urbanSTL

Few people were misinformed. This was simply about the business risk of having another civic asset and entertainment option.

The ownership group decided they didn't want take on that extra $60m in risk, and the city voters decided they did not want that risk either. The civic asset was decided to not be worth it.

The only misinformation out there was the idea that this was going to be some sort of windfall for the city. It wasn't. It might have been a roughly break even proposition and again, it would have been a civic asset. The question was is the asset worth it to take the risk of maybe breaking even. The decision by the majority of voters was no.

That's fine.

urban_dilettante wrote: ↑

Oct 31, 2017

dmelsh wrote: ↑

Oct 31, 2017

Sadly the people were misinformed and Kroneke successfully burned two leagues in STL.

Remind me how the people were misinformed? (Serious question.)

Will be more detailed in a bit.

You'll have to back that up. I can't find any promises that SC St. Louis would guarantee the debt, certainly not anything contractual.

I saw that they promised not to move and claimed they'd cover maintenance costs, but we know how that goes with professional sports team. Look across town where the Blues are contractually obligated to cover maintenance but are trying to get tax money for it anyways.

jstriebel wrote: ↑

Oct 31, 2017

Few people were misinformed. This was simply about the business risk of having another civic asset and entertainment option.

The ownership group decided they didn't want take on that extra $60m in risk, and the city voters decided they did not want that risk either. The civic asset was decided to not be worth it.

The only misinformation out there was the idea that this was going to be some sort of windfall for the city. It wasn't. It might have been a roughly break even proposition and again, it would have been a civic asset. The question was is the asset worth it to take the risk of maybe breaking even. The decision by the majority of voters was no.

That's fine.

My problem (even though i eventually voted for the stadium) was this:

Ownership Group: "Hey this thing all in will cost $400M, and $200M of that going to expansion fees, we need $80M to make the number work"
MLS: "Hey so expansion fees are going to be $150M for this Round"
STL Voters: "So now that we know it will be $50M less than you projected do you only need $30M???"
Ownership Group: "Nope, still need $80M for the numbers to work"................after several weeks "Okay $60M will do it"

This part of it, more than anything else, always left a bad taste in my mouth.

Detroit is changing their bid to use Ford Field. I doubt that goes over well with MLS. Go ahead and mark another city off the list.

^ I wouldn't be too fast with that scratching off of the list... if MLS likes the results of the Atlanta multi-use venue then they very well may be enticed by a billionaire ownership group with NFL, NBA and NFL teams under their belts. And sometimes beggars can't be choosers, either.

Would MLS push off next round of expansion, which I thought was going to be decided upon at the next round of league meetings in December, just to see where Amazon HQ2 lands? Just thinking in terms of Amazon going with a rust belt relocation that is also pursing a team, say Detroit and or St. Louis.

I believe Twin Cities up north has secured its site and going forward with a private stadium/real estate play if not mistaken making it most likely one of the picks in the next expansion round. Detroit's change of venue seems like a play to get the second team by forcing league to accept the franchise fee is more important than a stand alone venue right now considering the number of public supported venues have been shot down in the next last year.

^ I suspect that if MLS has two solid proposals it likes it will go ahead as planned but I'd certainly think that if Amazon lands in a city making a round two proposal that would certainly be a plus for the bid.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Nov 03, 2017

^ I suspect that if MLS has two solid proposals it likes it will go ahead as planned but I'd certainly think that if Amazon lands in a city making a round two proposal that would certainly be a plus for the bid.

If the Nashville vote goes bad next week then I am going to be really curious who gets picked with Sac. No one else will have a stadium plan ready to go. I guess they could just pick one for now or push it back.

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 03, 2017

Would MLS push off next round of expansion, which I thought was going to be decided upon at the next round of league meetings in December, just to see where Amazon HQ2 lands? Just thinking in terms of Amazon going with a rust belt relocation that is also pursing a team, say Detroit and or St. Louis.

I believe Twin Cities up north has secured its site and going forward with a private stadium/real estate play if not mistaken making it most likely one of the picks in the next expansion round. Detroit's change of venue seems like a play to get the second team by forcing league to accept the franchise fee is more important than a stand alone venue right now considering the number of public supported venues have been shot down in the next last year.

What an odd way of thinking, no offense. If it was all about economic health/number of fortune 500 headquarters then cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo would have no pro teams, Seattle would have more than 2, Austin wouldn't be sitting on 0.

Yep, agree its odd

My thought is along the lines that for the next franchise owner to make a full franchise payment @ $150 million as well as make a private soccer stadium work will need a large corporate sponsor/or a big naming rights deal on a stadium behind it unless their is truly a billionaire/owners group willing to go all in on $300 million for pro sports team valuation that tops $200 million at best and hope for the best.

So why not wait to see where Amazon HQ2 lands with its promise of thousand of jobs and billions of investment and who knows, maybe they will spend some dough on a naming rights deal. Heck, Salesforce is sponsoring millions for naming rights on the park space next to/on top of the San Fran's new transbay transit center of all things. Chicago's Amazon proposal renders a new soccer stadium supposedly for Chicago Fire. Without the big TV deals or owning the local cable deals/revenue streams it is tough to see MLS franchisee gets the dollars for stand alone stadiums without public hand out and or large corporate sponsorship for it to add four more expansion teams IMO

I think in the benefit cost analysis if MLS really wants to add four more teams in the near future comes down to 1) lowering the franchise fee or 2) accepting Detroit's deep pocket owners route of existing facility or the 3) do nothing route for a year to see where Amazon lands in hopes to help one more franchise to break ground on a stadium.

FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑

Nov 04, 2017

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 03, 2017

Would MLS push off next round of expansion, which I thought was going to be decided upon at the next round of league meetings in December, just to see where Amazon HQ2 lands? Just thinking in terms of Amazon going with a rust belt relocation that is also pursing a team, say Detroit and or St. Louis.

I believe Twin Cities up north has secured its site and going forward with a private stadium/real estate play if not mistaken making it most likely one of the picks in the next expansion round. Detroit's change of venue seems like a play to get the second team by forcing league to accept the franchise fee is more important than a stand alone venue right now considering the number of public supported venues have been shot down in the next last year.

What an odd way of thinking, no offense. If it was all about economic health/number of fortune 500 headquarters then cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo would have no pro teams, Seattle would have more than 2, Austin wouldn't be sitting on 0.

A lot of teams' locations are for traditional reasons, it doesn't mean they'd be attractive today. It's not like the NFL would expand to Green Bay if they didn't already have a team.

dredger wrote: ↑

Nov 03, 2017

Would MLS push off next round of expansion, which I thought was going to be decided upon at the next round of league meetings in December, just to see where Amazon HQ2 lands? Just thinking in terms of Amazon going with a rust belt relocation that is also pursing a team, say Detroit and or St. Louis.

I believe Twin Cities up north has secured its site and going forward with a private stadium/real estate play if not mistaken making it most likely one of the picks in the next expansion round. Detroit's change of venue seems like a play to get the second team by forcing league to accept the franchise fee is more important than a stand alone venue right now considering the number of public supported venues have been shot down in the next last year.

Minnesota already has a team playing in MLS.

Detroit isn't going to get picked if they are trying to use an indoor stadium. I would be shocked if they got picked by sticking with this plan. Sacramento is getting one team. The other will probably go to Nashville (if they pass the stadium deal). If they don't then I am not sure what they will do. They could push it or just let Sacramento in and say we are pushing the other one back.

I don't think where Amazon picks matters to them.

Not sure if posted in here or not, but has anyone been following the situation in Columbus? Very bad for MLS.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Few years from now nobody will remember there was a team in Columbus.

FoghornLeghorn wrote: ↑

Nov 05, 2017

Few years from now nobody will remember there was a team in Columbus.

Hmm, maybe except the city of Columbus and original MLS fans???

The Crew is one of the original MLS franchises. This would be like the Cardinals moving to Nashville. The Crew have many league rivals and have a diehard fan base. Their relocation is purely out of a Kronke-esque move.

Again, I encourage you to research this topic. There are MANY articles posted on MLS fan sites bashing the move. Many are upset about it.

Nashville commits to stadium, with subsidies, a lot more then we would have had here

http://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pith ... ingram-mls

It was ours for the taking. If only our foolish ownership group had asked for public monies from more than just 10% of the region. We need a regional sports committee

moorlander wrote: ↑

Nov 08, 2017

It was ours for the taking. If only our foolish ownership group had asked for public monies from more than just 10% of the region. We need a regional sports committee

I agree. Look at Great Rivers Greenway special taxing districts. Not that many people use their trails, but everyone likes to have a progressive metro for future generations. Their tax proposals always pass. I think folks will want more sports entertainment options also, like all other metros our size.

Politicians are afraid region-wide taxes for things like sports facilities would fail in a vote, especially if the facilities are downtown only. I hate to suggest building outside of downtown, but to get the outlying areas on board, say for a new MLS or NBA facility, we may need to look West. Unfortunately, unlike Nashville, our downtown is far from the center of the metro area. And we've trained people to fear downtown with crime rankings that seem to scare WestCountians even more than visitors from other cities. When folks see the facility and a guarantee of a team they will want to see with easy access, region-wide cost sharing with the public would probably pass.

We all knew this.

Of the finalist, Nashville, Sacramento, Cincy & Detroit, it will likely be Nashville and SAC.

Maybe now that we have a good amount of time, Jim K. and company will have some time to get there ownership group cleaned up and fill that $60 million gap. I know he is not the most popular guy in town, but there is this former beer executive guy name August Busch that has a lot of free time on his hands and a boatload of money. He is also buddies with Dave Peacock. Why have they not asked him to throw in some chump-change (for him) to get this deal done????!!! I know it may water down the profits, but MLS2STL claimed to be trying to do something for STL. The 4th could easily fill that gap and he has worked with DP before. Now that they have some time until the next round MLS2STL needs to get its SH-T together and get this done. $60mill should not kill the deal if they really want it to happen. Just my 2 cents.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2017

there is this former beer executive guy name August Busch that has a lot of free time on his hands and a boatload of money. He is also buddies with Dave Peacock. Why have they not asked him to throw in some chump-change (for him) to get this deal done????!!!

You mean the guy who files his helicopter around heavily impaired, heavily armed, loaded with dogs and randomly landing in a parking lot of a Swansea business park? ...Eh, sure, at this point, why not.

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2017

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2017

there is this former beer executive guy name August Busch that has a lot of free time on his hands and a boatload of money. He is also buddies with Dave Peacock. Why have they not asked him to throw in some chump-change (for him) to get this deal done????!!!

You mean the guy who files his helicopter around heavily impaired, heavily armed, loaded with dogs and randomly landing in a parking lot of a Swansea business park? ...Eh, sure, at this point, why not.

Well the final realization of that dream would be him doing that, but into the MLS stadium on opening day.