urbanSTL

Mound City wrote:Would love "St. Louis Gunners" or St. Louis anything, really. Would despise anything with "Inter," "Real," "Sporting," "United," or anything of the sort. I don't even like FC. It should be SC. We call it soccer on this side of the Atlantic, not football. It's MLS, not MLF. I hate all those MLS team names that ape after the European club names.

Would you like the team if its name was, straight-up, "Together St. Louis"? No, of course you wouldn't, because that would sound utterly f***ing ridiculous.

I think my first choice would be just, "St. Louis SC." St. Louis Soccer Club. KEEP IT SIMPLE.

chaifetz10 wrote:Welp... looks like my first try posting this didn't work. Let's try again!

A STL ownership groups seems fairly simple to piece together. Peacock, DeWitt, Stillman, and multiple minority owners from the Cardinals, Blues, and area businesses would make a easy decision for MLS. And a stadium isn't a huge roadblock either as a MLS team could easily play a year or two at Busch, SIUE, or even an expanded Soccer Park or SLU venue. All St. Louis needs is a group of owners saying they're interested and I think the ball would get rolling extremely quickly.

chaifetz10 wrote:More evidence that MLS is a money making investment. MLS has proven it's not going to fold and that it's able to play with the major 4 leagues.

Not to mention with the Rams exiting the St. Louis region, now is the perfect opportunity to try to gain some of that extra fan revenue.

shimmy wrote: but a lot of them sound like minor league baseball teams or WNBA teams (Storm, Sting, Mine Dogs).

roger wyoming II wrote:^ yup... I don't think there's any doubt a solid ownership team could arise here, but the question is will it and how much public subsidy would they expect?

Comes to mind that "Bottle DIstrict" land north of the Dome might be a cost-effective location, btw.

The announcement of the impending move by the NFL's Rams from St. Louis to Los Angeles made news in the sports world and even MLS is following those developments closely.

MLS Commissioner Don Garber was asked whether the city of St. Louis, which is now home to two major professional sports teams — Major League Baseball’s St. Louis Cardinals and the National Hockey League's St. Louis Blues — is now on the MLS expansion radar as the league looks to expand to 28 teams.

“There are many cities in the US and in Canada — though we're more focused on the United States — that can support an MLS team and have owners who want to be involved and cities that want to be engaged with those owners on a stadium,” Garber said. "And St. Louis is one of those cities.

"We obviously heard the news [that the St. Louis Rams are moving to Los Angeles] like everybody else did, and we're tracking that news very closely,” Garber continued. “I have yet to speak to the governor or the mayor [of St. Louis], but we have been in touch with the group that was leading the effort for MLS and I think it kind of gives a little more momentum to that city than perhaps before the Rams left."

As far as other potential expansion cities are concerned, Garber said there was “no update” on Miami or Sacramento, but that there were “lots of discussion, even recently” with the ownership group in Sacramento and that Miami’s situation was “very real time."

“They have finalized an opportunity to purchase land,” Garber said about David Beckham’s proposed ownership group in Miami. “We like the site, we've been down to that site and we think it would be a good one for an MLS team. But there's still work to do. Unfortunately there's no more news today than there was over the last couple of days. No update."


When it comes to expansion teams that have already been unveiled, the MLS Commissioner allowed for the possibility of Minnesota United FC joining the league as early as 2017.

“It's a possibility,” he said. "Nothing's been determined yet, but it's a possibility and a decision will have to be made on that soon."

south compton wrote: and we'll crowdfund the rest by selling shares Green Bay Packers style.