urbanSTL

I think cities in general would be a lot better off if they could own sports teams instead of bribing them to stay every twenty years. It's a long-term asset for the community.

Jbacott wrote:

While I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is a good guy who has some civic progress in mind, if the best talking point he can float out there is the trusted "we want to bring people downtown" well, that isn't going to hold much weight. Bringing 20k downtown for three hours 17 times a year isn't going to do a whole lot to boost the surrounding area. If sporting events were enough, the 120 a year that the Cardinals and Blues bring would probably be sufficient.

While I do not disagree with a lot of your points, to be fair, this venue will be used for much more than the MLS home games. This venue has potential to host international Friendlies, summer tours featuring UEFA teams, World cup games if the US ever hosts, concerts, US men's national team games, College games, US open cup games and other events. While I agree the stadium alone will not necessarily make downtown vibrant, I do think the stadium does a very good job of connecting downtown west to mid-town. Also, soccer is very popular amongst millennial's and younger people in general. If we can build a loyal following like Seattle or Kansas City, it could attract these people to downtown, wanting to be close. I also feel like ballpark Village residential will do well strictly based upon its proximity to the stadium. My comments are in no way endorsing public funding. I do feel like state and city infrastructure contributions would be fair. Just stating what I feel is fact with regards to what the stadium can bring.

MarkHaversham wrote:I think cities in general would be a lot better off if they could own sports teams instead of bribing them to stay every twenty years. It's a long-term asset for the community.

The leagues avoid this model because they wouldn't make nearly as much money.

Patrick Rishe weighed in and feels MLS stadium and Scottrade renovations are a net positive, using conservative figures.

http://insidestl.com/sports-economist-s ... ve/1984270

DogtownBnR wrote:Jbacott wrote:

While I have no doubt that Kavanaugh is a good guy who has some civic progress in mind, if the best talking point he can float out there is the trusted "we want to bring people downtown" well, that isn't going to hold much weight. Bringing 20k downtown for three hours 17 times a year isn't going to do a whole lot to boost the surrounding area. If sporting events were enough, the 120 a year that the Cardinals and Blues bring would probably be sufficient.

While I do not disagree with a lot of your points, to be fair, this venue will be used for much more than the MLS home games. This venue has potential to host international Friendlies, summer tours featuring UEFA teams, World cup games if the US ever hosts, concerts, US men's national team games, College games, US open cup games and other events. While I agree the stadium alone will not necessarily make downtown vibrant, I do think the stadium does a very good job of connecting downtown west to mid-town. Also, soccer is very popular amongst millennial's and younger people in general. If we can build a loyal following like Seattle or Kansas City, it could attract these people to downtown, wanting to be close. I also feel like ballpark Village residential will do well strictly based upon its proximity to the stadium. My comments are in no way endorsing public funding. I do feel like state and city infrastructure contributions would be fair. Just stating what I feel is fact with regards to what the stadium can bring.

It's very optimistic to assume it will host a significant amount of non-MLS games. In the financial analysis that was circulated, they assumed revenue from 6 non-MLS games throughout a typical year and that was based on comparable stadiums around the Midwest. That's part of why I think public money is much better spent on Scottrade as it absolutely has the ability to host 100+ events a year.

I'd love for an MLS team to come here as well and I think it has many positive factors that come with it, most of which are hard to quantify but certainly exist. I just don't know that it's a wise move for the city in it's current form. I absolutely think the ownership group has the ability to get more aggressive with their contribution. I doubt it will be 100% privately funded, but it needs to get a lot closer to that to be viable for the city. Unfortunately, the way it's been handled to this point doesn't offer a lot of negotiation with the Board of Alderman and/or state before it's required to be submitted for public vote.

^^ Of course it would be an assumption, to think that any non-– MLS games will be guaranteed.
However, being that it will be close to 30,000 seats, makes it much more attractive for these types of non-– MLS events. Right now Kansas City and Columbus, have a stranglehold on the Midwest, with regards to soccer events. I think with our central location and the fact that The stadium would have about 10,000 to 12,000 more seeds, I think it will be one of the top go-to facilities for soccer events in United States. It can also host concerts, youth events and other miscellaneous events.

BTW, I agree that the current facilities should be taken care of first from a public standpoint.

Everything I have seen says the capacity of the stadium would be 20,000 (which would be on par with Columbus and KC) and could be expanded to 28,500. I assume the expansion would be a theoretical phase 2 sometime down the road depending on demand (and maybe more public funds) and not a temporary expansion for bigger events.

It is highly unlikely this stadium would hold a World Cup game if the US does host - those would all be in larger football stadiums.

I think the stadium will get some national team games - qualifiers and friendlies, but that would probably only be 1 a year.

Guess who would pay probably 60%+ of the expansion? Just like the Blues are doing with the city owned Scott Trade, SC STL will do the same thing as well when it comes to expansions. City should put in a clause if we actually go to a vote, that the expansion would be funded by the ownership group

Per Alderman Conway at the Shaw Neighborhood Meeting, MLS will get a city hearing, but for all intents and purposes, is dead.

He also, interestingly, said this was the case with the Scottrade bill in its current form. He chairs Ways & Means, where both bills will go.

Mayor's Office wants #mls2stl ballot prop to be less than $80 million. Didn't say how much less, but it's another blow.

https://twitter.com/Mike_Faulk/status/8 ... 4080792576

SC STL application to MLS is dead if it's contingent on public funding because doubtful it'll make it on the April ballot so other then a special election (which shouldn't happen unless SC STL wants to pay for it) then that's that

Doesn't sound good. They should have asked for less money from the get go. They also shouldn't have put out the 200 mil number for an expansion fee. Minnesota is building a stadium for 150 mil so there is no reason that wouldn't work here. In theory that is 100 million less right there than they said they were expecting to pay. Ask to city for less money like 20 mil and you could make it work. I am not optomistic this happens but I still can't believe they are going to screw this up.

It's over. Another one bites the dust.

andrewarkills wrote:Per Alderman Conway at the Shaw Neighborhood Meeting, MLS will get a city hearing, but for all intents and purposes, is dead.

He also, interestingly, said this was the case with the Scottrade bill in its current form. He chairs Ways & Means, where both bills will go.

Maybe these offers were the max the group was able to take on with out take huge loses while owning the given teams. Both groups are smart business men and know when to walk away from a bad deal. Sadly STL loses out again.

Need to update my resume, maybe STL isn't the place for me anymore.

Until the entire Greater St. Louis region (or at least the Missouri side of it) is able to consolidate political power into one strong central presence, we'll never be able to compete with the Nashvilles, Indianapolises, or even Louisvilles of the world, who have recognized the importance of doing so.

Lucas Oil stadium got buy-in from like 7 counties surrounding Indianapolis. Can you imagine what we could do if St. Louis City and St. Louis County joined to leverage its regional influence against St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Warren?

Dogtown Dog wrote:Until the entire Greater St. Louis region (or at least the Missouri side of it) is able to consolidate political power into one strong central presence, we'll never be able to compete with the Nashvilles, Indianapolises, or even Louisvilles of the world, who have recognized the importance of doing so.

Lucas Oil stadium got buy-in from like 7 counties surrounding Indianapolis. Can you imagine what we could do if St. Louis City and St. Louis County joined to leverage its regional influence against St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Warren?

Either SC STL works with the county along with the city or come back with a much lower number from the city. I'm actually surprised they managed to say no to the April ballot. With how often the BoA gives out assistance I would have figured it would have made the ballot without issue


Edit: From the St. Louligans facebook page. They do speak pretty regularly to the ownership group but we'll see

Spoke briefly with someone involved. This proposal is dead, but there will be a new plan coming.

joelo wrote:

Dogtown Dog wrote:Until the entire Greater St. Louis region (or at least the Missouri side of it) is able to consolidate political power into one strong central presence, we'll never be able to compete with the Nashvilles, Indianapolises, or even Louisvilles of the world, who have recognized the importance of doing so.

Lucas Oil stadium got buy-in from like 7 counties surrounding Indianapolis. Can you imagine what we could do if St. Louis City and St. Louis County joined to leverage its regional influence against St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Warren?

Either SC STL works with the county along with the city or come back with a much lower number from the city. I'm actually surprised they managed to say no to the April ballot. With how often the BoA gives out assistance I would have figured it would have made the ballot without issue

Oh, the times, they are, a changin'...

Still, you know if St. Louis County gets involved they're going to start demanding that the stadium be built west of Skinker. Essentially the same b.s. that caused us to lose the St. Louis Football Cardinals thirty years ago.

What happened to this alleged 'legit' group "Foundry"? Why have they not stepped up to meet with Garber or partner with SC STL?

Nobody has heard a peep from Foundry, since they said they'd pay the $80 million SC STL is asking from the City.

Dogtown Dog wrote:

joelo wrote:

Dogtown Dog wrote:Until the entire Greater St. Louis region (or at least the Missouri side of it) is able to consolidate political power into one strong central presence, we'll never be able to compete with the Nashvilles, Indianapolises, or even Louisvilles of the world, who have recognized the importance of doing so.

Lucas Oil stadium got buy-in from like 7 counties surrounding Indianapolis. Can you imagine what we could do if St. Louis City and St. Louis County joined to leverage its regional influence against St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Warren?

Either SC STL works with the county along with the city or come back with a much lower number from the city. I'm actually surprised they managed to say no to the April ballot. With how often the BoA gives out assistance I would have figured it would have made the ballot without issue

Oh, the times, they are, a changin'...

Still, you know if St. Louis County gets involved they're going to start demanding that the stadium be built west of Skinker. Essentially the same b.s. that caused us to lose the St. Louis Football Cardinals thirty years ago.

Where would even be a suitable location, doubtful MLS would sign off on that location too

DogtownBnR wrote:What happened to this alleged 'legit' group "Foundry"? Why have they not stepped up to meet with Garber or partner with SC STL?

Nobody has heard a peep from Foundry, since they said they'd pay the $80 million SC STL is asking from the City.

What? Foundry was told that they were not in consideration by MLS. They also offered to cover the public funding portion of MLS2STL's plan.

^That was WAY before Greitens said the State will not offer funding and before the City started to get cold feet.

You would think, if both groups had the City's best interest in mind, as they claim, they could come together for the greater good. If Foundry really has $80 million, that would equate to 2/3 of the amount in public money needed. I'm assuming the source of the $80 mill. is not legit or not for sure. I don't think MLS would have a problem taking money from anyone willing to foot the bill, just like the NFL.

Not to mention, if Foundry was legit, they'd jump in the media and say, 'hey St. Louis, SC STL just can't get it done, we can, with no public money' That may grab the interest of City and State officials, bring MLS here with way less in public money.

What happened to the people vote on how they want to spend their tax dollars? SC STL says they have polling that believe it would pass, why won't the city let the people decide. If you think it's a bad deal vote no, if you're will to raise taxes to pay towards stadium improvements then vote yes. Once again the people are not able to vote.

There still could be a city vote, SC STL waited too long to get this submitted and now they have to wait.