Not just renderings, but also the corporate sponsor, releasing these 2 things at the same time is interesting, perhaps they are tied together? Let your imagination run wild with that
- 596
Yes you’re absolutely right about the naming rights and sponsors forgot that tidbit
- 2,634
I can see it now: "Black Lung FC - Brought to you by Peabody Coal"
From this little teaser they shared on Twitter, the stadium will have a triangular glass roof somewhere. The guy's shirt (who is walking) says "St. Louis United". I hope the design brings come interesting tidbits and I truly hope that they have a plan for the immediate area. No oceans of parking, please.
![]()
Also, looks like the colors will be the same as our beloved flag. I'm happy about that but I also understand why STLFC and fans would want green and navy blue for continuity.
- 474
Most of the STLFC fans I know (me included) are more concerned about the St. Louis United name. Hopefully that is just a placeholder. I'm holding out hope for Saint Louis City FC.
- 488
I am on the other side. I dont care about the name, but if the jerseys arent mostly Red with a little blue and yellow in them and showcase the city flag I will be extremely disappointed.
I have no earthly idea why a St. Louis MLS team would have green and navy as their colors. I get the Gallagher thing, but they are trying to appeal to a much larger audience now.
I have no earthly idea why a St. Louis MLS team would have green and navy as their colors. I get the Gallagher thing, but they are trying to appeal to a much larger audience now.
- 99
mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Apr 11, 2019I have no earthly idea why a St. Louis MLS team would have green and navy as their colors. I get the Gallagher thing, but they are trying to appeal to a much larger audience now.
Agreed. In fact, I'd argue that most things about STL FC scream "St. Louis old boys club" - like the Gallagher colors, WWT affiliation, etc. I hope they rebrand in an effort to appeal to audiences outside the middle-upper class suburban white demographic.
- 474
^This is interesting to me. If you didn't know who the owners of STLFC were, is there anything specific to STLFC about the branding or marketing that makes you think they are only trying to appeal to the middle/upper class white suburbanites? I think there are a lot of people in town with emotional baggage tied to Scott Gallagher that they are projecting onto STLFC by default. I have heard people who are soccer fans say they wouldn't go to an STLFC game because they've "already given them enough money" or because seeing professional sports in a stadium they played in as kids doesn't seem big time enough.
That being said how does any sports team get away from this stigma? They are all owned by wealthy people with connections. It doesn't seem to keep people away from the Blues and the Cardinals.
That being said how does any sports team get away from this stigma? They are all owned by wealthy people with connections. It doesn't seem to keep people away from the Blues and the Cardinals.
- 488
I think their prices and location is a big reason for the reputation. I also dont think its outrageous to project Scott Gallagher emotions onto STL FC, considering they own it and their branding/colors are pretty much the same.Black02AltimaSE wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2019^This is interesting to me. If you didn't know who the owners of STLFC were, is there anything specific to STLFC about the branding or marketing that makes you think they are only trying to appeal to the middle/upper class white suburbanites? I think there are a lot of people in town with emotional baggage tied to Scott Gallagher that they are projecting onto STLFC by default. I have heard people who are soccer fans say they wouldn't go to an STLFC game because they've "already given them enough money" or because seeing professional sports in a stadium they played in as kids doesn't seem big time enough.
That being said how does any sports team get away from this stigma? They are all owned by wealthy people with connections. It doesn't seem to keep people away from the Blues and the Cardinals.
To me - if they went with Gallagher colors/logo it would just tell me the MLS team is just a piece of Gallagher, not the other way around.
- 2,634
From the perspective of your average 23 year old city dweller who has never been to a game but has followed the team peripherally over the years, I never found anything wrong with the branding of the team. The colors are fine, especially for a team in a minor league and the fleur de lis particularly resonates with me. The biggest obstacle between me ever going to a game is the fact that I would have to drive out to Fenton. If anything, that is what makes the team feel "suburban."
Also the fact that they had a beer partnership with Kirkwood Station Brewing Co didn't help things. They were never known as a "hip" brand and not known for particularly good beer either. Schlafly is a far better choice for a brewery partner.
I personally am hoping that the new MLS team could work something out with 4Hands. They have the money to pull it off and the "City Wide" brand seems like a perfect co-branding opportunity with a soccer team.
Also the fact that they had a beer partnership with Kirkwood Station Brewing Co didn't help things. They were never known as a "hip" brand and not known for particularly good beer either. Schlafly is a far better choice for a brewery partner.
I personally am hoping that the new MLS team could work something out with 4Hands. They have the money to pull it off and the "City Wide" brand seems like a perfect co-branding opportunity with a soccer team.
- 488
These are some great points. I have no idea why a professional sports franchise would take on the identity of a minor league team in the area. It really makes no sense.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2019From the perspective of your average 23 year old city dweller who has never been to a game but has followed the team peripherally over the years, I never found anything wrong with the branding of the team. The colors are fine, especially for a team in a minor league and the fleur de lis particularly resonates with me. The biggest obstacle between me ever going to a game is the fact that I would have to drive out to Fenton. If anything, that is what makes the team feel "suburban."
Also the fact that they had a beer partnership with Kirkwood Station Brewing Co didn't help things. They were never known as a "hip" brand and not known for particularly good beer either. Schlafly is a far better choice for a brewery partner.
I personally am hoping that the new MLS team could work something out with 4Hands. They have the money to pull it off and the "City Wide" brand seems like a perfect co-branding opportunity with a soccer team.
Im a Brewers fan and our AAA team is in San Antonio. If someone started a San Antonio MLB team they wouldnt at all consider what the San Antonio Missions have been doing for brnading and other things. Not to get too many puns going, but this is big time - you are literally in another league - its a totally different ballgame. This convo has me even more convinced if they go with STL FC branding and tie-ins it is a show that they arent ready for a real professional team.
- 474
Two things about this:mjbais1489 wrote: ↑Apr 12, 2019These are some great points. I have no idea why a professional sports franchise would take on the identity of a minor league team in the area. It really makes no sense.
1. Minor league teams that are one or two steps below the major leagues are typically professional sports teams. For example every player on the San Antonio Missions is a professional athlete. Other than a few academy players that are trying to maintain their college eligibility, the players on Saint Louis FC are professional athletes.
2. In most countries, soccer teams move from one tier to the next based on promotion and relegation. If an English team wins in the Championship, they move up to the Premier League. If you come in last in Premier League you move down. Same team different levels of competition. So for soccer fans, the idea that Saint Louis FC would become an MLS team is not a big deal.
But it is interesting that you bring up San Antonio. This is actually the first year they are competing at the AAA level. Previous to this they were at the AA level. The AAA Colorado Springs Sky Sox moved to San Antonio and took over the San Antonio Missions name while the Missions AA franchise moved to Amarillo and became the Sod Poodles (wow, that's a bad mascot). So maintaining a brand for the sake of consistency while transitioning to a higher tier is actually done, even in baseball.
Looks like a meaningful vote on the agenda with implications for the soccer stadium
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 5cf4a.html
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 5cf4a.html
^ Perspective wise it would look really, really good if this passes on the first go around. Especially considering recent announcements in SAC. But 2/3rd majority is a tall, tall task.
- 596
The port authority and soccer stadium vote didn’t advance not sure how much of this will hurt our chances. There may be a alternative who knows
- 2,056
In the article:
Williams said although he and other administration officials hope the bill passes Monday, “it’s not the end of the world” for the soccer stadium plan if it doesn’t.
He said the measure could be reintroduced when the board opens its 2019-2020 session on Tuesday and go through the legislative process again.
Moreover, he said, there are alternatives to the 1 percent port authority sales tax that could be explored by the city and the group seeking an MLS franchise here.
“The ownership group and the city only offered this up as one alternative,” he said. “There are other vehicles that can be created.
- 596
Ok I must of read it the wrong way
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remember when the ownership group said they were going to privately finance the whole stadium? What a great time that was in the very near past. The truth is always different.
^ I don't recall them ever saying that, all I ever heard was mostly privately funded. The big difference here is that the city wouldn't have to use any general funds ($60 million was the ask on the first go around) as they would have on the last one. As far as I know a sales tax on stadium only purchases was always going to be part of the plan.
^It has, sort of at least, but they so triumphantly announced that they were funding the construction completely privately. This is still a tax, even if it is only paid by attendees. It is not, however, taxing themselves. It is taxing people spending money. Ergo, never was this going to be privately funded. Just more crony capitalism.
Not trying to be rude, but do you potentially have a link that said the part about them funding the entire thing privately? I was never under that impression and handn't heard that and I've followed this pretty extensively. Sales tax rebates were always part of the plan. I mean, as someone who would be using it occasionally I have no problem paying a little extra at the stadium if it means the City isn't taking out debt or using general fund money for it. I'd still call this a pretty good deal overall.MattnSTL wrote: ↑Apr 16, 2019^It has, sort of at least, but they so triumphantly announced that they were funding the construction completely privately. This is still a tax, even if it is only paid by attendees. It is not, however, taxing themselves. It is taxing people spending money. Ergo, never was this going to be privately funded. Just more crony capitalism.
By that definition then nothing is privately funded. If I am paying extra for going to a game to fund it then how is that different from my paying for a ticket or food to fund it. How is that different from me funding the construction of a mcdonalds by buying a big mac?MattnSTL wrote: ↑Apr 16, 2019^It has, sort of at least, but they so triumphantly announced that they were funding the construction completely privately. This is still a tax, even if it is only paid by attendees. It is not, however, taxing themselves. It is taxing people spending money. Ergo, never was this going to be privately funded. Just more crony capitalism.
All they are doing is instead of charging an extra couple percent for the actual ticket/drink/food is having it be called a tax. Money still comes from the person going to the game either way. It isn't like they are taking it out of a fund for something else that didn't already exist.
- 596
There’s better clarification in the business journal and there seems to be several clear alternatives the post dispatch just seemed a little hazy to me.
At the end of the report it goes on to say that the stadium will mostly be privately financed how much public funding will go on to help with construction cost remains to be seen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
At the end of the report it goes on to say that the stadium will mostly be privately financed how much public funding will go on to help with construction cost remains to be seen.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk