urbanSTL

^ Now THAT would be one hot ticket.

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.

August Busch IV's blood tests come up clean after helicopter landing
Illinois State Police lab testing of blood from August Busch IV has come up negative for alcohol or drugs after he landed a helicopter in a Swansea parking lot in July.

The toxicology results, dated Aug. 28, were released Wednesday by St. Clair County State’s Attorney Brendan Kelly, the Belleville News-Democrat reports.

No traces of “...ethanol, methanol, acetone, isopropanol, amphetamines, barbiturates, benzodiazepines, cocaine metabolite, opiates or PCP” were detected in the blood of the former CEO of Anheuser-Busch, the report stated, according to the newspaper.

read more:https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... after.html

^ I know, apparently he was having an "anxiety attack" (source). That in itself qualifies for a flying impairment plus, considering the contents he decided to bring with him (a sh*tload of dogs and guns LOL) I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he wasn't playing with a full deck a takeoff.

It certainly seems like good news for us that they're only choosing 2 teams right now. I don't know if STL will get a plan together, but if we do, it's very reasonable we'd be chosen in the next round.

Seems like this is reigniting conversations of regional collaboration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

San Luis Native wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2017

^ I know, apparently he was having an "anxiety attack" (source). That in itself qualifies for a flying impairment plus, considering the contents he decided to bring with him (a sh*tload of dogs and guns LOL) I'd say it's a pretty safe bet he wasn't playing with a full deck a takeoff.

I'm not terribly familiar with the story, but coming from a family of hunters that just sounds like he was going hunting. Put all that in a pickup truck and no one would bat an eye at it. And it's kind of a known thing that the Busch family has some hunting tradition. The only difference is he has enough money to get a pilot's license and a helicopter. Fair enough. Go knock 'em dead. Literally. Anyway . . .

Yes, I'd be all in favor of seeing other family traditions resurrected with a little civic pride and sports sponsorship. Roll out the barrel and let's all dance a soccer Polka!

pattimagee wrote: ↑

Nov 29, 2017

Yep - the silver lining in all of this is that 2 teams are getting 2 of 4 slots and there's still time for us to be a part of the next expansion happening very soon and they didn't close the door completely on us... I think with the new language from Cara Spencer's bill could allow us to find a way to let them use 60M as a part of ticket revenue for funding the stadium and future improvements. I'd hope all of this means that we'll put something better for the city and STLF in the next round. Lessons learned... hopefully of course.

The wild card is the status of the Crew - Precourt is a jerk of Kroenke caliber - If they stay in Columbus probably does not bode well for the Cinci bid.

If we can get our act together we have a shot at the 2023 (or 2022) team, but the expansion fee will be longer stretch

I feel like St.Louis chances of ever getting a team are toast

There are more pressing needs than getting a team in a league that over values itself and besides if St.Louis were that important i think they still would have picked St.Louis i mean come on they picked Detroit their stadium situation is pretty non existent too.

It'll be Nashville and Sacramento
then it'll be Detroit and Tampa or Charlotte.

Nashville is one of the two - They came from the back of the pack 18 months ago to the first announced team , over the much tested, and probably at this point exasperated, Sacramento.

I think Sac-town will get the second but they have to biting their nails now.

In 1996 Nashville had no professional teams - They now have 3

https://www.si.com/soccer/2017/12/19/na ... nsion-team

I thought I read yesterday that the Sacramento deal fell apart in the 11th hour.

Sorry if this has been covered, but why is that the Detroit MLS pitch can use Ford Field as a potential stadium? It's a fixed dome with a turf field.

If it's possible there, why the hell can't we re-purpose the dome too? And for a fraction of the cost of building new. It may not be perfect, but it could be a place holder until an STL franchise proves itself and makes some profit for a new soccer specific stadium.

I know that indoor games were being played in Montreal too....

rheights wrote:Sorry if this has been covered, but why is that the Detroit MLS pitch can use Ford Field as a potential stadium? It's a fixed dome with a turf field.

If it's possible there, why the hell can't we re-purpose the dome too? And for a fraction of the cost of building new. It may not be perfect, but it could be a place holder until an STL franchise proves itself and makes some profit for a new soccer specific stadium.

I know that indoor games were being played in Montreal too....

Football fields are narrower than soccer fields. Dome isn’t wide enough for a regulation field.

They've already played soccer on what I assume was a full size field there. And the lower seats retract several feet before you get to permanent seats. You could easily play soccer there, as they already have. Here they even brought in real grass.



Detroit will have artificial turf to play on. An MLS team in our dome would not have to share it with an NFL team as Seattle, Atlanta, Detroit and others must, but could shape it to be exactly what the team desires.

Football fields are narrower than soccer fields. Dome isn’t wide enough for a regulation field.

Seems to me it wouldn't be too pricey to take out a ring of seats to make the playing surface wide enough.

^ Also, I went to that Friendly from the pic posted above. I think I recall hearing that the field was on the small side but it was ok because it was just an exhibition.

I just find it amusing that the MLS is full of crap just about as much as the NFL or other sports ball league. The whole Columbus Crew situation for one.

rheights wrote: ↑

Jan 08, 2018

Sorry if this has been covered, but why is that the Detroit MLS pitch can use Ford Field as a potential stadium? It's a fixed dome with a turf field.

If it's possible there, why the hell can't we re-purpose the dome too? And for a fraction of the cost of building new. It may not be perfect, but it could be a place holder until an STL franchise proves itself and makes some profit for a new soccer specific stadium.

I know that indoor games were being played in Montreal too....

MLS just really wants soccer specific stadiums from now on, if they can get them. I don't think there is any way Detroit gets picked (because of this) unless Cincy and Sac both can't get their bid together. MLS might just wait them all out until one gets a stadium deal done.

the Mayor was at the Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting last night and when talking about regionalism she mentioned that as far as she is concerned that MLS in STL is finished.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jan 09, 2018

the Mayor was at the Downtown Neighborhood Association meeting last night and when talking about regionalism she mentioned that as far as she is concerned that MLS in STL is finished.

That's just wonderful.....

I'm no fan of Mayor Krewson, but that's really fine with me. The city shouldn't block MLS, but there's no need to contort ourselves as a city to make it work. If an ownership group isn't there to put forth the right proposal, so be it. MLS doesn't need to be on the Mayor's plate.

^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Jan 09, 2018

^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.

Which I do believe gets to the bigger question for MLS as a whole. Is the franchise fee really worth as much as they have been asking for recently? Have to remember that MLS was not willing to change the equation/franchise fee from what I have read in all of this either.

So the proposed owners group must not have thought the value/franchise was not worth it based on actions (asking for a big chunk of subsidies) and indirectly the city voters as a majority decided it was not worth it either. Not a loss for neither the city and or the proposed owners group at end of day but it would been nice if MLS came down in franchise fee or if someone's ego/name would have been more important than taking the loss on the value. Then again, probably be a lot more competitive bids as well.

STLrainbow wrote: ↑

Jan 09, 2018

^ agreed; per usual Hartmann had a pretty good article over the holidays on how it's unfortunate the hopeful ownership group couldn't/wouldn't bring something to the table like the group from Nashville did. A more traditional public subsidy model like the city gives out regularly and wouldn't have required a public vote was the way to go.

https://www.stlmag.com/news/think-again ... -financin/

Some public participation but no tax increase required other than on tickets themselves. In this sense it wasn't so much a regionalism failure as opposed to an owners-not-digging-deeper failure.

From my perspective its unfortunate that a segment of the city's population was hoodwinked by the narrative of TeamTIF and a handful of aldermen/alderwomen resulting in a missed opportunity to add a regional asset and revenue generating project.

Dave Peacock essentially confirmed that the group has moved on in an interview with Tim McKernan yesterday.