urbanSTL

SI conducted a mini-poll with MLS insiders... 'Who most deserves an MLS team? '

And the winner is... in a landslide...St. Louis.... St. Louis....St. Louis... St. Louis!!!

http://www.si.com/planet-futbol/2017/01 ... ams-cities

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Feb 01, 2017

From looking at the several proposals, I see St Louis and Sacramento getting the picks. I did some sleuthing and no one else has received as much personal attention from the MLS as St Louis has. St Louis also has what appears to be one of the few that has a site picked out, while the rest are "focusing" on sites. If all goes to plan, St Louis will get it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't be so sure about Sacramento. 100% If STL passes the stadium we will have a team.

http://deadspin.com/sacramentos-mls-bid ... 1791856813

Slay needs a judge to sign and city residents get to vote on a MLS soccer stadium as reported by PD

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/govt ... a905f.html

On the ballot:

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metr ... b1bc3.html

Ground game is starting to mobilize in support for this. Signs should start appearing around town to start.

So, knowing the stadium vote is just over a month away, why have we not seen a huge media push from SC STL? I've seen promo postcards around town touting jobs, revenue for the City etc, but no major TV or radio push. Is SC STL very confident or is the media push still coming? I'm confused. While I haven't seen any recent polling, I wouldn't guess this is a done deal in favor of the stadium. Anyone know the game plan SC STL is planning? Seems like they should be spending big to get the word out how this deal is good for STL.

I don't think, even with a media presence, it will pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

stlmizzoutiger wrote:

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Feb 25, 2017

I don't think, even with a media presence, it will pass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why? Most of the voters I know who are fired up to vote are voting for it. That doesn't mean much, but then again it's not like your post is filled with polls and citations either.

I just don't think the people of STL City are that excited to vote for a small tax hike to fund this thing. They are already probably skeptical about a MetroLink expansion let alone this.

Big reason why I think it is more likely to pass then most are giving credit:



The April general election electorate is disproportionately white and disproportionately South City, the two constituencies likely to vote for the stadium. 2 factors likely to increase turnout in South City even more are the presence of a Republican on the general election ballot as well as the aldermanic race in the 16th ward, which would usually be up after the midterm but is vacant because of Donna Baringer winning a House of Representatives seat. Turnout is also likely to be higher in the 28th ward if Krewson is the Democratic nominee, and the 28th ward has a lot of votes and typically votes heavily in favor of any proposition.

^ otoh, it's mostly older voters who turn out for non-presidential elections and that isn't going to be a pro-MLS sweet spot. I'm skeptical there's enough young MLS bros out there to swamp the polls. But who knows.

What is Krewson's position on the stadium, btw?

I'm willing to bet the reason you haven't seen much, if any media from the pro-stadium people is that they are holding off till after the March election. They don't want any of their supporters to get confused and vote in the wrong one. They are absolutely counting on as low a turnout as possible in the April election, and in the month leading up to that I'll bet that's when they'll flood the market.

A sh*tty way to win an election but hey, the stadium folks have never exactly been 100% honest at this whole game.

Yesterday during 9:00am mass at St. Gabriel the Achangel in St. Louis Hills, a pro MLS2STL postcard was placed on the windshield of my vehicle. It appears some formal, coorindated promotion is underway.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Feb 26, 2017

^ otoh, it's mostly older voters who turn out for non-presidential elections and that isn't going to be a pro-MLS sweet spot. I'm skeptical there's enough young MLS bros out there to swamp the polls. But who knows.

What is Krewson's position on the stadium, btw?

Wow, so only young MLS bros support this? Sorry you are sadly mistaken. I guess I should just tell my grandparents who asked me to take them to the polls for the first time in decades to just stay home.

^ never said that.

LordOfLindenwoodPark wrote: ↑

Feb 27, 2017

Yesterday during 9:00am mass at St. Gabriel the Achangel in St. Louis Hills, a pro MLS2STL postcard was placed on the windshield of my vehicle. It appears some formal, coorindated promotion is underway.

Pretty much exactly the place I would be trying to generate support for the stadium.

If anything turns out to be bungled, it's the proposal. Don't see any reasoning why the city owning the station is a good idea, why it's OK that the rest of the region isn't chipping in, or why the stadium deserves subsidy beyond the usual abatement or TIF.

StlToday - Hochman: LA Galaxy's Klein supports MLS in STL

Now, my biggest fear is that St. Louis somehow bungles the April 4th vote, the bill for the soccer stadium doesn’t pass, and St. Louis is passed over for MLS.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/ ... 9a7cd.html

^ so tired of the propaganda. he'd better hope city residents don't understand the financing if he wants it to pass.

I'm starting to see a little bit of a push on Facebook among my younger friends. (Probably part of the "young MLS bro" contingent, even if female.) Trouble is they're county residents, so my temptation to post to their thread that if they want to see a stadium they ought to be pushing for county financing is great.

Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.

FerdinandIII wrote:Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.

That is a very simple handout. The only thing I think All people will care about is the, "City Residents Pay ZERO Unless They Visit The Stadium.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

moorlander wrote: ↑

Mar 01, 2017

FerdinandIII wrote:Could someone please explain the math that the backers of this initiative are using? They claim that voting yes on both bills will not cost city residents anything unless they visit the stadium. My gut tells me they are lying but but I don't have anything to support my gut instinct.

That is the flyer that I don't believe. The ownership group has agreed to pay the 2.5% ticket tax so where is the money coming from if not from city residents?