadium proposals come with a "neighborhood" of redevelopment immediately adjacent. They might be putting the finishing touches on what that looks like and they might also be cautious of causing a significant shift in surrounding real estate prices that could increase their price of acquisition.
I think the Taylor's money alone puts St. Louis in the lead spot still. Enterprise is a massive, internationally known company with many, many billions behind it. Many more billions than this SAC investor. That's not to say SAC isn't a front runner, but a new investor is still going to have to work out a plan with the city and state. They may have a nice framework to go off of, but that's doesn't mean it's all wrapped up in a bow and ready to turn dirt. Like Grover said, 2020 stadium completion is pretty much off the table as reported by the SacBee. Provided MoDOT can complete the Jefferson interchange this year or early next, I fail to see how St. Louis couldn't complete a stadium by 2021. Especially if the MLS awards that 28th spot this year.

I'm not sure how this stuff works with the MLS but I know corporate suites, sponsors, etc are pretty important when the NHL, MLB, NBA, or NFL expands or relocates a team and St. Louis kills SAC on that front two. 10 Fortune 500s in STL (6 more in the F1000) compared to zero in SAC. In fact the only major Fortune 500 company with a large presence in SAC is Centene...and guess where they're headquartered. Even the company I work for, also headquartered in St. Louis, wants in for some MLS tickets and a suite. Customers love that stuff.

Add in the all female ownership group, the history of the game in St. Louis, the great rivalries between here, KC, Chicago and elsewhere and the optics still look outstanding for the St. Louis bid. Even without a rendering (and yes, the MLS will want to see a rendering before making a decision, but at the end of the day it will come down to money, this is professional sports lol). Besides, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Kindle-Betz mention during an interview that renderings and stadium design were in progress and they'd have something to share in a couple months or so? I think we'll see some mock ups sooner, rather than later. In addition the MLS has already seen renderings of our site with a stadium on it, may have been a different investor and stadium design but the general site plan isn't much different.
^ I completely agree with all of your points. I think on paper, assuming everything is truly in place, STL is by far the better option.

I will say this. The whale investor that SAC brought onboard, is a very connected guy with sports ties. As you know, he is part owner of the Pittsburgh Penguins. I think that gives their bid a lot of credibility. The Republic organization has long been in touch with the MLS and had all but been promised a franchise if they landed a whale. Now that they've checked that box, I think they will get a franchise at some point.

One thing to keep in mind, STL's group has been working directly with MLS since early October and more than likely way before they announced the Taylor/JK partnership. I am not sure how much they accomplished behind the scenes, but I would have to guess they've made huge progress with MLS. This extra time has allowed STL to build connections and rapport with Garber and MLS officials. It also gave time for Garber to explore STL some more, now that we have a group with serious money and a stadium plan in place. CKB and JK have been on this since day one. To me, that is our advantage. With SAC just now getting their whale, they have some catching up to do.

ADVANTAGE STL.
Not much new here but a good summary of the situation:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/prishe/201 ... e491cc79d7
Bizjournals reported that St. Louis group gave MLS commissioner an update on project. I doubt that article has much new but would be interesting to know what the group had to say

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline

#MLS4THELOU said it initiated the meeting with Commissioner Don Garber, with a "purpose of providing an update on our proposal and the progress we’ve made over the past few months."