urbanSTL

The Mayor wrote:

Trololzilla wrote: Not sure it's been discussed on this forum, but it seems there's been a fair amount of rumbling over GlaxoSmithKline's STL presence relocating to Omaha in the near future.

I haven't heard that, but I'm pretty sure GSK's only real operation here is the TUMS factory across from Busch Stadium.  Unless they have something else here.  I can't find anything recent but a BJ article in 2004 said the plant employed around 200 folks, it's probably still pretty close to that if I had to guess.  I really can't see them picking up the entire manufacturing operation and moving it to Omaha.  Where did you hear this, if you don't mind me asking?

Coworker of mine worked there for many years, and heard the discussions about it back when he worked there, as well as from former coworkers he's kept in touch with who still work there (or did until fairly recently). Apparently, GSK is wanting to consolidate some stuff in Omaha (and has been wanting to for some time) - to that end, they've basically started forcing out a lot of the older employees here and a lot of the operation now consists of temp workers, which doesn't bode well if true. He mentioned a few other things as well but I can't remember them. Technically this is all hearsay, so naturally, take it with a grain of salt.

GSK and Pfizer are creating a joint venture which will be tentatively called GSK Consumer Healthcare (consumer/OTC products). It was announced last year. It would be a $12-to-$13 billion entity.

It would be nice if the joint venture landed in St. Louis and at the 909 Chestnut Building (AT&T Tower).

I hope the local economic development leaders are aware. With all of the dysfunction at the county level nowadays, I wonder.

St. Louis has research and manufacturing operations for both firms. Pfizer's new operations in Chesterfield. TumsGSK downtown.

By the way, isn't it time for St. Louis (city and county) to hire a private economic development firm? The city and county politicians seem not to be able to handle things consistently and responsibly. Too many shenanigans with these people.

Dunno how I'd feel about 'Build-A-Bear Stadium/Field'.

KansasCitian wrote: I don't think we're going to see that. You have potential Enterprise and World Wide Technology owners. 

I think you'll see one of them step up, and I would be shocked if it isn't Enterprise. 

I could even see something like, 'Enterprise Pitch/Field at World Wide Technology Stadium.'

Actually, I think MLS is seeking that the naming rights - for the stadium and the jerseys - not involve either company. They don't want the franchise itself to be overly reliant upon Enterprise Holdings and WWT, that they don't want their interests concentrated solely into the actions of the Taylor Family and Jim Kavanaugh. Plus, the Enterprise Center already exists down Clark Street. 

Instead, I anticipate companies with global brand strength are competing for naming rights, particularly the jersey. International jersey sales could be a solid revenue generator, so global brands matter. Among the best contenders for the jersey I would think are Emerson and Bayer. And on an absolute basis, I can see the stadium being named after an Anheuser-Busch brand on the rise, like Shock Top or Stella. Let's also not forget that Edward Jones may want to have a new stadium named after itself; financial services firms are historically great supporters of stadium branding rights. 

Also, it's important to consider that Enterprise Holdings is in and of itself one of the largest car purchasers in the world. They buy whole inventories from Detroit, Japan, South Korea, and Germany every year. Pretty much any car manufacturer; that doesn't have a stadium already named after it; and whose product is currently purchased by Enterprise, is in the running for the STL MLS stadium. 


Editing here to recognize we've swayed off-topic, and that I really don't think Build-A-Bear will be the stadium sponsor, other than to say "The STL Teddy Bears" would be an awful team branding.