urbanSTL

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

I'm thinking that MLS and US soccer wanted St. Louis to be the Midwest go to location for big games and events. That could be the reason that they wanted St. Louis to have one of the best venues in the league.

Then US Soccer can pay for it!

Edit: I think big events would actually go in Busch Stadium, an MLS stadium wouldn't be big enough.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

I'm thinking that MLS and US soccer wanted St. Louis to be the Midwest go to location for big games and events. That could be the reason that they wanted St. Louis to have one of the best venues in the league.

Then US Soccer can pay for it!

Edit: I think big events would actually go in Busch Stadium, an MLS stadium wouldn't be big enough.

Incorrect, KC has both Arrowhead and Sporting KC stadiums. All big events are played at Sporting KC now instead of Arrowhead. MLS / US soccer want to play in their own stadiums not rentals. Exception is World Cup games.

Also, STL cannot play in Busch as the season are the same time. Having both teams on the same grass would destroy it and the Cardinals would never allow that. Cards fans would panic too.

Incorrect, KC has both Arrowhead and Sporting KC stadiums. All big events are played at Sporting KC now instead of Arrowhead. MLS / US soccer want to play in their own stadiums not rentals. Exception is World Cup games.

Also, STL cannot play in Busch as the season are the same time. Having both teams on the same grass would destroy it and the Cardinals would never allow that. Cards fans would panic too.

I would have to disagree. MLS was really putting in a gigantic effort to get this done. Arrowhead would only be used in the case where the US got a World Cup. Those sized venues are for World Cup events, not you typical WC Qualifier, International Friendly, FIFA-non-WC event, etc... MLS venues accommodate those events. Now, with regards to the US World Cup that will likely happen, I agree, Arrowhead would host a game of that proportion, but most FIFA events do not require more than MLS capacity. I've attended several qualifiers in KC and Columbus. My point is, if built as advertised, with capacity up to 28K, I think STL would have been the go-to location and very much in the rotation for FIFA/US Soccer events. Obviously, Garber wants STL for it's market size, hole after losing the NFL, soccer history and most of all, it's prime location between popular Sporting KC and HUGE market in Chicago. Think about it. If Busch is getting all of these great FIFA events, imagine what a soccer-specific venue would draw in our City. I am not advocating for the City to pay for it, just saying, if SCSTL can get it done without the public, it will be a great amenity and a big national soccer draw for our region.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

I'm thinking that MLS and US soccer wanted St. Louis to be the Midwest go to location for big games and events. That could be the reason that they wanted St. Louis to have one of the best venues in the league. While Kansas City has a nice venue, it is in the middle of a cornfield-strip mall, way out in the burbs of KS. MLS wants to be in urban areas like teams in Europe.

That is quite the assumption there. Is there anything to back that up?

First, you seem to be conflating MLS and US Soccer, which are two separate entities. I doubt US Soccer had much input on the original design of the stadium. MLS might have given some input, but the only MLS "big event" that is awarded is the All-Star game.

While MLS has said they prefer stadiums in urban locations (largely due to some teams with disappointing attendance in bad suburban locations, like Chicago, Dallas, New England, etc) US Soccer doesn't care at all. All they would care about is if you can fill the stadium and have a good atmosphere.

If the stadium is built as originally planned (or even a somewhat scaled back version) St. Louis would definitely be in the rotation to get US Soccer games, but there is no reason to think we would be the desired "go to" spot in the Midwest. KC, Columbus, Minnesota with their new stadium will still be in regular rotation.

dmelsh wrote: Incorrect, KC has both Arrowhead and Sporting KC stadiums. All big events are played at Sporting KC now instead of Arrowhead. MLS / US soccer want to play in their own stadiums not rentals. Exception is World Cup games.

That's not exactly true, depending on your definition of "big events". Last year's Copa America was played entirely in NFL stadiums (plus the Rose Bowl). In the 2015 Gold Cup, all of the knock out round and some of the group stage games were played in NFL stadiums (while some other group stage games were in MLS stadiums). World Cup would be in NFL stadiums.

I don't think Busch would ever host a big game. The layout is just not great for soccer and the stadium is not that big. Busch could host another smaller level game like the World Cup Qualifier recently held there, but a new soccer stadium would be the preferred destination for qualifiers, friendlies, or perhaps Gold Cup group stage games.

Grover wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

dmelsh wrote: Incorrect, KC has both Arrowhead and Sporting KC stadiums. All big events are played at Sporting KC now instead of Arrowhead. MLS / US soccer want to play in their own stadiums not rentals. Exception is World Cup games.

That's not exactly true, depending on your definition of "big events". Last year's Copa America was played entirely in NFL stadiums (plus the Rose Bowl). In the 2015 Gold Cup, all of the knock out round and some of the group stage games were played in NFL stadiums (while some other group stage games were in MLS stadiums). World Cup would be in NFL stadiums.

I don't think Busch would ever host a big game. The layout is just not great for soccer and the stadium is not that big. Busch could host another smaller level game like the World Cup Qualifier recently held there, but a new soccer stadium would be the preferred destination for qualifiers, friendlies, or perhaps Gold Cup group stage games.

Sorry, didn't think about Copa. Those games are on par with WC games. Those games will only be played in large stadiums. I can see as these newer MLS stadiums come into play, more Gold Cup games will be played there instead of NFL stadium.

My main point is MLS is pushing to have bigger stadiums that can host more than just MLS games instead of needing other stadiums like Busch.

Grover wrote:

That is quite the assumption there. Is there anything to back that up?

First, you seem to be conflating MLS and US Soccer, which are two separate entities. I doubt US Soccer had much input on the original design of the stadium. MLS might have given some input, but the only MLS "big event" that is awarded is the All-Star game.

While MLS has said they prefer stadiums in urban locations (largely due to some teams with disappointing attendance in bad suburban locations, like Chicago, Dallas, New England, etc) US Soccer doesn't care at all. All they would care about is if you can fill the stadium and have a good atmosphere.

If the stadium is built as originally planned (or even a somewhat scaled back version) St. Louis would definitely be in the rotation to get US Soccer games, but there is no reason to think we would be the desired "go to" spot in the Midwest. KC, Columbus, Minnesota with their new stadium will still be in regular rotation

To start, I am very well aware of the distinction between US Soccer and MLS. Never implied US Soccer had anything to do with the stadium. Just look at the connection between Sporting Park and US Soccer. KC gets a lot of US Soccer events. While not connected formally, there is a connection between MLS venues and US Soccer/FIFA.
I think the evidence is there, that St. Louis would be one of the “go-to” places for not only US Soccer, but also FIFA events. All you need to do is look at the fact that US Soccer has come to STL to play actual WC Qualifiers in STL, in a freaking baseball stadium! Not the ideal place for major FIFA events. Now, saying that, I get it. STL will not be the only place, but STL will without a doubt, see a lot of FIFA events, including USMNT and USWNT games here, if we have the right venue. Not only that, but in order to “fill the stadium” and “have a good atmosphere” you need a good CENTRAL location, in a big metro area, that is a great soccer market. STL checks all of the boxes. STL’s central location, makes it 5 hours or less drive, from many large metro areas, Chicago, Nashville, Indy, KC, etc, etc. STL can draw fans from a wider area. Also, this venue would be in the middle of the City, with lots of amenities and hotels. STL will be a preferred location for soccer events in the Midwest if we have the venue. There is no need to argue that point. If you don’t like the “go-to” term, fine. STL will see a lot more big non-MLS games than we do today (between Busch & the Dome).

U.S Soccer has pretty big ties to St. Louis. I know someone who works for U.S Soccer and Dan Flynn told him specifically St. Louis would have been in the U.S Soccer game rotation for sure for both teams with the new stadium. He's from St. Louis, he's going to be bias about it lol

I think World Cup went out the door when the Rams were never at the table for getting a new NFL stadium done here.

Shame that Kroenke never came up with a serious proposal to redevelop the north riverfront. Proof he was only interested in getting out. That said, even if he came to table, I'm sure STL would have found a way to blow it up. In retrospect, he could have and should have came to the table if for no other reason than to give himself cover and then he could have pinned the blame on the city much like Bidwell did when he moved the Big Red to Arizona.

So AspireSTL which funded the Prop 2 ballot initiative just received a $124,000 donation from SC STL.....so new USL stadium built somewhere not in a flood plain or MLS2STL?

joelo wrote: ↑

May 02, 2017

So AspireSTL which funded the Prop 2 ballot initiative just received a $124,000 donation from SC STL.....so new USL stadium built somewhere not in a flood plain or MLS2STL?

It was a specific $ amount with cents too, so i wonder if its just to retire debt from the Prop2 effort.

Digging into things just a bit, it turns out that of the 12 bids for a MLS team, about half proposed private funding and Charlotte, Indianapolis and Cincinnati local officials have joined Saint Louis voters in saying no to public funding at least for now. Only Nashville metro govt. appears to embrace public funding for a bid at this point, although San Antonio may put something forward for voters later.

Anyway, we;re not alone in not getting really excited about this. I think Indy's lack of support is especially interesting as they usually go in big for sports.

Going through the flood photos online from afar. The question, maybe not the right thread but none the less. Will their be a serious attempt at some point to move Fenton Soccer Park?

At this point, I think it would make sense to put the white flag up & sacrifice the soccer park as wetland if they ever want to put up a dike around Fenton Business park which I assume is coming at some point. Go in with the county & city on a no frills west downtown pro/semi pro stadium to land MLS and a new Maryland Heights/Howards Bend/Creve Creour development soccer park next to Blues new practice facility..

Knowing St. Louis region the proposed solution would be to build a bigger dike around it so some one else floods.

Apparently, St. Petersburg, FL had a vote this week for a MLS proposal that passed overwhelmingly. However, no public funding is involved - the prospective owner is going to pay the $80 million for the stadium himself.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgover ... rs/2322337

I'd love to know more about the inner workings of the MLS2STL proposal, but it seems like there were so many glaring problems, including:

1. Having everything ride on a vote that was going to be very difficult to win (i.e., no Plan B)
2. What I would consider a very large ask for public assistance
3. Not reducing the ask when the expansion fee was announced as $150m instead of $200m (and just being rather fuzzy in general with their math, which didn't breed a lot of trust)
4. A very expensive stadium, vis a vis, other MLS venues
5. Not finding some creative way to involve the county/region

I think the election showed that the City and the region really do want (and will support a MLS team), but that the specific deal offered to the City voters stunk. If a prospective owner brought an offer like St. Petersburg, I'd expect St. Louis to throw the guy a parade, give him a key to the City, and do everything it could to help win the expansion team.

south compton wrote: ↑

May 04, 2017

Apparently, St. Petersburg, FL had a vote this week for a MLS proposal that passed overwhelmingly. However, no public funding is involved - the prospective owner is going to pay the $80 million for the stadium himself.

http://www.tampabay.com/news/localgover ... rs/2322337

I'd love to know more about the inner workings of the MLS2STL proposal, but it seems like there were so many glaring problems, including:

1. Having everything ride on a vote that was going to be very difficult to win (i.e., no Plan B)
2. What I would consider a very large ask for public assistance
3. Not reducing the ask when the expansion fee was announced as $150m instead of $200m (and just being rather fuzzy in general with their math, which didn't breed a lot of trust)
4. A very expensive stadium, vis a vis, other MLS venues
5. Not finding some creative way to involve the county/region

I think the election showed that the City and the region really do want (and will support a MLS team), but that the specific deal offered to the City voters stunk. If a prospective owner brought an offer like St. Petersburg, I'd expect St. Louis to throw the guy a parade, give him a key to the City, and do everything it could to help win the expansion team.

1. Their plan B was to fall back on play soccer in USL which is still professional soccer.
2. Agree this could have been lower, but at the min it was revenue neutral for the money being asked.
3. They did lower their ask from $80 mil to $60 mil and offered up a ticket tax, why would these business men offer up free money until someone asked. The Alderman pushed back and they lowered there price.
4. They were building a stadium that could be expanded in the future, this always cost more upfront but saves money in the long run. KC stadium cost more then $200 mil and is considered the best venue for soccer in the US. The owners wanted to create a great atmosphere to draw fans in from all over the region to downtown.
5. Wishful thinking.

Also, STL could not offer a deal like ST Pete's. They are expanding their existing NASL stadium to bring it up to MLS standards. STL does not have an existing stadium that can be expanded on, unless you want to build a moat around soccer park. A new stadium is needed. MLS will only allow future stadiums to be in downtown setting, so the county is out.

An SC STL spokesman said the group "is not actively considering plans or solutions to bring Major League Soccer to St. Louis. The group remains open-minded to scenarios or proposals that might make sense to consider, but to date nothing actionable has surfaced."

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... -fund.html

chaifetz10 wrote: ↑

May 05, 2017

Translation: we aren't actually passionately dedicated to the long term success of a MLS team, we just want a subsidized team and stadium so don't want to actually have to pay for anything with our own money. If a city or county wants to give us a few hundred million to build a stadium, we'll show up faster than a speeding bullet.

You might look real silly if the rumors are true.

I think these rumors are bogus. First off, Randy Karraker has a track record of rumors not coming true.

Secondly, the investors in the first go-around needed the $60MM to make the ROI work. When the vote didn't pan out Edgerley moved on.

Even if you have another investor ponying up the $60MM, it dilutes Edgerley's investment and his ROI, because surely the new guy wants a return.

The only way this works is if new investor guy doesn't need to be paid for, like, 10 years.

It simply doesn't work.

What rumors has he been off on? I thought he was pretty accurate with the Rams stuff. He seemed pretty confident on the radio (95% sure)

Just in case you didn't hear Randy Karraker the other day. He claims different private investors have stepped in to fill the $60M gap. He is 95% sure MLS to STL is a done deal. Not many specifics. Let's hope Randy is right!

Start listening about 8 min, 45 sec in to the segment.

https://www.101sports.com/audio/the-fas ... 6-pm-hour/

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

May 10, 2017

Just in case you didn't hear Randy Karraker the other day. He claims different private investors have stepped in to fill the $60M gap. He is 95% sure MLS to STL is a done deal. Not many specifics. Let's hope Randy is right!

Start listening about 8 min, 45 sec in to the segment.

https://www.101sports.com/audio/the-fas ... 6-pm-hour/

He talked about it yesterday as well. Basically said he believes it's a done deal but don't expect any kind of announcement soon.

^ I would expect an announcement before the fall, assuming SCSTL plans on getting in on the latest round of expansion. Hopefully they do!

^ Not sure what is going on with the PD story online. I saw it when I checked on the Cards and read Tony M column on county transit funds but when i went back to the story it appeared no longer available online

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Apr 27, 2017

I'm thinking that MLS and US soccer wanted St. Louis to be the Midwest go to location for big games and events. That could be the reason that they wanted St. Louis to have one of the best venues in the league. While Kansas City has a nice venue, it is in the middle of a cornfield-strip mall, way out in the burbs of KS. MLS wants to be in urban areas like teams in Europe.

I think the best option would be to build the venue for $100 million with the opportunity for major expansion in the future. Build the stadium and get the franchise, then build it from there. The group can add amenities and expand as the franchise grows. I'm sure they could cut corners to save the $60 million and then make additions later.

Unfortunately SC STL and U.S Soccer aren't that cozy. One of the investors with San Diego is and it sounds like U.S Soccer would go big there if they get a team