urbanSTL

I think one of the good things about having him as a minority stakeholder is to be able to recruit football fans (who adore him) into MLS fans... and I think this 'Will Ferrell' thing is such a good idea... having a face people know as an owner could be a really awesome for gaining confidence and more fans. Also, Chris Long seems like someone I'd trust to be a partial owner.

Pipe Dream: I think it'd be interesting to get Yadier Molina/Adam Wainwright who also have soccer ties... that'd be fun.

He was part of Jeff Cooper's failed Collinsville bid for MLS.

Linky. (It's a Deadpan article, but still has most of the facts; aka not much except he joined the ownership group).

The difference this time around is the ownership group has some heavy hitters possibly in it with DeWitt, Peacock, Zimmerman, Kavanaugh, etc.. I get the feeling Pujols was like a 5% minority investor with Cooper being the other 95%. This time around I get the feeling that the group would be more diverse, deeper, and able to throw their weight around more.

Wow. I absolutely hate the name. The design is nice for a racing team or something, but I'd prefer to see the old St. Louis United logo resurface. The Saint Louis FC colors are nicer too.

But this is a great idea all the same https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/camp ... -legends#/

Agreed. I like the Browns way more than the Legends. I still think there are way better names than both of those. We'll see I guess.

Anyone know what the kick started meant by aligning with MLS2STL? Are they planning to do a fan stakeholder offer I wonder?

CarexCurator wrote:But this is a great idea all the same https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/camp ... -legends#/

What indication has MLS given that they would be open to an arrangement like this?

Also i agree logo is terrible. Stick with STL FC logo.

The legends project could put together such a fan-owned group with no expectation of ROI and start small. Maybe work on fielding an amateur team and build up from there. Jumping straight into MLS is a little crazy. The group would need a huge amount of money to even work up to minority investor in MLS. If they had the money, and MLS doesn't currently allow it, then the league that does would be the place to hang out and wait. Eventually the obvious imbalance would right itself.

Better to buy into the SG Pro unit running STL FC rather than MLS2STL. That's a safer place for a grassroots effort to grow.

No major sports league in the US would be willing to have a fan subsidized ownership group. Could we see some gimmick where fans can buy 'shares' into, say, a 1% interest in the team? Sure. But there is no way that any grassroots fan owned team without a major investing ownership group could get an MLS team.

I like what CarexCurator is thinking... if a group of fans really want to invest in a team, look at the lower leagues.

After the pushing aside of the Atlanta Silverbacks and the flak MLS got from it, it seems likely STL FC would be involved. Obviously with Jim Kavanaugh on both sides, he can steer that along.

Situation A, ownership group dumps money into the already existing SG Pro group and massively dilutes original ownership. STL FC becomes MLS team then gets their name slapped off like Minnesota United.

Situation B, ownership group launches MLS team, makes STL FC their farm team, and STL FC can concentrate on Scott Gallagher talent development.

Situation C, MLS team ignores and pushes out STL FC. STL FC folds. Scott Gallagher collects more cool logos for their records...


Of these, I like Situation B best. I'd like to see the St. Louis Legends plan go after the second tier of situation B. Maybe the fans can't own the flagship team, but we could own the talent pool. Here's the model to study: http://www.sounderscommunitytrust.org/ "SCT exists ... to realize the dream of fan ownership in North American professional soccer"

Springfield or Memphis are better markets, but staying local can keep it at the top of the youth soccer pyramid. One team looks to youth soccer families to build up a fan base and the other looks to the wider St. Louis region. As long as the USL team is only aiming at a 5000 seat draw, it could persist. Not as profitably, but there would be community gains. Just like the Swope Park Rangers.

What they want to build in Minnesota. Price tag has gone from $120 million to over $150 million.

Not a done deal yet but it looks like St. Paul will kick in $18M for streets and plazas surrounding the Minnesota United FC stadium, which apparently will be financed 100% by team.

http://www.twincities.com/2016/03/02/st ... ts-plazas/



In addition to supporting the new $150M stadium, the city hopes its infrastructure investment will also support an additional $150M mixed-use redevelopment of the currently vacant area.

I can see something like this working for a Saint Louis stadium in the 22nd St. interchange footprint.... MLS owners pay for the stadium while city and state take care of the surrounding infrastructure. With Metrolink access and an improved Downtown West environment hospitable to redevelopment, I think that could really work well.

Doesn't really surprise me that much. Half the plan is in place already with land acquisition and how to handle the utilities; plus the stadium design can just be tweaked / reduced down to soccer specific needs. The NFL committee basically put together a cook book AND prepped all the ingredients. Now MLS can choose a chef and we'll be on our way! (Horrible analogy, I know. Sorry all).